Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Clinton Team's Long View

Updated: 7:22 p.m.
By Jose Antonio Vargas
ON THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN BUS -- Harold Ickes, one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's senior advisors, announced the campaign's "long view" in a conference call this morning.

Bottom line: Say hello Puerto Rico.

"We are going to fight all the way to the convention," Ickes said.

Ickes, a veteran of the Clinton White House and a central figure in Clinton's 2000 Senate race, told reporters that the campaign expects Clinton "will able to hold her own in Wisconsin" and win Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. "We think the demographics of Pennsylvania very much suits her candidacy," he said. "By the end of this process by the 7th of June, when Puerto Rico votes, she will be neck and neck with Mr. Obama . . . Then she will wrap up the nomination."

Ickes was quick to note that "superdelegates," the more than 790 Democratic elected officials and party leaders who may well determine the eventual nominee, should be referred to as "automatic delegates," complaining that the word "super" has "some sort of sense that they're going to descend to us from Mars." ("The fourth estate," he added, "invented the name 'superdelegates.'") Noting recent comments by Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, David Axelrod, Sen. Barack Obama's chief strategist and Rep. Jim Clyburn, the House Majority Whip-- and side-stepping comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- Ickes asserted that automatic delegates should exercise "their best judgment in the interests of the party and the country" in choosing their nominee. Declaring that the race is "long from over," he said that there still 18 jurisdictions left to vote with 1,075 delegates at stake -- more than 50 percent needed to win the nomination without Florida and Michigan.

Delegates to Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention, Ickes said. "Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?" he asked. When asked if those contests should be held again, he replied, "We don't need a re-do. Everybody was on equal footing."

It should be noted, though, that Ickes, prior to working for the Clinton campaign, was a member of the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Commission that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates. But in today's call, he asked that those delegates be re-instated with full voting rights.

Toward the end of the call, Ickes, growing irritated, said: "We are in the heat of the ups and downs of the race right now."

Just minutes after the call, Obama's camp issued a lengthy statement.

David Plouffe, the campaign manager, wrote: "The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination -- attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters, or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan."

The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats' ability to win the general election," Plouffe added.

By Washington Post editors  |  February 16, 2008; 2:20 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Black Commenter, Criticizing Obama, Causes Firestorm
Next: Derailed by Weather, Clinton Improvises in Wisconsin

Comments

Posted by: duchos | April 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: duchos | April 23, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

justsayNOtoHILLARY&BILL!!! BOTH SCUMBAGS!!!NO HONESTY, NO INTEGRITY, NO ETHICS, NO MORALS, SHAMELESS!! NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Posted by: justsayNOtoHILLARY | March 1, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

And here's McCain's position:
"Mr. McCain's advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, would not accept public financing and spending limits for this year's general campaign." [ny times 2008 02 13 us politics 13mccain]
"McCain campaign's latest stand on the issue" is that it will accept public funding if McCain's Democratic opponent does the same [ ny times 2008 02 15 us politics 15finance]
"On Tuesday, one of Mr. McCain's advisers told The New York Times that the campaign had decided to forgo public financing in the general election...." [ny times 2008 02 15 us politics 15finance]

Posted by: starbuck1 | February 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey Edwcorey:

Obama Campaign Never Committed To Public Financing in a General Election, But That He Would Pursue a Deal When He Is the Nominee

Obama Campaign Asked the FEC to Determine Whether It Could "Retain the Option" of Accepting Public Financing During the General Election. On February 1, 2007, the Obama campaign asked the FEC to determine whether if "Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party's nominee... the Senator would not, if the law allows, rule out the possibility of a publicly funded campaign if both major parties' nominees eventually decide, or even agree, on this course." [Letter to FEC, 2/1/07]

Burton: If The Republican Agreed, Public Financing "Would Be Something We Would Explore." Politico reported, "'It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore,' Burton said." [Politico, 2/27/07]

Burton: "There Is No Pledge." The AP reported, "Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it." [AP, 2/17/08]

Posted by: starbuck1 | February 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has shown a lack of creativity in running her campaign especially when the landscape changed and it stalled. Instead of taking personal responsibility for poor planning and short-sightedness she resorts to her usual m.o. by blaming and firing key campaign managers. And make no mistake no one in her campaign does anything without her permission.

Interesting that the 'candidate of change' has such a problem with change. But of course, nothing changes for the president and when they make a plan it is etched in stone. So one doesn't need a backup plan.

Now this is the third time the Clinton's have promised universal health insurance and as yet have been unable to deliver it. Rigidity not flexibility will always plague her and this was exemplified in her first universal health care plan. when creating the first health care package she was counseled by Donna Shalala, secretary of health and human services, who predicted defeat of the package warning Hillary that her package was too broad and expensive, more in keeping with the policies of FDR, during the depression and of course, HRC didn't listen for no one knows more about anything than Hillary. And what did the experienced Ms Shalala know compared to the vision of the inept, inexperienced MRS Clinton? It is her arrogance and inability to change that typifies MRS Clinton and there will be nothing delivered by her except the hope of universal health insurance and and we know what she thinks of hope.

Posted by: jganymede | February 18, 2008 5:59 AM | Report abuse

Castglib, you admit not knowing anything about Obama and what you think you know about Hillary isn't based on reality. According to this weeks NewYorker.com he's run a nearly perfect campaign whereas hers suffers from the same problems our current Bush Administration suffers from. She only appears competent and actually has many of Bush's faults.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 18, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

Castgilb--What good was Hillary's "experience" when it came time to authorize the war in Iraq? Hillary voted to authorize the war while Obama was speaking out against it. No grey area there. The Democratic party I grew up with did not support war mongers. No grey are there, either.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 18, 2008 2:06 AM | Report abuse

Castgilb--What good was Hillary's "experience" when it came time to authorize the war in Iraq? Hillary voted to authorize the war while Obama was speaking out against it. No grey area there. The Democratic party I grew up with did not support war mongers. No grey are there, either.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 18, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: sskyvickers | February 17, 2008 09:35 PM

Thanks for providing that web site on Obama. Very, very impressive.

Posted by: amc7150 | February 17, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Cult (the OC) is becoming frightening.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

See this and forward it to everyone you know. Get the word out on this cult leader.

Posted by: sskyvickers | February 17, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe that people are actually joining the Obama bandwagon. He has vertually no experience, doesn't really know policy (sound like someone we know who won back in 2000) and has really never run anything. If he wins the nomination, he will lose the general election, mark my words.

I am writing from Texas and a hispanic, I have been talking to a lot of people that are mexican americans and I have yet to encounter anyone who will vote for Obama or even know anything about him. I for one will vote for Hillary, because I feel she gives us the best chance to win and can actually run the country better than Obama. If Hillary does not win, I will not vote in November. I cannot be part of the disaster that will ensue. My family, relative and friend also say the same thing. Whe will win Texas...viva Hillary all the way!

Posted by: castgilb | February 17, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary saids she been "Tested" hope shes talking about STDs given Bill's habits. The woman is an absolute pig. If she gets the Nomination, Mc Cain will be or next President.

Posted by: FairfaxAl | February 17, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

mw_lovelace....Canada does quite well. Politicians here are'vetted' extensively when they run for public office. I admit sometimes it takes a few yrs to catch some, but, we don't have the problems you guys have. Not even close. Canada has a proven record in 'washing out' criminals from the candidate tickets. Equality for all is our motto, regardless of race, gender etc., a multicultural society that thrives, health care for everyone. Resources for all. Our goals are similar, affordable housing is main item, but many agencies work for all the less fortunate. We are grateful, ambitious and compassionate in our communities, but we also lose loved ones to a commited war, the 9/ll attacks, and if you think I am the only one that feels that this American election is a global concern you should read the blogs globally. You should try to understand how American Policy and Administration affects the entire world. Why do you think the propoganda from your country is so blatant. I am near 60 yrs old, have heard everything...and you must be a liberal, telling me where to blog, but really, sounds like you don't like to hear what other's think, so why do you blog? Regardless, what you think of Bush, he doesn't lower himself to respond to anal, sarcastic, degrading, insulting attacks from the left, he stays committed, focused (ith humour) and honest.

Posted by: canadagirl | February 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Mr Ickies would be willing put a wager on this statement:

By the end of this process by the 7th of June, when Puerto Rico votes, she will be neck and neck with Mr. Obama . . . Then she will wrap up the nomination."

