We would be lucky to have Bill Clinton back. Sadly, in this country Obama would live about six months to live if he were elected. Either candidate is better than Bush but Clinton is smarter. For the good of the country Obama should take up the torch in 2012 or 2016. That is what the nations needs. Two consecutive liberal presidents.

'Should Clinton wind up as the nominee, it would almost certainly be the result of superdelegates defying the pledged delegates and the popular vote.'
This kind of back room dealing would turn off a multitude of Democrats and Hello President McCain. Hillary Clinton is in this race for power and not for the people. She is very transparent based on the scorched earth campaign she is running.

IT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING TO WATCH HER CAMPAIGN IMPLODING!!!!!

You are just so great, Nancy!

This is a ridiculous idea. First off, neither one likes the other. And that is being polite. Secondly, do you honestly think that Obama would feel secure knowing that the wicked witch of the east was waiting in the wings. She would be plotting a "mishap" to befall Obama. Please!!!!

Personally, neither one has what it takes to be president. Both have been exposed.

This bloodbath has been rather interesting to say the least.

Okay I also say that Nancy Pelosi will be
as he is now being called,"Mr Clueless In
Chicago" Barack Hussein Obama Vice Presidential Choice as that was part of the
deal Obama made with Pelosi and DNC Ding
Dong Howard Dean,to get them to steal the
nomination for him.

It's not going to happen. Got it?

Sticking to your guns or first choice, is often the correct choice (like on Multiple Choice TESTS/QUIZES). Obama always struck me as unelectable and we now know in April, HE REALLY IS UNELECTABLE (yet the media is still vigorously selling him to us). Think its cause they profit more with Republican policies for Big Business?
I know Wall Street is praying Hillary doesn't get the nomination because she will surely win. They should be doing the opposite, praying she does win. Sometimes what momma hurts initially and looks bad at first, yet turns out to be (99% of the time) the BEST thing that could have happened when its all "said and done."
I know this is the case here. CNN, MSNBC, etc etc just want the tax cuts for the rich/corporations to become permanent. Now, the Repulican nominee John McCain, is for those tax cuts that he voted against originally as "tax cuts for the rich."
He flip-flopped? Yes. Big surprise? No. 2000 was a media hack job, they sold us Bush and he gave away 2 TRILLION dollars to them. Now we borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis.
~GOD BLESS AMERICA~

P.S. - John McCain will be working hard on billionaire Theresa Heinz-Kerry's side (J. Kerry's wife & long-time McCain supporter/donor) AND SO SHOULD YOU. As well as Oprah and George Soros' side. The middle class and those lower will continue to burn and dwindle away into ashes and dust.

Hillary 08'

I think Hillary has a real shot at winning the popular vote, which if she does, then she will have won the will of the people. Thereby, according to Obama's position, superdelegates should decide to go with Hillary. I personally think the entire process needs scraped and that the nominee should be selected by overall popular vote from primaries, not caucuses. Make it match the general election - that would make sense? But then again, when would our government do anything that makes sense?

Hillary getting the VP is what this whole period is about.

Lyle,

Good Luck tomorrow.

Sign in here as soon as you can, when you get back.

Spare me the conspiracies about Hillary Clinton, quite frankly, I want to vommit every time I hear one about her or Bill. Get me the hard facts before you place the world's blame on Hillary's shoulders. Additionally, as a FL resident and college student, if I remember correctly it was Ralph Nader who screwed us over in 2000. I cried and people died. Time to move on. What that does not mean is choosing a candidate who is manifestly the weaker (and more swiftboatable) candidate. Why do that? Why risk it? I could go into great detail about all the reasons Hillary would win and Obama would not. What drives up his Gallup numbers are Independent voters in Red States that have a 10% chance of being Blue. Hillary still has more Democrat votes and votes from Blue states and swings states. Get a brain, then talk to me.

Absolutely not! Hillary, nowhere near the ticket! As an African-American woman over 40, she turned me off when you dumped the kitchen sink! I will not vote for Obama if she is anywhere near the ticket!!!!!!!

Chris

Here's an idea for an REALLY interesting article: investigate and tell us about how the Clinton's screwed up the primary for the Democratic candidates in 2004 - ensuring another Bush victory- just so Hillary could have her one term in the Senate before running as the "inevitable" candidate this time around. One of these days John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean and Al Gore are going to tell that story, and it'll be worth the wait.

Obama,

the George McGovern/John Kerry of 08'

Do you honestly think that we can afford another Republican administration in this country?

VOTE for HILLARY! Obama is NOT the messiah....why not be safe and let him be her VP? I know you are in love with him but at least you will be able to see him frequently and have the security of knowing that we have an experienced professional behind the wheel. This is SO frustrating and so wrong.

VOTEBOTH is a joke. Notice that the site puts Hillary's name at the top of ticket. Since when did the person with the most delegates and votes get pushed aside to become the VP nominee. Give me a break! I hope before people sign the voteboth "petition" they will read it to see who's name appears first on this "dream" (or as I see it)"nightmare" ticket.

lylepink -

If you stay home or vote Repub, don't you fulfill the prophecy? Look at the primary campaign he has run; some respected commentators are pointing out that that's a good indication of the way he would govern. It's also a good indication of how he would run a general election campaign. I think if he gets the nomination he will run a surprisingly good campaign, and has a good chance of beating McCain.