=====

That will not happen.

Posted by: zb95 | February 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Puerto Rico? Huh?? No way this is lasting to June. Hey Ickes, here are some numbers to chew on:

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll in Oregon shows Barack Obama leading John McCain 49% to 40% while McCain leads Hillary Clinton 45% to 42%. In Pennsylvania Obama leads McCain 49% to 39% while McCain leads Clinton 44% to 42%.

http://rasmussenreports.com/

=======

The supers will be looking at these kinds of polls very closely. How can any Democrat lose in Oregon?? Plus Pennsylvania is a must win for Democrats in Nov. Very troubling signs for Ms. Clinton indeed.

Posted by: zb95 | February 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

My my, there are a of lot of oxygen thieves from Camp Hillary here! Florida and Michigan will not be seated; the supers will abandon Hillary, nevermind help her steal. Try not to hate Obama too much, as you will soon be voting for him. Love ya!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 17, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Claiming a WIN in FL is rather hilarious.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 17, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Stop the hate, I don't understand some of the Anti-Obama sentiment. He's a very capable guy, yes his rhetorics are called naive by his opponent, but don't expect more than half of the democratic constituency to simply rely on his Naiveness

Im not asking you for believe Obama, I'm asking those of you to believe yourself and believe in your fellow americans, and simply take a second look at his detailed plans on the website, that's before you start running your mouth

Posted by: airborne5982 | February 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

canadagirl I thiink you have enough problems in Canada to deal with. Please blog there!

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Superdelegates are suppose to be "independent". They make their own decision as to whom they will support. They are not tied to anything else. Any question forward them to the DNC!!!

SFTS

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Superdelegates are suppose to be "independent". They make their own decision as to whom they will suppose. They are not tied to anything else. Any question toward them to the DNC!!!

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe how democrats are beating up on each Hilary and Obama. This primary has taught me how little value the party really has for people. I think that the party has two extremely capable people running. Even though Even though I am a Hilary supported I refuse to tear down Mr. Obama. Right now the way I see Dems going at each other I will refrain from voting in November.

Posted by: pharvey1 | February 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Can Washington do anything fair? Are most delegates in bed with the Clinton Machine? Why have these two con artists got washington by the balls? How can anyone think the Clinton's have integrity, honesty, purpose or premise on any idea of theirs when it is but a game of power to them. These two bumpkins role into office, sliding and slipping at every turn and Washington is 'nervous' of them? Show's how much corruption in Washington and why the world has lost trust in your nation. It is not George Bush, it is all of you that are tangled up in your own earmarks, dirty laundry and Clinton schams. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'm sure a show of force by terrorists will be seen. Can you imagine these two at the helm? Their actions will scare all of us. Blackmail is another problem for this couple of nuts. Their foreign financiars will have a ball. Is this what you want America????

Posted by: canadagirl | February 17, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The Obama supporters just dont get it..Hilary can win the states that are needed to defeat Mc Cain.Obama will never win Florida and I doubt some other seats with large electorate college votes that wins, its the arithmetic that counts if the Democrats want to take the whitehouse back.

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 17, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I can actually agree with one thing Mr. Ickes said: the superdelegates SHOULD vote for the best interests of the party AND the country.

For, if they did that, they'd vote in overwhelming numbers for Senator Obama - he is the party's future (and they know it).

Then, too, the people are having their say first. (And I trust in that.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 17, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Fund raising was allowed by the DNC in Florida but TV ads were not allowed. Barrack was the only candidate to break the rules and his word in Florida!!!

VOTE HILLARY CLINTON 08

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Oil Spcs,Oil selling side of the Kennedy's,
Murdoch,Bush,Rockefeller Central Bank ie
Federal Reserve,IRS(internal rockefeller
scam),verichip,NAU,NAFTA,....
ALL SUPPORT "I"HILLARY!

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 17, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

When you think the Republicans want Hillary to run against McCain, think about the fact Democrats WANTED to run against Ronald Reagan. Remember what happen? When the left wing of the party was determined to win the nomination during the Vietnam War (and I was there), they nominated McGovern in 1972. Remember what happen? The same elements are at play. Obama cannot win a national election, I don't care what the polls say. They have all been wrong in every state and every contest so far. McCain will win Latino voters (who will not vote for Obama despite all the Ra!Ra!Ra! by the news media); and McCain will also win independents. McCain has won more independents than Obama during the Primary season. He is strong on national security while Obama has NO credentials at all. In fact, he has no credentials. 2 years in the Senate out of a 6 year term (which he won with no competition), 4 years running for President out of a 6 year term. That qualifies him? I don't think so. Read this blog. Many people will not vote for Obama because HE IS NOT QUALIFIED. Hate the Clintons all you want but Bill Clinton was the only Democrat since FDR to win two terms in the White House in spite of the left, which is why the left hates him so much. Good for them. The left has NEVER won a national election with their candidate. You can jump up and down all you want, but Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc., are not going Democratic in the national election (where Obama won). New York, Mass, New Jersey, California, Florida hopefully will go Democratic where Hillary won. You can change perception, but you can't change reality.

Posted by: xplanes | February 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The superdelegate or automatic delegate system REALLY needs to be analyzed for the future. In addition to it's potential to be the most undemocratic system in all of American politics, it has the potential to create a melt down in the Democratic party at just the point when healing of wounds and reconciliation is required To prepare for the general election.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 17, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

It is refreshing to hear that there is such a thing as a 'long view.' The future president must be more than a policy wonk - well, what exactly is the job of President?....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/18/what-is-the-job-of-president/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse


The Clintons had 70 million dollars worth of Republican investigation. Nothing was shrugged off as you are doing for Obama.

And the Republicans won;t shrug this off about Obama either.

I am not listing campaign donations. Obama and Clinton return contributions when they are found to be from an illegal source, although Obama required a lot of prodding from news organizations investigations to fess up to how much came from Rezko, so was done over a period of time by him amidst public pressure.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Sheesh, if Rezko is an issue, what about every innuendo-laden accusation ever made against the Clintons? Norman Hsu? Mark Rich? Ron Burkle? Frank Giustra and Kazakhstan? Whitewater? Cattle futures? The Rose Law firm files? The travel office firings?

It's awfully hard to avoid the appearance of impropriety at least once or twice over the course of a public career, no matter how scrupulous you are. McCain had the Keating Five scandal, as you'll recall.

To put the Rezko issue in perspective, the Sun-Times, the paper which has been single-handedly pushing that investigation, enthusiastically endorsed Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton.

So please don't push the innuendo of this story -- which is nothing more than innuendo -- unless you'd like to explain a long trail of Clinton behavior.

Posted by: davestickler | February 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama is using the double standard for sure. He wants to void one agreement, the agreement to let Super Delegates be independent, but stick to the agreement to violate the 1965 Civil Rights Act by denying voters in Florida and Michigan representation at the convention.

The press is not calling Obama on his double standard because he is black. They are giving him a lot of leeway because they're afraid of the RACE antagonists.

I would love to see black President in my life time, but if it comes at the expense of voiding two million votes, then I will vote for McCain.

It was blacks who stuggled harder than anyone for the right to vote, and now we will elevate a candidate to the Presidency by denying two states representation?

As far as the rules are concerned. It was not for Howard Dean at the DNC, or the candidates themselves to agree to void my vote. This agreement was done in ERROR. As third parties, they can't decide where and when my vote is valid-- it has nothing to do with them. They don't negotiate the meaning of my vote under any circumstances.

It doesn't matter who leads in the polls in Florida, or who would be hurt or benefit from a new primary.

Two million people got in their cars and stood in line to vote. How dare ANYONE, whether it be Hillary, Barack, or John to pre-determine what my vote means.

Posted by: dcmenefee1 | February 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama is using the double standard for sure. He wants to void one agreement, the agreement to let Super Delegates be independent, but stick to the agreement to violate the 1965 Civil Rights Act by denying voters in Florida and Michigan representation at the convention.

The press is not calling Obama on his double standard because he is black. They are giving him a lot of leeway because they're afraid of the RACE antagonists.

I would love to see black President in my life time, but if it comes at the expense of voiding two million votes, then I will vote for McCain.

It was blacks who stuggled harder than anyone for the right to vote, and now we will elevate a candidate to the Presidency by denying two states representation?

As far as the rules are concerned. It was not for Howard Dean at the DNC, or the candidates themselves to agree to void my vote. This agreement was done in ERROR. As third parties, they can't decide where and when my vote is valid-- it has nothing to do with them. They don't negotiate the meaning of my vote under any circumstances.

It doesn't matter who leads in the polls in Florida, or who would be hurt or benefit from a new primary.

Two million people got in their cars and stood in line to vote. How dare ANYONE, whether it be Hillary, Barack, or John to pre-determine what my vote means.

Posted by: dcmenefee1 | February 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Howard Dean's power trip, denying Floridians representation creating the super delegate mess

It is true the Florida Democratic Party moved its primary date against the DNC bylaws; it is true that Florida's GOP legislature moved the primary date; and it's true that three democratic candidates agreed to null and void the votes of Floridians and the delegates those votes would harvest.

Neither of these parties had the right to disqualify two million votes.

When you call the DNC to complain, they tell you Florida is not in compliance, but they won't tell you is what gives them the pre-ordained right to disqualify two million votes just to settle a score with the Florida Democratic Party. Florida's noncompliant status is not an adequate justification to disqualify two million votes.

The number of people involved in this dispute couldn't fill up a school bus, yet they've decided that two million voters will not be represented at the DNC convention, potentially altering the outcome of the nomination, and possibly the outcome of the general election.

Florida voters are caught in the middle of a hissing war where the DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the Florida Democratic Party are not playing well together. This should not be the voters' problem because the voters didn't create this mess. If the DNC wants to punish the Florida Democratic Party, find another punishment, but to shut out two million voices to settle an inter-organizational dispute is totalitarianism.

No third party/parties may take away a person's right to vote, FOR ANY REASON. One vote or two million votes can not be taken away to serve the interests of the DNC.

It's not about who benefits from ceding the delegates, or if the results of a new election would tip the scales in favor of any candidate. It's not about any agreements made between Hillary, John, and Barack in the primary not to acknowledge the voters and their appointed delegates. A citizen's vote is not a unit of measurement for them to barter with; it's not about fairness to either of the candidates- they don't decide the fate of anyone's vote, and it's not about an internal dispute over a date on a calendar.

IT'S ABOUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE

When a voter goes to cast a vote for President, it is with the knowledge they will be represented according to who wins the popular vote in his or her district. A voter also accepts the absoluteness of two possible outcomes. One: The candidate will win and delegates will be ceded at the convention to vote according to the outcomes. Two: The candidate will lose and another candidate will receive the support of the delegates.

Florida voters had no say in moving the primary date, and their votes should carry the full weight of representative democracy to the floor of the convention. If the January 15 primary is dated and not an accurate representation of voters today, then Florida should have another primary.

If all the votes are not counted, the nominee, and possibly the next President, will have a legitimacy deficit............like the president we have now, and it will again point to Florida.

If the interests of Florida are not represented, there is a strong case to exempt all Floridians from federal income taxes. By denying Floridian and Michiganers representation, less than 300 super delegates will determine the outcome of the Democratic Nomination. history.

Howard Dean is on a power trip, and he needs to be removed from his post if he insists on denying any American equal representation at the DNC Convention.

The super delegates could be nuetralized by allowing new primaries in Florida and Michigan.


Posted by: dcmenefee1 | February 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Both Clinton and Obama signed up for a system where party leaders and elected officials could hold the deciding votes. Both camps also signed up for a system where the DNC could disenfranchise voters if the state moved up their primary or caucus. It is simply sour grapes if either camp now complains about either aspect of the system that they both agreed to.

I do, however, think that the DNC should look at FL differently than MI. The Republican Party moved up the state vote in an effort to heighten the state's prominence and, I believe, to present the Dems with a dilemma. Mission actually accomplished this time.

Both candidates fudged the rules on FL in an effort to gain an advantage in the vote. Obama bought an ad that included, not coincidentally, the state of FL right before the vote. Clinton visited the state for fund raising purposes, not coincidentally, right before the vote. Both camps could have avoided both actions, but chose not to.

Regardless of both camps stretching the rules, I do not believe it is right or healthy for the party to disenfranchise democratic voters in FL becs republicans moved up the vote.

Posted by: grantcope | February 17, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama: he knows the meaning of "is".

Posted by: andru | February 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse


I'll defer to your judgement on that. That they have been a minority in Arab lands for centuries may not be able to be said much longer. I think the Christians in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and other middle east countries are in the process of being driven out.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 4:57 AM | Report abuse

Ralph, I don't think Rezko converted to Christianity just to blend in with Chicagoans. Christians have been a minority in Arab lands for centuries. Any annotated New Testament will often contain references starting with the abbreviation "Syr.", indicating a Syriac translation was used as the source for a given word or verse.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 17, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse


Actually Hillary didn't say it, I meant Ickes about te automatic delegate count.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 3:40 AM | Report abuse


she's not going to win 65%. It's between 50% to 55% in her big state wins.

The seeking of automatic delegate votes went on from the beginning and continues daily from both sides. What hillary said was that she had a certain number committed to her that was larger than Obama's. There are many more uncommitted and some are changing their votes to Obama.

The delegates for Florida and Michigan are only 55 votes more for Hillary and they won't be seated if those 55 were to give Hillary the lead. If someone has the 2025 then at that point it makes no difference. The Florida and Michigan delegates can't be used to get to 2025, that's a number that excludes Michigan and Florida. The number goes higher with them.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 3:37 AM | Report abuse

OK - according to the Clinton folks, this is the path to the nomination:

-win big in all the remaining contests and collect more delegates, cutting into Obama's lead

-win support of superdelegates by whatever means that can be done

-fight at the convention to get Michigan and Florida delegates seated

All three elements are pretty unlikely, and would be really ugly and divisive to accomplish. Even if Clinton were successful in getting the nomination, in the process she would have divided the party and turned off independent voters. In this scenario, she could very well end up losing to McCain.

Let's keep this from happening. If Clinton doesn't win Wisconsin, Hawaii, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Texas 65-35 or better, or at least 5 out of 6 of these, she should withdraw from the race. Otherwise, she's choosing to slog it out to the convention, and nobody needs that, except McCain.

Posted by: wesfromGA | February 17, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

oh yeah, I guesss that's part of the whole thing. when in Chicago, do as chicagoans do.

thanks for the info. appreciate the feedback.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

treetopflyer, the purchase and ownership of $625,000 property for Obama when he bought his house both gave Obama a $625,000 lot as part of his mansion property for free and got him $300,000 off the price of his house. It can't be proved that Rezko didn't pick it up with the property purchase but that's a whole lot of free financing for Obama.

The letters thing is more than letters. It goes all the way back to all of Rezko's 17 properties paid for with taxdollars. Obama was involved all the way back in the church non-profit partnership for Rezko to qualify, the legal work, and then as political sponsor for more millions while Rezko was milking taxpayers dry.

A huge scam. That's what Obama's history is. It is not benign "oh shucks, I goofed" bad judgement or whatever Obama has tried to pass this off as.

Believe me, I'm being nice about it, and of course so are you. The Republican swiftboaters will tie this intimacy with a a Syrian Muslim getting millions wired to him from sources in the middle east during this corruption indictment to national security imnplications of our potential commander in chief come October, you can count on it. Swift boating at its ugliest is what America has in store this fall.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Oh, by the way, Ralph, just to correct you on one thing. According to the salon.com article, Rezko's Christian, not Muslim. Not that he's practiced christian charity, muslim zakat or just plain human decency, though.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 17, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse


Obama hasn't admitted these lies about Rezko. He just told them.

For that matter, he hasn't admitted to anything except being a drug user. A felony drug user with cocaine, as pointed out above.

The rest of his lies are just that, still lies.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse


Obma hasn't admitted these lies about Rezko. He just told them.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Ralph,

Thanks for your comments. I've done a little more reading, and it's obvious Rezko is not someone you'd want to marry your daughter. That said, I think the most level-headed assessment of Obama's actions was in the salon.com article about him:

"James L. Merriner, an Illinois political expert who has conducted the only interview with Rezko since his indictment, says Obama has done 'nothing illegal. It's just unsavory.'"