As for the media creating or exaggerating his appeal to the Dems, how do you explain the fact that he's running 9-10 points ahead of HRC in the Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls, 5-6 days in a row?

i would like to see speaker pelosi considered on obama's short list. she is tough,smart, and effective. she would be the portrait of the real " fighter " w/ obama as good cop.

jac13: I think what leichtman is trying to say is about the same as me--Obama cannot win the GE in 2008, and The media, along with Repubs, are doing their best to promote this MYTH that he is the favorite of Dems nationwide, which is FALSE, every Dem I know and have talked with have the same Opinion as I do, he has ZERO chance of winning in 2008. This is also the Opinion of my Repub friends I've know for 30 to 40 years.

Some Dems just keep smoking the same dope.

Hilleary's negatives are above 50%. She is a boat anchor on any ticket. Independents, moderates and traditional Republicans will not vote for her in any capacity.

The media and traditional Dems are pretending that the Clintons corruption, Monica, the Blue dress, the cigar have faded from memory.

They have not. There is a reason the Clintons were impeach and it was not just the overreaching of the hack Starr.

The Clinton's are damaged goods. The only reason they are still in this is because they are corrupt thugs.

She continues to be toxic beyond comprehension--destructive to the broader interest of the Dems and the country.

She is risking another Republican administration, and thus the completion of the Theocratic takeover of he Judiciary and the elimination of our civil rights (reproductive, privacy, sexual orientation, expression, etc.)

WISE UP. Super delegates need to get her to stop now.

Leichtman -

Just now reading your 3:59 post.

It's hard to express the dismay I feel at your (and others') being so disillusioned with Obama as a potential nominee that you will abstain from voting for president (not that any Dem has a chance in TX anyway) if he is the nominee -- or, worse, voting for McCain.

Don't kid yourself: not to decide is to decide. When you stay home you promote the candidacy of someone. In this case, that "someone" is a man who makes no bones about staying in Iraq indefinitely, sacrificing countless more lives and millions more dollars; a man who intends to seek the extension of the Bush give-away tax cuts for the rich; a man who will fill at least two and possibly four Supreme Court vacancies with more scalialitoroberts clones; and a man whose chances of dying in office and making (pick one: Giuliani, Romney, Crist, Huckabee or, worst of all, clueless asleep-at-the-switch Condi Rice) president are about 60%.

Obama is worse than that? Really?

And your staying home doesn't help bring that about? Really?

What I am referring to is at that time he was lumped in with "any other Dem". Since he is now leading, people have a different perspective of him than before. As far as the media is concerned, if something (additional that is negative) comes out before the election the public persection may change. As of right now this race is like night day compared to 6/2007.

I have read a great deal about the JFK choice of LBJ (I was 11 years old, so I don't remember it when it hapened), and the fact is that JFK chose Johnson for one reason and one reason alone: to carry Texas. And it won him the election.

BTW, for those who don't think their votes count, the popular vote difference between JFK and Nixon was about 100,000 votes nationwide (that's right, 100 THOUSAND) -- less than 1 vote per precinct!

Dwayne: The EC totals I have are not changed in any way since June of 2007 with Hillary the almost certain winner in the 22 states i have. What you are referring to [I think] is the support of Obama by Repubs that think/believe Hillary cannot be beat by any Repub in and at that time frame. There has been no change [IMHO], about their thoughts. I still think/believe something is out there about Obama The Media are not reporting. I am watching "Hardball" and there could be no one that "HATES" the Clintons more than Chris Matthews for whatever reason. How any Obama supporter can deny The Media support is ridicules.

5:21PM: OK My reasoning, [leave a name so I can respond] for Hillary winning goes back to 15 June 2007 on the EC map that has 22 states that are almost certain to vote for Hillary in the GE and any other Dem loses some of these. The contrast to this recently is the almost unthinkable thought that Ca. would be in play in 2008 should Obama be the nominee. These states for Hillary does not include WV and Ky. which she would most likely win and Obama would lose. According to every way I can think of would give Obama only 209 EC votes with everything going his way, and lets try and be honest about this and admit he has ZERO chance of winning.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 7:11 PM

OK thanks for the response. The problem I have is you are basing your reasoning on June 15 2007. The entire race has changed since then. At that time, Hillary was the frontrunner, most peolpe did not know who Obama was. Not to mention we were still over 6 months from the first primary. I really believe if those 22 states that you quoted were to be "re-polled" today you would get a completely different picture. Sorry to hear that you are sick. I hope you get well.

lylepink:

That's a great attitude. With a mindset like that, you'll surely get well.

On a different note, I think I've figured out our misunderstanding. In Iowa, the vote totals from the R's and the D's mean two completely different things.

The R's hold a secret ballot in their caucuses, which is reported to the media by the party, so their numbers will reflect the actual vote total. They do still select delegates from the precincts, conventions, etc. which is where the final delegate allocation comes from.

In contrast, the D's make the caucusers go to different parts of the room, based on which candidate they support. They then count the vote -- anyone in a group that's smaller than 15% of the total has to move into a bigger group. When everyone is settled, then they get a final tally and allocate their allotted delegates proportionally. It is this delegate count, and not the total vote, that is reported to the media. That's why the numbers are lower than the R's

In fact, the Iowa D's had record turnout this year, something on the order of double the turnout in 2004 and much more than the R's. So, the Iowa D's are just as energized about this election as the D's everywhere else in the country.

5:21PM: OK My reasoning, [leave a name so I can respond] for Hillary winning goes back to 15 June 2007 on the EC map that has 22 states that are almost certain to vote for Hillary in the GE and any other Dem loses some of these. The contrast to this recently is the almost unthinkable thought that Ca. would be in play in 2008 should Obama be the nominee. These states for Hillary does not include WV and Ky. which she would most likely win and Obama would lose. According to every way I can think of would give Obama only 209 EC votes with everything going his way, and lets try and be honest about this and admit he has ZERO chance of winning.

One other thing -- most of his support, particularly among whites, is precisely because he is not Clinton. (Ferraro's statement more accurately would have been, he is where he is because he is black and not Hillary Clinton.) Now that black voters have had enough of the Clintons' willingness to play the race card and bash black preachers (those that aren't dead or Uncle Toms, anyway), bringing Clinton on board alienates his base.

IMHO, Obama's best choice would be former Fla. Sen. Graham. I think that would flip FLA Dem., and Graham is a guy who has experience, commands respect, and like Obama, was right on Iraq all along.

mnteng: I don't like the pain involved, so I'll put a couple of Lortab in my pocket just in case anything happens like the last time [awful] , but I am gonna beat this bugger. The totals I gave, as reported, seem to be about rite, since the Repub numbers are in the many 10,000 and the Dem totals, as reported, show virtually no interest, I can only assume the Iowa Dems had little info about Obama and were rejecting Edwards.

Translation = It's a done deal you stupid MTV kids; don't you realize that Barry has picked his Judas, er, check that, VP.

[Nancy' Brain: Enough of this eminently logical silly talk. Wait,wait Nancy - you need to be careful with your disrespect. Got to work hard to remeber this irrational pecking order: Barry's kiddie cult = respect; prominent democratic fundraisers = disrespect. Yeah, that's the ticket].

CHANGE WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN.

Oh, and I hope your biopsy goes smoothly tomorrow. Be well.

I'll vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don't need a crack head,bi sexual,racist president......

McCain or Clinton never Obama !!!!!!!!!!!

lylepink:

Sorry, I wasn't clear in that last post. My point was just that the vote totals presented for Iowa (for example) do not represent the number of people that caucused for their particular candidate. Instead, they represent the proportional allocation of delegates from each of the 1700+ precincts where the caucuses were held. So, BHO and HRC didn't just get 940 and 737 people, respectively, voting for them -- each vote probably represents something like 100 caucus attendees, who chose to stand in each candidate's corner.

From the NYTimes (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html)

"The vote totals for the Iowa Democratic Party are State Delegate Equivalents, which represent the estimated number of state convention delegates that the candidates would have, based on the caucus results."

At least for Iowa, it was a semi-closed process, only D's and I's, and the R's were probably more interested in determining their own candidate. In PA, we do seem to have a significant number of R's crossing over to vote in the D primary (and some of us I's as well). But I'm not sure how much effect it will have -- it looks like maybe 70,000 R's switched to D for the primary and there are over 4 million registered D's now (what's that, about 2%?). If they all vote for BHO (or HRC), then it will be a noticeable difference. However, due to our arcane delegate allocation rules, those R's will have to be well-placed to have a significant effect on the overall delegate count.

Sounds like a great way to get Obama killed.

I love the example, Kennedy and Johnson. Putting Johnson on his ticket is what got Kennedy killed. A political opponent with close ties to the CIA... Hmmm... Sounds like Clinton.

Then again Obama is from Chicago... and on presumably better terms with the Chicago mob than Kennedy.

I wonder how this will play out...

"I'm holding my nose and voting for McCain if my Obama gets the nomination."

I do hope you'll enjoy 'serving' in Iraq.

IMHO, The Repubs cannot beat in the GE. This has been my thinking since I discovered the Repub strategy of stopping Hillary at any price/cost so many months ago, and I can find only a couple of folks that are aware of this effort on the many sites I visit every day.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2008 5:13 PM

I am intrested in why you say that HRC could not lose in The General. I think she is the most flawed between the 2. Eveything good that she we would bring to the table is being offset by her contiuned missteps on the campaign trail. Not mention the baggage the Former President Clinton brings.

It's a shame there have been no polls for the "dream team". The Combined total of their supporters would be unstopable. But can they be combined? I suspect that those who say they would not vote for Obama still won't even if Clinton is VP.

If Obama did give Clinton the VP slot he will be awake and ready for that 3 am call. Who could sleep after efectivly telling Clinton that she can be president over his dead body?