(http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/index1.html)

I think it's believable when Obama said that in writing letters to fellow IL legislators to get public funding for Rezko's projects that he was thinking in terms of getting low income housing for his constituents. It seems like there was nothing illegal going on, and that the only blatant political figure was the getting that kid the Washington internship. What gives me more pause is that it puts his judgment, something that he's made a cornerstone of his campaign, into question. I really need to read up more on this and chew on it before I come to a final decision. My guess is I'll still come down on Obama's side, but this is obviously something that bears looking into.

See, an Obama nut can actually refrain from insulting those who disagree with him and be interested in examining his candidate, warts and all.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 17, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

I am a bit curious as to all the statements that Clinton has states that were lies as well. If your going to air dirty laundry, why not bring those up too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekNceS2zJtY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46REHGSwc_8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt2_XKeKTGI

Just a few of her many lies. So don't try to parse words, your candidate is not perfect either. At least Obama can admit when he was wrong.

Posted by: nytecoldawn | February 17, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse


you're welcome.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

TO ALL COMMENT POSTERS:

I would like to THANK those of you who have posted rational, thought-out conclusions, or have linked to information about the candidate's positions.

To the rest of you who (often repeatedly) exaggerate your opponent's positions and histories, or use purposely inflammatory words and lies such as "coronation of sleazy Queen Hillary" or "Obama the muslim cocaine-smoker": SHAME ON EVERY ONE OF YOU. Each and every one of you should be deeply ashamed for engaging in precisely the tactics which you CLAIM the other side is using against your favored candidate.

Those of you who do this are no better than the swift-boaters. You claim the moral high ground while at the same time abandoning it completely.

I should like to feel proud of the Democratic party and its supporters, as all of us are ready for a positive change after the catastrophe of the Bush years. But instead, you only shame yourselves, and make your whole party look like dirt in the process.

All it does is uselessly polarize the Hillary-vs-Obama debate, and ends up with comments from both sides to the effect of "good luck winning the nomination without 1/2 of the party's support!" If the eventual Dem nominee does lose some of the party's support, consider yourself part of the problem - and duly warned.

Clinton supporters see nasty comments towards their candidate and thus choose never ever to support Obama. Obama supporters see nasty comments towards their candidate and thus choose never ever to support Clinton. What nonsense is this!

Of course, we all should remember that the folks who take the time to post in forums like this one tend to be the most vitriolic ones, with the least regard for rational discussion. Please remember these fools do not reflect how most Democrats think or behave. In forums such as this, the worst elements inevitably come out to play.

Before you go spouting off about how one or the other candidate is deficient on the issues, do us all a favor and actually LEARN about them.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/


Thank you in advance.

Posted by: wapost | February 17, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Well said for now.
It seems that most Democrats are now obsessed with a movie star.
I will vote for Sen Mccain
He is definitely a better choice at this point that the hoopla with no reasoning from Obama. He sounds like George Bush Jr or Ronald Reagan ( another movie star) but with liberal rhetoric.

Posted by: vau500 | February 17, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse


I don't need youtube to tell me the difference of credibility in the hundreds of detailed statements that Hillary has made on what she will do versus the hope and change rhetoric from Obama.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Lets listen to the two candidates speak for themselves and you decide who is the more honest, respectable and trustworthy Presidential Candidate......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY_9ZcsjpQ&NR=1

Posted by: eslover | February 17, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Lets listen to the two candidates speak for themselves and you decide who is the more honest, respectable and trustworthy Presidential Candidate......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY_9ZcsjpQ&NR=1

Posted by: eslover | February 17, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse


teeetopflyer, the sources are the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times and their ongoing investigations and articles. I got wind if it from an ABC News article a couple of weeks ago and read the Chicago investigation articles.

The reasonn the Rezko link to Obama's house and property wasn't publicized before was because it just came out in paperwork Rezko filed in bail paperwork trying to stay out of jail (unsuccessfully due to millions of dollars being wired to him mysteriously from middle east). He was forced to divulge his interest in Obama's property, and reporters saw it was done same day.

Obama refuses to answer Chicago reporters questions on it. And he just blatantly lied to all Americans in the debate when he said Rezko was someone he did about five hours worth of legal work for several years ago.

He lies effortlessly. He also lied about not knowing the father of an intern in his Senate office who is an associate of Rezko used to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse


teeetopflyer, the sources are the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times and their ongoing investigations and articles. I got wind if it from an ABC News article a couple of weeks ago and read the Chicago investigation articles.

The reasonn the Rezko link to Obama's house and property wasn't publicized before was because it just came out in paperwork Rezko filed in bail paperwork trying to stay out of jail (unsuccessfully due to millions of dollars being wired to him mysteriously from middle east). He was forced to divulge his interest in Obama's property, and reporters saw it was done same day.

Obama refuses to answer Chicago reporters questions on it. And he just blatantly lied to all Americans in the debate when he said Rezko was someone he did about five hours worth of legal work for several years ago.

He lies effortlessly. He also lied about not knowing teh fater of an intern in his Senate office who is an associate of Rezko used to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

The argument about Florida and Michigan delegates is a silly one. Voters in both states knew long before hand they had been stripped of their delegates for non compliance with DNC rules.

To call either election fair is just a fancy. Obama was and still is in some areas a name that was not familiar, and Hillary Clinton is a house hold name because of her husband and the divisiveness of the 1990s.

The argument that either will not show up for democrats in November is a ridiculous one at best.

What needs to be done at this point is figuring out a way to make sure this fiasco never occurs again.

The rules were made and they should be stood by at this time. They also should be revisited after the election along with some of others.

Posted by: nytecoldawn | February 17, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

in the past we wanted change so badly and got president Carter (a disaster). no more. we need an experience president on day one - go clinton

Posted by: clinsupor | February 17, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Excellent post amassa!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7VCQO5siU
10 minutes on whether Hillary can win

and its longer version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

are both excellent discussions by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig on how both Clinton vs. McCain and a Obama vs. McCain elections would turn out and why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig
"Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications."

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 17, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse


I absolutely agree, mamamia and atomicfront.

well said.

The CNN reference is to alwin.zachariah post.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Ralph - can you cite a credible source for your charges? I'm not saying there isn't one, but would like to see it for myself.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 17, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

I really hope you people will not forget that the enemy of Democrats are the republicans that want to extend this never ending, unpopular war.

If you look at the two candidates they are 98% the same on the issues. Their personalities are different sure and their paths are a little different. Both have used different strategies, and gotten different results. They are both politicians and prone to spinning things in their own right.

Obama is offering something new, exciting, and unpredictable. This scares a lot of you.

Clinton offers a chance to reclaim part of the 90s. She has been vetted by the Republicans who have attacked her endlessly. Some will say this is her biggest strength and why she will win in November, but the fact there is so much to relive with her is the reason the Republicans want to go up against her. They feel they have a better shot against her than Obama. Of course, some don't want to admit to this, so they claim it will be easier against Obama.

The fact that Obama has not been on the national stage is the reason why they want to go after him. Unfortunately, he is driving November election turn outs during the Primaries. This scares the crap out of the Republicans. Even worse, the moderates in their party are siding with him. I have heard the arguments that they wont stay with him. That the new voters won't stay either. This is all speculation, and it is based on past trends from year to year elections. I feel that the turns outs in the primaries are a good indication that past trends have been bucked.

Both candidates have their weakness. Clinton's is her past, her lack of real executive experience (just like Obama), and her stubbornness. It is the reason her health care plan failed before, and unfortunately it will be the same this time. She is just as stubborn as she was before, despite what she claims (look at this race as an example of this), and this time she is trying to spin it to get it perceived as a strength. It is not.

Obama wants to talk to everyone. His weakness is that he is a little bit naive, not real executive experience, and I think he under estimates the challenges in front of him. If he gets into the oval office he will be on a learning curve, just like Bill Clinton, and just like George W. Bush. His message is more positive than Clinton, and while he can not possibly get everything done that he wants to, he will get some stuff moving in the right direction.

The republicans also play a part in this election. Right or wrong, the Republicans will form a stone wall if Clinton is elected. The 90's were divisive times though we don't really like to admit it. It is just like the last 7 years. The economic boom of the 90's was not due to the Clintons. It was because of the tech bubble, and the Federal reserve making good calls. The chairman was already serving when Bill was president, and all that he did was ensure that the same guy kept the post.

We are heading into uncertain times. We have two potential leaders in the democratic party. They both have strengths and they both have weaknesses. They are evenly matched either way among voters.