I like Rice for VP.

mnteng: These are the total votes cast in the Primary/Caucus states that have voted so far. The responsibility of each state to report the results of the votes cast is not questioned. My main concern is with the X-Overs and those that are Repubs changing their Registration to Dem to vote for Obama in their effort to stop Hillary, who, IMHO, The Repubs cannot beat in the GE. This has been my thinking since I discovered the Repub strategy of stopping Hillary at any price/cost so many months ago, and I can find only a couple of folks that are aware of this effort on the many sites I visit every day.

Patrick NYC,
If by not voting for a D you mean that as support of McCain, I could not disagree more. If so, we'll have to agree to disagree. I can tell you that I seriously considered a vote for Obama (and in case you forgot, I am conservative). The reason is because, at least for the office of president, I tend to value personal traits (leadership, pragmatism, being capable, etc) as much as particular policy positions. Way early on, Obama struck me as having a lot of those traits I look for. Today less so but he still ranks higher than HRC in my trait book (Leichtman obviously has a different view and that is his perogative). But nonetheless, for many people, there is more to the president than how close they say they are to exact policy points. I can easily see how many people to the left of me politically could nix one of the Dem candidates and look to vote for the other Dem or McCain. I am not sure where MarkInAustin currently sits, but I believe that he has only eliminated HRC in who would vote for. But I can see that those that are so caught up with being either a true D or a true R would focus in on the party/policy instead of the person. And there is nothing wrong with that either.

Tally-ho eveybody!

I'm just returned from my romp through the heather... [sigh]

I've driven my porshe all day and I am famished!

Did I tell you about my falconing? Oh yes, bother, seems I have...

I'm off to do some quail hunting, so carry on everybody.

Until later, toot-a-loo!

I have to say, Rob, that everything can't be about race. What I don't like about Obama supporters is that they make everything about race, when it suits them. It is patently offensive to some of us. Stop it already. You are doing Obama more harm than good with that language, because it just alienates and offends people who don't support him.

Why would you not vote(or vote for McCain) instead of voting for Obama?

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Because Democrats tend to make those decisions emotionally. Might be a side effect of their primary constituencies (the young and female).

To make matters worse, McCain, although some dems would paint McCain as being just like Bush, does have the reputation as a Maverick. People don't see him as a conservative extremist. He is willing to work for democrats. That may make him more palatable to a lot of Clinton supporters (probably not to Obama supporters, because they are more liberal). Just sayin'.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:55 PM

-------------------
I think he gave up the maverick title when he sucked up to Farwell and his right wing fringe.

Senator Obama, should he lose the nomination, would lose all credibility if he were to accept the vice presidency in a Clinton administration. Such a move spits in the face of all he stands for and all he has been lobbying against regarding Washington politics-as-usual. I propose he perhaps was even insulted by the arrogant insinuation by both Clintons that the voters could have it both ways with a Clinton/Obama ticket...an assertion they made while in second place. The symbolism of Senator Clinton driving the metaphorical car, with Bill riding shotgun and Obama relegated to the back seat punctuates a back-of-the-bus Selma, circa 1963 mentality.

I'm amazed how many people despise Obama for the terrible crime of running against Hillary Clinton. How dare he compete in a primary! He should have just stayed out of it and let her win!

Nobody's mad at Edwards, Biden, Richardson, etc. for running against Hillary. They had the good grace to not upstage her, and drop out of the race early. But Obama thinks that he deserves to win the Democratic nomination for president. Such nerve!

Seriously, people, it's a primary. Get over it.

Posted by: Blarg | April 9, 2008 4:49 PM
--------------------
I agree that both should stay in the race and again will vote for the winner. I don't dislike Obama becase he ran against her, in fact I had planned to vote for him until he hired those homophobic preachers in SC to do fundraisers last October.

Add that to his ties to the bigot Rev Wright and I see a trend of his, as he has said to sit down with those he disagrees with. Well I do not agree with him on this one, not unless they are put on notice for dispicable views.

"I can not see anyone who claims to be either a 'true democrat', one who believes in most of the party's principles as I do, or supports either Barak or Hillary, could support even a former moderate GOP like McCain."

True, but how many people out there are really true democrats-- there are a lot of people who are barely on one side of the fence, who would jump ship and vote for McCain if their person loses. The democrats cannot win the race if they only count on true die hard democrats. They have to be able to get some more moderate and conservative people as well. To make matters worse, McCain, although some dems would paint McCain as being just like Bush, does have the reputation as a Maverick. People don't see him as a conservative extremist. He is willing to work for democrats. That may make him more palatable to a lot of Clinton supporters (probably not to Obama supporters, because they are more liberal). Just sayin'.

I'm amazed how many people despise Obama for the terrible crime of running against Hillary Clinton. How dare he compete in a primary! He should have just stayed out of it and let her win!

Nobody's mad at Edwards, Biden, Richardson, etc. for running against Hillary. They had the good grace to not upstage her, and drop out of the race early. But Obama thinks that he deserves to win the Democratic nomination for president. Such nerve!

Seriously, people, it's a primary. Get over it.

gop had McCain raised $40 or even $20 million this month even as a partisan you know that McCain in all his sanctimony would be doing the exact same thing, but I don't expect honesty and I am not an Obama supporter as you fully know.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 4:37 PM

You and I have disagreed today but not on this statement. The arrogance of the GOP supports is beyond words.

Peer pressure! Peer pressure! It is about each individual's principles. There is voting for the lesser of two evils and then there is not voting for someone you find objectionable for whatever reason. Either of those is acceptable and the only one who can determine the line between "hold nose" and "stay home" is each voter. R's have the same type issue with McCain.

Posted by: Dave! | April 9, 2008 4:30 PM
-----------------------
I agree with it is up to each voter, my point was that I can not see anyone who claims to be either a 'true democrat', one who believes in most of the party's principles as I do, or supports either Barak or Hillary, could support even a former moderate GOP like McCain.

The idea that Obama and his support of a politics of limited lobbying, big business influence peddling (Like supporting Colombian anti labor death squads) and transparency while partnering with Hillary Clinton defeats the purpose of his candidacy.
If Obama were stupid enough to do something like this he would suffer a farther & faster fall then Dean did in 2004.
This nomination struggle is for what remains of the soul of the democratic party after its pandering to the free loading free booting free traders.
Either folks can support Clinton and support the continued exporting of our jobs with a living wage or they can support Obama and his struggle to keep American jobs in America.
These positions are as mutually exclusive and the policies of Hoover & FDR's New deal.

gop had McCain raised $40 or even $20 million this month even as a partisan you know that McCain in all his sanctimony would be doing the exact same thing, but I don't expect honesty and I am not an Obama supporter as you fully know.

Yeah flip a coin. That's the way Obama apparently makes all his decisions. "Let's see...will I keep my promise to take public financing? heads, I win, tails, you lose. Unless it lands on it's side, in which case I will vote "present"..it seems to happen at a very high statistical rate for me."

Obama is getting ready to backtrack on his promise to accept public financing.

From the moonbat left, we can expect claims that he didn't exactly promise to accept public financing; that he merely suggested he might. The last time there was a flareup over Obama's pledge, his supporters pointed to this New York Times piece from March, 2007, when Obama pledged to "aggressively pursue an agreement" with his Republican opponent. They conveniently forgot his statement to the Midwest Democracy Network:

Q: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Obama: "Yes. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election..."

Even if Obama's backers forget this clear and definitive promise, they can't claim that Obama has fulfilled the rest of his promise: to aggressively pursue a public-financing agreement with his Republican opponent.

John McCain appears likely to accept public financing; he has even gone the extra mile and criticized third parties who have attacked Obama -- pretty strong evidence of a willingness to make an effort to discourage independent expenditures.

So how can Obama in good conscience go back not only on his promise to accept public financing, but even to negotiate with McCain regarding the same?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6361

Is this the new kind of politics?

Blink writes: "The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket."

This is irresponsible and, frankly, naive.

Patrick NYC - "...could have the right wing whispering in his ear on which Supremes to pick, that is something any supporter of Hillary or Obama should fear."

Peer pressure! Peer pressure! It is about each individual's principles. There is voting for the lesser of two evils and then there is not voting for someone you find objectionable for whatever reason. Either of those is acceptable and the only one who can determine the line between "hold nose" and "stay home" is each voter. R's have the same type issue with McCain.

The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket.

Posted by: Blink | April 9, 2008 4:21 PM
------------------------
Anyone who thinks that Hillary will take the number two spot, after being in Bill's shadow, even after getting elected to the Senate, is fooling themselves. I don't think she'll even get offered the choice. I do see her offering it to him though. Will he take it? I can't read him at all, he is so over polished that I can't even listen to him.

But I will vote for him over McSame as W.

You can't lead if you don't win. Right now, the bridge we should be crossing is winning in November. If the candidates have to sacrifice, compromise, and find a way to work with each other, they should. Otherwise, leading the country will be a job for McCain. Do we really want that. The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket.

You can't lead if you don't win. Right now, the bridge we should be crossing is winning in November. If the candidates have to sacrifice, compromise, and find a way to work with each other, they should. Otherwise, leading the country will be a job for McCain. Do we really want that. The candidates need to suck it up, flip a coin (that's fair) and run together on one ticket.

sorry Patrick, but to equate a vote for Nader as the equivalent of not voting for Obama is ridiculous even as much as you and I both detest McCain's policies.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 9, 2008 4:05 PM
----------------
You missed my point. I meant that a vote for Nader, or not voting is helping McSenile. If you dislike Obama more than him I can understand, I grow to dislike him and his supporters more everyday. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let the GOP and Obama haters let McSupreme court choice into office.

Khyber appears to share Chris's electorally obsessed approach to the VP question. But Khyber 's analysis -- "A party leader like Pelosi should be working to give the party the best chance to win in November, and the dream ticket offers that -- is, like Chris's, both incomplete and counterproductive.

It's not just about winning together in November. It's about leading and governing together for the four -- and, perhaps, eight -- years after that.

Obama's approach to politics and, indeed, his basic worldview are diametrically opposed to Clinton's. Pick whichever hierarchy you wish -- an administration led by the two of them would be an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't been paying close enough attention to these two candidates -- and needs to dig a hell of a lot deeper, before offering any further pronouncements about this race.