Obama is probably the strongest of the two just because the Republicans don't have nearly as much to throw at him. But that doesn't mean they won't try. They are already calling him by his middle name like children.

The biggest problem right now for the democrats is that they have two senators vying for the office of President of the United States. Either one, is going to weaken the senate when they leave, as the democrats barely have a majority at the moment.

Clinton does represent the past. She can be the future, but at best, that future is only more of what we have now.

Obama represents change to lead to the future. He presents something different than the status quo, but it is not a sure thing. The worse that can happen with him is a maintaining of the status quo.

I really hope that if either candidate gets the nod that the true democrats will line up behind them. I can not promise you that the moderates will vote for Clinton. I can not promise you that those "annoying" masses of new Obama supporters will true out for Clinton either. The democrats have a lot more enthusiasm than the republicans right now.

I do ask that you please realize that these candidates are two of the best that the party has put up in a long time.

I leave you with this last reminder. Before, Reagan stepped forward to Unite this nation in 1980, that the political field was similar to what it is now. We were a nation divided. There were red states and blue states. Reagan managed to transcend the politics of the day with a message of unity at a time when the US was ready. He carried all but 6 states plus DC that year. Four years later, he carried all but 1 state and DC.

We have two leaders now. One is a fighter and probably can get some stuff done. The other is a uniter in a time when the American public wants change.

The choice is up to us. Both will be a change. The goal, I think, should be duplicating what Reagan did in 1980. What Johnson did in 1964. What FDR did in 1932.

Posted by: nytecoldawn | February 17, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse


I think you've totally lost your mind. There's nothing like that on CNN. You're hallucinating. Maybe drank too much of Obama's kool-aide.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Florida's delegation should be seated. Both candidates had an equal chance at the delegates and the move to strip the delegates from Florida was idiotic to say the least. Florida along with Ohio are states that Democrats need to win if they want to become president. Why alienate a whole state so South Carolina can have more of say. No way South Carolina votes for a democrat anyway.

The Super Delegates should vote for whomever they want to. This is how the rules work. Just like caucus voters are not a public election the super delegates have descretion whom to vote for.

Michigan should have another primary. Let the democrats pay for it.

As to the fact that right now Obama is slightly a head of McCain in polling that is immaterial. Do you really think that will last. Wait until the republicans start airing commericals against Obama then he will start to fall. Obama has been lucky in the primaries becuase Hillary has run a very nice campaign. That will not happen in the general election.

Posted by: atomicfront | February 17, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

'how much they'll spend investigating Obama who gained hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Syrian Muslim on trial for political corruption'.
we need change not investigations.
WE NEED A DOER NOT A PREACHER.
WE NEED EXPERIENCE NOT A DREAMER

GO HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: clinsupor | February 17, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Ickes is really showing signs of desperation with in the Clinton camp. All we have as voters are hollow comments with no substance (hot air) when these guys talk.

Hillary has gone on record (according to CNN) that she will quit the democratic party is she does not get nominated.
If I have any sanity left in me, why should I be supporting a QUITTER like Hillary (unless I've totally lost my mind, reasons that I can't explain).

I lost all the respect for Hillary when she play unfair politics and mud-slinging. She called a truce and now she back to her old self.

I hope she (Hillary) reads this. He latest comments are really not helping her, rather leave her more vulnerable to failure

Posted by: alwin.zachariah | February 17, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

"The best way we could have met the people is through a debate that is televised and everyone could have watched and drawn their own conclusions," Clinton said when asked why she had limited her campaign appearances in Wisconsin.

She always seems to want to change the past. You cannot lead a nation always looking in the rear view mirror.

Posted by: unique_id | February 17, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

I can understand the Clinton camp's frustration with the Florida and Michigan situations. If those states had been contested properly, HRC had an excellent chance of winning them and would probably still have the delegate lead. However, what's done is done and gearing up for a fight to change the rules mid-stream does nothing but portray HRC as desperate and petty. It's simply not possible for the Democratic nominee to emerge from the convention having won in that manner. It's too Bush-like and just the idea that she is seriously considering it as a strategy lessens her appeal. There's no way those delegates are going to get seated in a manner that gives her an advantage so she might as well stop talking about it and sounding like she wants to steal the election.

Posted by: skrut003 | February 17, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

I will vote McCain if obama is the Demo to run

Posted by: jlun | February 17, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

To all Clinton and Obama supporters: please watch this video by famous Stanford Law prof. L. Lessig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7VCQO5siU

Posted by: amassa | February 17, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

goldmdm, so you think Hillary, probably the 2nd most polarizing democrat (after Bill), is going to attract more independent voters than Obama?

The polls do not agree with you and show Obama as the stronger candidate against McCain.

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

Obama has been attacting more independents and previously unregistered voters, these are more of a threat to McCain rather than less.

Hillary would get out the vote for sure in November, unfortunately it would be the Republican vote.

Vote for a winner in November, vote Obama '08.

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 17, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

treetopflyer - Obama funnelled 41 million dollars of taxpayer money to Rezko for low income housing renovation, and Rezko walked away from all 17 properties leaving poor tenants freezing without heat. That's what Obama did for Rezko, helped make him a wealthy man by ripping off taxpayers.

And still Obama went to him just three years ago after beig elected Senator to get financial help buying his Chicago house and property, even though Rezko was supposed to be bankrupt, leaving thousands of Obama's former constituents in abandoned buildings.

Rezko and his associates, who Obama bought into with on some deals, skimmed millions of dollars of taxpayer money and then funnelled hundreds of thousands back as campaign contributions. He was Obama's main financier.

Rezko bought a $625,000 property for Obama along with Obama buying his house for 1.6 million, getting $300,000 off the house but none off the property Rezko bought.

This is serious money. For example, Republicans spent 70 million dollars of taxpayer money investigating $40,000 the Clintons lost in a land investment.

Just think how much they'll spend investigating Obama who gained hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Syrian Muslim on trial for political corruption.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 17, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

If the Clinton's steal the nomination from senator Obama, I will not vote for them. America deserves better and is tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dinasties. The Clintons should get out of the way and give a chance to the new generation.
Go Obama!

Posted by: alr_us | February 17, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha,
You people are idiots, all of you and your really stupid opinions hahahahahha.

The dems have already lost, neither person will win.

"I won't vote if Obama wins! I won't vote if Hillary wins"!

What the suck is that about. If what you idiots say is true no one is going too vote for a dem. So all you idiots lose. Get a life garbage heads. You clowns blew a chance to make history.hahahaha you sit at your computer's spewing this garbage!

Like someone really sucking cares if you don't vote for him or her.

Believe me when I tell you if just 25% of Obama supports don't vote Hillary loses. If just 5% of African Americans don't vote for her she's lost. So you sit here pissing off Obama and Hillary supports and in one or two months you clowns will be begging for Obama or Hillary supports to vote for a dems ..listen clowns it ain't going to happen.Hate loves hate. Stop dragging your knuckles on the ground!

So you idiots just keep it up, keep showing each other how stupid you really are. I was a dem until I started reading these blogs, but you dems ain't about nothing,never will be, the same racist,sexist party you were when you support lynching and segregation in the south. Grow the suck up.

Don't you apes smell the other apes fanny? If you don't stick together you lose. But your deep racism and sexism won't let you smell the crap that's coming out of your own mouths and bodies.

It's not the candidates that suck it's the idiots that have too vote for them that suck, you! America has 300 million loser running around.

Somebody needs to drop a bomb on all of us. The internet is the biggest mirror in the world. The man or women in the mirror is you and you are a really ugly, pathetic, excuse for for a human being. Willing to cut off your nose to spite your clown faces, so filled with hate. Clowns you deserve what you get, which is nothing, sucking losers!

Obama can't win jackass if Hillary loses and Hillary can't win if Obama loses.

That's where you clowns are at how pathetic, you blew your chance too change the world. Racism and sexism wins again.

Look at how you fools are talking too each other.......

Posted by: jaskinc | February 17, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

One other thing I wanted to mention, agreeing with a previous comment -- although mainstream Democrats may not run from Obama if he is the candidate, McCain will retain and add more independents. In the end, more will vote for him rather than Obama. So, yes, McCain and company will be ecstatic if Obama gets the nomination. It is a long, long time until the general election. By then, the initial infatuation with Obama will have greatly waned, many independents and moderate Democrats will have "snapped out" of the Obama trance and McCain will be elected. So, yes, Obama is the choice of the Republicans for sure.