What Barry Pierson said. Another vote for McCain.

It doesn't matter whether Obama picks Hillary to be his number two. This life-long Democrat is so thoroughly disgusted with the way in which Hillary has been treated by half the Democratic Party this primary season that he is going to vote McCain in Nov (unless by some miracle Hillary wins the nomination) no matter who the Dem # 2 is.

A significant number of Hillary supporters feel the same way. I don't feel welcome in this year's Democratic Party and that's fine since McCain is so willing to work with Democrats. If the GOP nominee were anyone else, I'd simply stay at home in Nov, but McCain is someone I can hold my nose and vote for as a way to express my displeasure with "this year's" Democratic Party.

Obama supporters really believe that they can win the presidency without any help from the 50% of the Democratic Party who support Clinton. To that I say, great. Go for it, guys. Good luck.

Leichtman,
I understand. I am not saying that you don't have a right to do what you are doing. You do. I am just saying that in other, less contested elections, people who thought of themselves as dems would simply find it easier to just vote for whomever the democratic nominee was, and this time, this is not going to be such an easy choice for many, because some people really don't like Obama or Clinton and could not get themselves to vote for one of them.

lylepink:

Actually, those numbers are the delegate totals from the 1700 precincts in Iowa. I think I remember the total number of D caucus goers as being estimated at around 250,000. But it's hard to know exactly how many of those voted for BHO or HRC (or the others) since each precinct has a different delegate count.

sorry Patrick, but to equate a vote for Nader as the equivalent of not voting for Obama is ridiculous even as much as you and I both detest McCain's policies.

blink voting for Sen Obama even though I don't like him or trust him would be a positive action that at this time I am not prepared to make and a betrayal of my values. No candidate just b/c he has a D besides his name is entiled to my vote, I gave examples earlier of local candidates who were unqualified to sit on our state Supreme Ct. Are you suggesting that b/c I didn't vote for them,that I was disloyal or somehow approved of their opponent; that is a stretch. But believe me HC supporters if she is not the nominee don't want to be guilted into a candidate we feel is unqualified to be the leader of the free world or somehow disloyal. A vote is an action of support, period. Refusal to do so like dave said in no way reflects support for the opponent. A vote must be earned its not an entitelement, that would be a childish suggestion.

jay spartan - "saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid."
-------------------
I agree. It's like the idiots who voted for Nader. With a chance that McShame could have the right wing whispering in his ear on which Supremes to pick, that is something any supporter of Hillary or Obama should fear.

Blarg: Once again you are wrong about the Iowa votes. National Overview has the Primary/Caucus Result totals for all that have been held so far, Iowa has Obama 940--Edwards 744--Clinton 737--Richardson 53--Biden 23--uncomitted 3. I am only asking for ACCURATE reports that can be verified. Opinion is different from FACTS that are easily verified. My Opinion has been verified by FACTS time after time, but it still is an Opinion and should not be considered any other way.

Ditto - Holding my nose and voting for McCain if it's Obama on the ticket.

Got it, Leichtman. But this means that you will effectively be voting against the dems for the presidential ticket if Obama gets the nomination -- even if you will vote for the rest of the dems on the lesser tickets. You are making my point -- I think there are many like you.

jay spartan - "saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid."

One might say that pressuring someone to vote for a person just because they happen to have a R or D next to their name is childish and stupid.

I'm holding my nose and voting for McCain if my Obama gets the nomination.

none of the above blink, I will vote for every other Dems, but would never stay home. cavaeat: things may change in the next 210 days blink.

jonel my strong statement about not being a McCain supporter was not directed at you sorry my keybd made it sound like that but at others here who have irresponsibly and repeadely made that statement, my apologies.

But I do appreciate that you understand how difficult that vote would be. Curious why the Obama speech to his San francisco supporters yesterday has not been called into question. It certainly did not sound Presidential, imho.

So let's take a vote:
If you are a democrat supporting Obama, and Clinton wins, will you vote for Clinton, McCain, or stay home?

If you are a democrat supporting Clinton and Obama wins, will you vote for Obama, McCain, and stay home?

"blink-well once there is a clear nominee, then party will unify around him(or her). saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid."

Good luck with that. I don't think it will happen. I hear too many people saying that they won't vote for the person who is not their candidate. Yes, it's childish and stupid, but unfortunately, the campaigns have gotten really nasty, and people feel how they feel. This is not like any other campaign I have ever seen. I don't think a primary has been this contested in decades. And again, it's not about policy. If it were, it would be easy, because Obama and Clinton actually have very similar policies. This is a personality contest, and people are not being very rational about it. They may indeed poke out their own eyes to spite the other candidate.

mnteng: Gibbs was universally disliked since her erruption on City Counsel turning the loss of a local police officer into a tirade against illegal immigrants so she would have been the easier opponent. Lampson is well funded and well organized but as I told mark in Austin if things becomes disruptive in our Presidential campaign that might be problematic. The HC supporters are firmly behind Lampson as do I believe the local Obama supporters. Olson does not have a lot of name id and Lampson has been a rather conservative democrat in his voting that fits the 22nd district but the RNC still plans on spending millions to smear Lampson Iam sure.

Blarg: Your 3:22PM is beneath all reasoning, when you can say that the Limbaugh and Colter urging for a Hillary vote was anything but a JOKE.

A party leader like Pelosi should be working to give the party the best chance to win in November, and the dream ticket offers that.

Posted by: Khyber Jones | April 9, 2008 3:11 PM

-----------------------
Which is why this b!t@h is a horrible leader, as is Reid. I will support either Democrat this fall, but the first order of business come the new term is new leaders.
Check out who's running against Pelosi as an independant in SF this fall.

http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

blink-well once there is a clear nominee, then party will unify around him(or her). saying if my canidate doesnt win im voting for mccain or sitting out, is childish and stupid.

Khyber: Pelosi is, IMHO, among the Elite Dems that are Hell bent on destroying the Dem party solely for the "Envy/Jealous" and "Hatred" Factor of the Clintons. This "Idiot-Ology" has been around for a number of years, and was only broken somewhat by Bubba in his success in winning the POTUS despite them. I can only think of these folks as living in La La Land where nothing anywhere close to what they advocate will happen.

Leichtman, I never claimed you were a McCain supporter, simply that a "strategery" of not voting probably helps McCain and pushes the policies/laws you believe in further from reality.

It is nice to see that you haven't given up all hope and still understand much time exists between now and November.

Leichtman:

What do you think of Lampson's chances of retaining his seat now that Sekula Gibbs has been defeated by Olson?

Lyle: You've said for months that Republicans think Obama is a weak candidate, but never offered a shred of proof for that "FACT".

By the way, did you know that Rush Limbaugh told his listeners to vote for Hillary? And Ann Coulter said that she'd support Hillary too. I guess that's evidence of how scared the Republicans are. They "FEAR" Hillary so much that they claim to support her over Obama. Complicated.

Also, if you think that only 1000 voters in Iowa voted for Obama, you're incredibly misinformed. Read a newspaper.

"its better if the dems retake the white house in 2008 rather than 2012 or possibly 2016"

I agree that this would be better, I just don't see how it will happen now, since the Obama and Clinton camps are so very divided, and now, as you can see from even the conversations on this blog, how each camp is pretty much against the other one. We dems are our own worst enemies. The infighting will give this to McCain.

HOW TO CATAPULT THE PROPAGANDA:

en. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked about the violence in Basra. Petraeus blamed the 107mm rockets of the "special groups." Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) asked about the Mahdi Army. Petraeus mentioned the "special groups." Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) asked about Iran. Crocker invoked the "special groups." Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) also got the "special group" rate from the witnesses.

Petraeus, after a brief lunch break, went before the Foreign Relations Committee -- and did the whole thing again. "Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," Petraeus repeated, one of 17 mentions of the "special groups" in that hearing.

Glad to hear that Pelosi continues to throw sand on this disastrous folly. She does so, of course, because she lives in the reality-based world.

You, obviously, are not there yet.

It's the new Fantasy Enemy -- they're 'special' you see. And it's all a LIE to pave the way for an attack on Iran:

The only difference was that the sequel had a different villain. This time, Iran got 105 mentions before the Armed Services Committee, compared with only 83 for al-Qaeda.

"Iran has fueled the violence," Petraeus said, "in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support to the special groups." The recent "flare-up," Petraeus said, "highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called special groups."

Crocker, too, said the "special groups" pose a major threat to the Iraqi government.

Of course, the new focus on the "special groups" also served to highlight the fact that the American presence in Iraq is creating new and special enemies. But McCain adopted the "special groups" phrase, too. "We must press ahead against . . . the Iranian-backed special groups," he said.

The senator asked Petraeus what could be done about attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad. Petraeus answered that the "Iraqi security forces are going to have to come to grips with . . . the special groups."

How cares what Nancy Pelosi have to say!Beside, she needs to focuse on the work that she hasn't done in Congress.

well i see zouk is now doing the same thing that the others are doing, trolling the thread.

grow up already. and the rickroll wasnt funny.

The rapid proliferation of enemies in Iraq, special and otherwise, evidently confused Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and that party's presumptive presidential nominee. Not for the first time in recent weeks, he confused Sunni Muslims with Shiite Muslims.

"Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?" he asked Petraeus.

Petraeus said the group was "not as major a threat as it was."

"Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall?" McCain persisted.

"No," Petraeus agreed.

Indeed, al-Qaeda is Sunni -- a fact McCain recalled an instant after the word "Shiites" escaped his lips. "Or Sunnis or anybody else," he quickly added.

Pelosi's comment is foolish and naive. Any serious look at the numbers clearly indicates that this race is dead even among those who have voted and patterns have emerged demonstrating that each reaches a key group of voters that the other does not. Obama has reach into upscale independents and Republicans. Hillary has reach into rural working class white voters and latinos. Put the two together and you have an unbeatable ticket. Deny the runner-up a spot on the ticket and there will be blowback against the nominee in the fall. It's common sense. This is the closest primary in modern American history and each candidate has made a compelling case to be President. A party leader like Pelosi should be working to give the party the best chance to win in November, and the dream ticket offers that.