Posted by: goldmdm | February 17, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Economicaly, I should be a Republican. In fact I used to be one.

I became a Democrat after a near-death experience.

I decided I wanted to help the less fortunate, and decided to focus on health care.

Edwards and Clinton both have great health care plans.

Obama's plan stinks.

Obama's supporters remind me of a bunch of drugged-out moonies.

They need universal health care more than anyone else, especially mental health care.

If Obama gets elected they think that he'll legalize pot, when in fact, he'll run in the opposite direction because of his drug history.

I've yet to meet a single clear-headed Obama supporter, or one that had a good grasp of any of the issues.

In the final analysis, its not going to hurt me if Obama gets nominated, but its going to hurt the poor.

The saddest thing is that the people who believe in Obama the deepest will be hurt by him the most.


Posted by: svreader | February 17, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

I have always viewed the Clintons as "corporacrats" (I coined this myself) They work for the benefit of the mega- corporations; using the political party that fits their agenda best. Look at the heartbreaks associated with NAFTA. Hillary's suspiciously hidden long term ties to "her favorite" the Wal-Mart corporation puts her political aspirations in question. Until she ran for New York Senate she was a major board of directos\'s member for over 14 years. So if Hillary gets her way, the nation will get the opportunity to pay for all the poverty level,mistreated, part time Wal-Mart worker's health insurance. With no union, Wal-Mart loves Hillary. It is rather like Bush using the US military as free labor to fight his family's oil war that was so carefully planned since the end of WWII.

Posted by: buffalo | February 17, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Read the constitution,there is no dog in the hunt. We are in deep trouble on both sides. We are headed for the USSA.

Posted by: mwyo22 | February 17, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton has said that superdelegates should vote for the person they believe will be the best candidate. People should consider, though, how Sen. Clinton has gained superdelegate commitments as long as a full year ago (see: "Blacks in Congress Torn . .. " Wash Post article) How could a member of Congress have known a year ago who the best general election candidate would be? That's some serious foresight.

The sad truth may be that early committing superdelegates are solely considering personal benefit rather than trying to determine who can best represent the party. Consider a few scenarios. Let's say Bill calls a member of Congress and says that he'd love to lend a hand campaigning and fundraising for that person's '08 reelection campaign. Or, imagine if Bill tells the state Dem party chairperson for, say, Idaho that he'd sure like to speak at their annual fundraising banquet. Suffice it to say that the Clintons have means of influencing superdelegates that have nothing whatsoever to do with Sen Clinton's qualifications or electability.

The only hope for the health of the Dems is that its leadership won't let Bill's influence win the nomination if Hillary can't seize the lead through ballot boxes and caucuses. It wouldn't be surprising if there's a pattern among superdelegates committing to Clinton. Superdelegates facing a fight for his or her seat in '08 or leading an organization with urgent fundraising needs were probably more inclined to commit to Clinton early.

Posted by: gqbindc | February 17, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama has next to no experience to be the President of the United States of America. I don't even like Hillary Clinton -- never did, but if I had to choose between her and Obama, I'd choose Hillary because I would like to have someone who has some semblence of what issues are at stake in this Country and the specifics of how to carry out such plans. Obama is a cheerleader. It's amazing to see how easily people respond like sheep to his oratories. He has a great voice quality and is extremely adept at motivating people with generalities and rhetoric. I need to stop being so surprised by how dumb people can be. The backlash to GW is to ordain a person who chants "Change" with promises that will never materialize. No wonder cults are full of people! Barack Hussein Obama, the United States answer to defending out Country agains Muslim extremists. Note to the Middle Class - hide your money because both he and Hillary are coming to take it away and give to all those parasitic constituents of theirs who just love not having to work. The Obama supporters are completely in a trance when he speaks, and all the hard-working American citizens are going to pay for it.

Posted by: goldmdm | February 17, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton has said that superdelegates should vote for the person they believe will be the best candidate. People should consider, though, how Sen. Clinton has gained superdelegate commitments as long as a full year ago (see: "Blacks in Congress Torn . .. " Wash Post article) How could a member of Congress have known a year ago who the best general election candidate would be? That's some serious foresight.

The sad truth may be that early committing superdelegates are solely considering personal benefit rather than trying to determine who can best represent the party. Consider a few scenarios. Let's say Bill calls a member of Congress and says that he'd love to lend a hand campaigning and fundraising for that person's '08 reelection campaign. Or, imagine if Bill tells the state Dem party chairperson for, say, Idaho that he'd sure like to speak at their annual fundraising banquet. Suffice it to say that the Clintons have means of influencing superdelegates that have nothing whatsoever to do with Sen Clinton's qualifications or electability.

The only hope for the health of the Dems is that its leadership won't let Bill's influence win the nomination if Hillary can't seize the lead through ballot boxes and caucuses. It wouldn't be surprising if there's a pattern among superdelegates committing to Clinton. Superdelegates facing a fight for his or her seat in '08 or leading an organization with urgent fundraising needs were probably more inclined to commit to Clinton early.

Posted by: gqbindc | February 17, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

cvhch

Posted by: tobuyosell | February 17, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

why do we need to forget obama's drug use and attending a madrasa, but remember that clinton voted for the war. go hillary

Posted by: zmat123 | February 17, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

why do we need to forget obama's drug use and attending a madrasa, but remember that clinton voted for the war. go hillary

Posted by: zmat123 | February 17, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

The article neglects to mention that Mr. Ickes is himself a superdelegate - oh, excuse me, "automatic delegate." As is Sen. Clinton's husband. And her adviser/fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. I guess there's no such thing as recusal among superdelegates. Mr. Ickes is right. We shouldn't call them super. They don't exactly stand up for "truth, justice, and the American Way."

Posted by: dc-native | February 17, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

All right. I've read a couple of articles in the Chicago Sun Times about Rezko, one an interview with Obama and his relationship with the developer, the other an 8-point synopsis of the relationship. The URLs are:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

First off I'll freely admit I know next to nothing about real estate. Second, it seems that Rezko got no favors from Obama for his political contributions and Obama did not abuse his public trust to get money from Rezko. Aside from the ill timing of Obama's buying land at a fair value from Rezko when he was under indictment, nothing seems wrong here. Obama broke no laws and only damaged his own image, nothing else.

Which brings me to point three. Obama is quoted by the Sun Times as saying the deal was "boneheaded", that even though he'd received no special treatment from Rezko or vice versa, mere truth never stands in the way of a good innuendo where politics is concerned (my spin on his words). To me that means he at least has the guts to admit when he's made a mistake, he doesn't try to shade it or pretend it didn't happen. Far from throwing his character into doubt for me, doing the reading on this has confirmed my belief in him all the more.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 17, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

It reminds me the China's culture revolutionary when I see the huge crowds at Mr.Obama's speech last week. At the begining of the culture revolutionary,the red guards want to get rid of the old and want changes. Mr.Obama is doing the same thing. I think Mr.Obama need more experience before he can be a world leader.

Posted by: tobuyosell | February 17, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I'm an old, over 70, white male. A life long Republican. I cannot stand Bush and voted for Kerry in 04 and no one in 2000 since I thought, think, Gore is a loser. I would strongly consider voting for Obama because I think the country needs someone that can start to talk to the two sides. Not all Democrats are evil and the same is true of Republicans. I will also consider McCain. I think a race between Obama and McCain would be so refreshing. If it is McCain and Clinton then it will be another period of political hate leaving the winner with a nation divided and four more years of gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Bottom line is I will never vote for Clinton but will give Obama a hard and favorable look.

Posted by: cynbur | February 16, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

It is the Republican's great hope the Clinton backdoor strategy works.

So many Democrats will be unable to ignore the Clintonian hypocrisy and theft of the nomination from Obama they will either sit it out or vote for McCain.

This is classic arrogant Clinton.

Of course, the Democrats are use to changing the rules to suit themselves, i.e., New Jersey, Washington State, Florida, etc. Just keep changing the rules and counting until you get the results you want--not the truth.

The Clintons are doing just what they did for eigth years. Hell, she could not find the Rose Law Firm records until the investigation closed then they turned up in her office!!

Got to love it--or puke!

Posted by: FloridaandWorking | February 16, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

yes we can elect hillary. i don't like a dreamer as a president i want experience.
if hillary is not the democratic nominee I will vote Republican.

Posted by: zmat123 | February 16, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

yes we can elect hillary. i don't like a dreamer as a president i want experience.
if hillary is not the democratic nominee I will vote Republican.

Posted by: zmat123 | February 16, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton tries to take delegates from either Michigan or Florida when it was so clearly decided that those delegates would not be seated, it will be worse than the 2000 election as it would be more than obvious, particularly if she's behind in the popular vote and state delegates, that she's planning an end run around the will of the people. And have I got news for her; we're more than sick and tired of the last seven years of THAT happening. I am praying to God that the rest of these primaries/caucuses are decisive in Obama's favor.
Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania.....are U LISTENING? MAKE IT DECISIVE.

Posted by: SYWanda | February 16, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

This choice is getting simple. Forget the rhetoric and fancy speeches. Even forget the policy promises. We know they will be changed during negotiations with Congress. Obama has shown the better administrative skills in this race by far. He started as a long shot and has caught the inevitable winner. He has out-campaigned his opponents, he has developed a better organization and he paid attention to the whole country. No other candidate, democrat or republican has accomplished this. He has shown to be the best leader whether or not he has less experience. After the last 7+ years, we could use someone who might bring the country together and run it right. Clinton or McCain haven't shown this ability through the campaign process.

Posted by: waitingforchange | February 16, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

When Clintons and their 'NY supporters' are in the room, you have to watch your wallet real close!

OBAMA ROBBED IN NY

"Truth is, in some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even close to defeating Hillary Clinton."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm


Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 16, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

It's been so great to see Hillary showing her determination to lead our country especially now how our economy is going. Compared to Obama, Michelle wants the people of the United States to vote her husband because he is black. I am not sure that race is not one of the qualities to become a president. Well, too bad, we are intelligent voters. I have never heard any candidate in my whole life that would say to vote him or her because of his or her race. Michelle Obama tried to undermine our intelligence. There are black people that knew better than that. To be a president, you need to have experience, you have proven results. Now Obama's just running for the president, Obama and Michelle already showed their main goal.......their ambitious act to be president. Fortunately, all of us are seeing them with their selfish motives. It came from their mouth.......vote for us because we are black....not their qualifications. I love my country and I don't vote for who you are, whether you black, white, hispanic or asian, I am voting the best qualified candidate that have proven herself or himself, have the experience..not because he or she is black. Our economy is in unstable condition. Under the Clinton administration, our econmy was in good shape. We got surplus the. Hillary can do it again. We are becoming intelligent voters than ever. We cannot afford to have someone that does not have any experience and become on the job training. We suffered already under the Bush Adm. We don't want to suffer again. Viva America! Viva Hillary!

Posted by: lianette_steele | February 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

jovitman --

The fact I'm bothered by Obama's repeated cocaine use comes from the fact that I'm a parent.

Kids are constantly looking for role models.

By giving Obama a "get out of jail free card" we are sending a horrible message to our children.

Obama's messsage is that if you don't get caught and you publish it in a book, it doesn't matter that you committed multiple felonies.

That's morally indefensible.

If we choose Obama as our standard-bearer it sends the message that doing anyhing illegal is alright, as long as you don't get caught and have a silver tongue.

Obama is the most slick salesman I've seen in quite a while, but I'm lucky to have seen a lot of them over the years.

My personal experience has been that the slicker they are the less they deliver.

I'm sincerely concerned that Obama will be a disaster.

He's good a "faking it" but he doesn't know what he's doing, and it shows in every debate.

That's why I post.

In the perhaps futile hope that I can get at least one person seduced by Obama to focus on the issues instead.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse


Hillary didn't campaign in the states.

All the Democrats names were on the ballot in Florida. 1.7 million democrats voted in the Democrat primary, 52% voted for Hillary.

Obma did run national advertising that played here in Florida daily , Hillary did not.

As I posted earlier in this thread, there's only a 38 delegate difference between Hillary and Obama in the Florida delegates and 17 in the Michigan delegates.

Those 55 delegates shouldn't be counted to put Hillary in front of Obama, but if one or the other gets 2025 (which of course requires some of the 795 automatic delegates to get there) then itr's no big deal to seat them at that point.

The 2025 figure raises if Florida and Michigan count, so it's not like they can help to get to 2025.

And it's only 55 delegates difference. Basically Democrats are too politically correct and did this because of Jesse Jackson. So we're basically screwed unless they go back to a winner take all system as normal elections including the Republican primaries are done.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 16, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I have been reading all the blogs and those who are real democrats are missing a big picture. We are all forgetting that a wide rift that is happening between Obama and hillary Clinton is going to help tremendously and they do not have to do much to acheve division in Democrats and walk away with another victory in 2008. I have heard big promises from candidates but they sound the same in election rhetorics. What we need is majority in house and senate and the bickering between Democratic candidates is not going to achieve that. Any president is not going to achieve if he is not going to get comfortable majority in the house and senate. Republicans have already picked their candidate and they can now concentrate on increasing their numbers in the house and senate. I hope and pray that the people in charge of Democratic party wake up and see where these wide rift between Obama and Hillary Clinton is going to affect the Democrats in the bigger picture.

Posted by: adesai | February 16, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I guess the Hillary supporters have no "accomplishments" to set forth in this forum.

Svreader, we're waiting. Also waiting for an explanation from you as to why the Clintons' association with Rezko, Norman Hsu, Marc Rich and the MacDougals are acceptable to you....

Posted by: KAM3 | February 16, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

About Florida and Michigan...

I think many people are missing the big idea here. Florida and Michigan decided to be special and show the U.S. that there votes are significant by going against the schedule established by the Democratic Convention.

Obama and Edwards followed the mandate by Howard Dean, leader of Democratic Convention, by not putting their names on the ballot and not campaigning there.

Hillary went against her party's mandate (can anyone say say-anthing do anything-politics) in order to claim a "win" and get her name in the newspaper headlines as having won "Florida."

Clinton broke the rules! They all agreed not to campaign in these two states! Obama's and Edwards' names were not on the ballot!

Should the delegates be counted as they stand? Heck no.

As usual, the Clintons are being unfair and they don't even make sense.

And yes, the only way to give these two states the respect they deserve by having the votes count is by a revote. But the Clintons dont want to re-vote for two reasons:

1. They are probably scared to lose.
2. Because ballot voting would be too expensive to reproduce, they'd have to do a caucus and Obama has won every single caucus. Again, scared to lose.

Obviously, I support Obama. But up is up and down is down. It's plain to see that to count those votes as they stand right now would simply not be fair.

Posted by: tynachryis | February 16, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Three students in my son's 7th Grade class independently chose to recite Obama speeches during this month's speech tournament. No one is reciting a Clinton, Hilary or Bill. I'm not voting for someone who boasts of her record fighting Republicans. I'm voting for Senator Obama who inspires me, my son, his friends to do better, to want better. They've got The Hope. I've got The Hope.

Posted by: lum | February 16, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

People don't despair. If Hillary's name is not on the ballot for the General Election, we can write her name in.

I won't vote for McCain and I won't vote for Obama, but I can make a statement, and my vote will be counted that the DNC was stupid to interfere with the delegates from Florida and Michigan, and also to let Obama get away with dictating how anything is going to be done - with those delegates or the super delegates.

It bothers me that Obama sends memos every day, some times several times a day, to the media to tell them what they can and cannot say, and Obama gets to tell the Media what the delegate count is. Doesn't anyone out there know for sure?

Obama is very arrogant, haughty, and his "uniting" and "hope" and reaching across party "lines," doesn't fit with what he has done to this country - he has set civil right movement back 75 years. I don't see anything "uniting," about what Obama has done, it is more like "divide and conquer." gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 16, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

If Obama's take-no-prisoners momentum continues to shove Clinton aside, is that not unlike the Bush/Cheney go-it-alone march on Baghdad that Barack railed against as being so obviously short-sighted and stupid?

Posted by: 4to125characters | February 16, 2008 03:43 PM
*********************************
I can't claim to be enough of a poet to understand the basis for that analogy, but I do remember that Clinton was a big supporter of marching on Baghdad.

Posted by: light_bearer | February 16, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

elme13: Your comments were very informative. I have been trying to get people's attention to the Obama/Rezko 17 year relationship ever since Obama said in a recent debate that he "only did about five hours of work for a church doing business with Rezko."