Blarg: I think what most of you supporting Obama is/are missing is the FACT that the Repubs think/believe Obama is the weakest of all the Dems candidates from the beginning. This has been shown throughout the campaign by the numbers of Repubs in the X-Over States voting for him, and the change of Registration in states where X-Overs are not allowed to vote for him as well, I cannot see any way I was inaccurate in my assessment of the Repub strategy of stopping Hillary at any cost/price. Caucus states are another thing that should be considered, like Iowa, where somewhere like one thousand vote for Obama, and in no way can this be an ACCURATE representation of the vast majority of Iowa voters.

Clintonite Lanny Davis expresses his discomfort with Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright in the Wall Street Journal: Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are ''playing the race card'' or taking the ''low'' road. (Snip) Could Joe Klein provide any better example of the liberal elitist mindset and how disconnected it is from the real world? Rev. Wright is on tape spewing some pretty vile anti-American stuff from the pulpit, yet Klein accuses Davis of being the one ''spreading the poison''

"and if others were to read your posts constantly insulting those who disagree with you or Sen Obama, those numbers would swell exponentially"

Do you mean the majority of people that have already voted for Obama will swell exponentially, or the minority of bunker dwellers currently at work rearranging deck chairs? (sorry to mix my metaphors)

Exponentially ... hmmm, let's see ... number of people here who refuse to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton didn't want to seat delegates from FL and MI, don't think that caucus participants should count in popular vote totals, and don't think that Clinton's free-trade doubletalk is going to hurt in blue collar PA or IN ... that would be one ... let's raise that to the power of, oh let's be fair, ten million, and the answer is ... one? I don't see an exponential increase!

But then, math is not your strong suit. Do the math.

"You can't tell the enemy in Iraq anymore without a scorecard," writes the Washington Post's Dana Milbank of Gen. David Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's discussion yesterday of Iranian-backed "special groups" in Iraq. "Of course, the new focus on the 'special groups' also served to highlight the fact that the American presence in Iraq is creating new and special enemies."

From Gen. David Petraeus' opening remarks to the US Senate Armed Services Committee: ''Security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional forces to Iraq.'' (Snip) Democratic Senators -- whose staffs had labored for weeks to develop the ''killer question'' which would embarrass Petraeus -- only served to expose the Senators to be the self-promoting, ill-prepared,

Very strange, but perhaps Obama's candidacy really has transcended race in America (surely this is a first). Or, the campaign may just plan to stage-manage it out of public view.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 9, 2008 1:20 PM
--------------------
Staged rallies, sounds like something out of W & Rove's playbook.

Unlike last September, when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker first reported to Congress about the progress of the surge strategy in Iraq, Tuesday's testimony to the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees was decidedly low key. Which is not to say that it was not a media circus; only that the continued success of the surge has had a chilling effect on the antiwar movement.

IRAN -- THE BIG BAD BOOGYMAN.

Writing on CNN's Political Ticker blog, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer says that while U.S. lawmakers are publicly asking when Iraqi's can "pick up the tab" for Iraq, privately, "several of them" wonder if "U.S. taxpayers" are being played like "suckers":

At a time of economic distress in the United States, including fears of recession, home foreclosures, job losses, infrastructure strains, and health care worries, U.S. lawmakers publicly are asking why the Iraqis themselves can't pick up the tab for their own reconstruction. Privately, several of them are going one step further -- asking whether the Iraqis actually are playing the U.S. taxpayers for suckers.

The AP reports today that "Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars." Levin says the legislation may be "part of this year's war spending bill or the 2009 defense authorization bill."

UPDATEThe Crypt reports on today's hearing:
A line Gen. Petraeus just dropped plays right into an argument that anti-war groups and members of Congress have been making, namely that the U.S. presence in Iraq retards the country's progress. "We are keenly aware that there are going to be cases where [Iraqis] say, 'Why should we do it for ourselves if they're going to do it for us?" the general said.

Will Nancy Pelosi just STFU???

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday featuring Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained, according to CNN, that "U.S. taxpayers are carrying a staggering burden right now as Iraq actually rakes in massive amounts of oil revenues, billions and billions of dollars."

"To add insult to injury, in addition to spending $10 billions of U.S. dollars on reconstruction, American taxpayers are also paying three to four dollars a gallon on gas here at home," said Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI). "Isn't time for the Iraqis to start bearing more of those expenses, particularly in light of the windfall in revenue due to the high price in oil?" asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

According to Levin, "Iraq has about $30 billion in surplus funds stored in U.S. banks," and CNN reports that Iraq's oil revenue is "estimated to reach $100 billion dollars by the end of this year."

On Tuesday morning, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran was busily installing 6,000 new centrifuges for development of nuclear material. Further, Ahmadinejad stated, Iran would begin testing a new type of centrifuge that works five times faster than ordinary centrifuges. (Snip) Never mind the unbelievable arrogance of a foreign policy boob like Barack Obama, lecturing the two most knowledgeable on-the-ground figures in Iraq on the best military strategy for Iraq.