To find out what I have learned researching Obama, it is obvious Obama is a liar of some sort, pathological or regular liar, I am not sure, but a liar in any case.

A seventeen year association with someone is not to be sluffed off as only five hours of work.

To add to your comments, Rezko was picked up by the FBI, when he was free before trial, because he was "moving large sums of money around."

I am glad you filled us in on the Obama/Rezko political involvements. I was sure that REzko and Obama are trying to "fix" and buy this election for Obama. I believe it more than ever now. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 16, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse


I'm resigned to John McCain being elected president. The majority of Americans aren't going to vote for a person as our commander in chief whose political mentor is a Syrian Muslim jailed awaiting trial on political corruption because of all the mysterious millions of dollars he was being wired from the middle east, and who bought and still owns through an associate Obama's Chicago mansion property for Obama when Obama went to him for "help and advice" after being elected a Senator.

This despite Rezko just having been publically indicted at the time.

No, not very many are going to entrust this guy as our commander in chief.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 16, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

I am always curious when people are saying that the Michigan and Flordia should be seated so their votes would count.
No one seems to mention the people who were told their votes would not count and chose not to take time out of their busy day to vote. Changing of the rules would disenfranchise them twice. The 1st time when their state party decided to not follow the DNC rules and 2nd when the delegates are seated at the convention who did not represent their choice.

Posted by: lee | February 16, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I want to sum up a little bit of what I've been saying in a slightly more coherent post.

Essentially the point of what I've been getting at is that Clinton's campaign is centered around a claim of competence that's not well-supported. There's plenty of evidence that Barack Obama is just as good, perhaps better, at getting things done, and that his judgment is just as good as hers, perhaps better.

Obama's campaign has been about his admittedly general vision for how government should function. He essentially believes that a bad system with good people produces bad results, and that the system we have right now is a bad one.

His vision is that the system be designed so that an active electorate holds elected officials accountable for being honest and for representing everyone's interests equally. That's why his campaign finance legislation in Illinois placed a heavy emphasis on disclosure, it's why he worked on the "Google for government" bill to make government spending more transparent, it's why he wanted to work on ethics legislation in the Senate, and it's why he's placed such a heavy emphasis on organizing volunteers and getting new voters engaged.

I contrast that with Hillary, who's shown little interest in the broader flaws with the system in Washington, and who is apparently satisfied that an election with only one candidate on the ballot, or an election without campaigning, constitutes an acceptable brand of democracy.

I recognize that a vision so nebulous and broad as Obama's is easy to mistake for fluff -- especially when it's couched in very poetic language. But I think it's a mistake to underestimate Obama's intelligence or his drive, and I think many Clinton supporters are missing the fundamental idea of his candidacy.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Now that it appears that Clinton will not be a shoo-in for the nomination, her campaign wants to change the rules which were agreed to by all before the primaries and caucuses began.

The only fair way to seat the delegates at the Democratic Convention would be to rerun the primaries in both Michigan and Florida, with BOTH Clinton AND Obama on the ballot. There should be enough lead time beforehand to allow reasonable campaigning. Since the DNC created this mess, they should have to foot the bill to rerun these primaries.

Posted by: JoeMommaJr | February 16, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I believe that if Obama gets on the DNC ticket, my voice/vote will go unheard for yet another presidential term. I would vote for him, but he's untested, so I could not vote for him this go around which means the GOP might stay in the White House and that would suck.

Posted by: kgogick | February 16, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"Be prepared WI, TX & OH, to witness the Clintons descending to the darkest depths of gutter politics, a place they both call home."

Yeah, this is true. But where were all you people the first time around? How come people couldn't see this before? How big does the sign have to get before people can read the writing?

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 16, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Be prepared WI, TX & OH, to witness the Clintons descending to the darkest depths of gutter politics, a place they both call home. Their disingenuous attempt to seat the bogus delegates from FL & MI is utterly nauseating. Cheating, lying, distorting, triangulating are all second nature to the Clintons. Their arrogant sense of entitlement and ruthless determination to extend the Bush/Clinton dynasty at any cost should make all Americans turn their collective backs in disgust.

The Clintons epitomize the broken, dysfunctional status quo. For sixteen, long years they have fueled the rabid, polarizing partisan division that has crippled Washington.

Barack Obama represents the opportunity to reject the failed politics of the past and unite Americans around an uplifting, inspirational vision for the future. Those, whom have never felt a reason worth participating in the political process, are supporting Barack in record, unprecedented numbers. They have found in Barack Obama a candidate worthy of believing in. He is a man of integrity, wisdom, and compassion with the strength to take on the political machines that are determined to destroy his message of hope and unity.

Our nation is at a historic crossroad, facing enormous challenges both at home and across the world. It is time to seize this moment in history, look to the future with an optimistic, unyielding resolve and make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

Check out the phony, pandering fraud....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu9TQq0C3Ac&NR=1


Posted by: ccoblas | February 16, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Hillary folks...there is more and more mounting evidence that your candidate cares more about a "victory" than she does about the Democratic Party and making sure we have a Democratic President in the White House next November.

I am puzzled and saddened.

A friend in Ohio, an Independent who is sick of GW Bush and WANTS to vote Democratic this time (he won't tell me who he voted for in 2004, so I assume it must have been the Shrub) said -- "That is, of course, unless you guys screw it up somehow!"

Well -- this unseemly potential campaign "Deathmatch" promised by Ickes and HRC will almost guarantee a loss in November.

Now, go at me, Hillary folks. Talk about how evil I am, how I am a robot, how you won't vote for Obama because I am so horrible!

(BTW: I will vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee -- I just don't think she will win.)

It is very sad. Remember when we all used to post our criticisms of the GOP and the Bush Administration on these sites? Now, if you say your honest opinion about a cadidate's electability or election strategy, you get nasty comments directed at you that used to be directed toward Karl Rove.

What have we come to, fellow Democrats?

Posted by: rebeccajm | February 16, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

This in-party fighting saddens me (and I am an independent). I believe The Clintons behave this way because they believe they can get away with it.

Every time Bill and Hillary have done something reprehensible democratic voters have rushed to forgive them. Whether it's cattle futures, the Rose Law firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, HillaryCare or serial adultery, there has never been a shortage of democrats to rush forward as apologists to defend them and vote for them. I, along with half the country, have always distrusted them.

But it gives me no pleasure to watch this Frankenstein, created by naivety, tear the democratic party apart. I just wish they would go away, and let the country move forward. I do hope some folks now realize that where there's smoke there often is fire. It's burning us all now.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 16, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq, now she's against it. She was for removing FL and MI delegates, now against it. She was for NAFTA, and now against it. This pattern certainly tends to reinforce the image of the Clintons as spineless poll-driven milquetoasts.

Posted by: katefranklin60 | February 16, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should just take the gloves off and call Obama out for the fraud that he is.

Posted by: Digitalman08 | February 16, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

It's absolutely disgraceful that the Clintons would do anything to win despite what's best for the party!

How can the Dems continue to support anyone who brazenly deceives and manipulates the public, the media, and now the DNC!!

What a nightmare. Next time, I'll register "un-decided" - it's become far to difficult to call myself a democrat amongst sociopaths like these.

Posted by: primarywatcher | February 16, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

(email FORWARD this message to everybody on your email list -- because nobody is
going to hear about this on the TV "News")


...Guess WHO wants to SELL YOU an Obama...

Dick Cheney, Excelon, Entergy, GE, Westinghouse and 3 Consortiums
of other corporations.

...Guess HOW they are SELLING YOU an Obama ...

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS.

They're Selling Obama every day all day long ...on the TV "news" - while
pretending they're just "reporting the NEWS, as usual". NBC/MSNBC have been
so blatantly and obviously selling Obama & slamming the Clintons one of their
guest talking heads from the newspaper media (Craig Crawford) said: "I just have to say this Clinton bashing has gone so far out there it verges on insanity."

EXACTLY. Their Pro-Obama Propaganda & Clinton-bashing was so obvious,
so fake, such blatant outrageous nonsense ... it prompted me
to start looking for the reason WHY.

This is what I found:

Excelon, Entergy, Ge, Westinghouse, are planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants - Thanks to: Dick Cheney &
"The Cheney Energy Bill" - H.R.6 - passed by Congress in 2005.

No new nukes have been built in the U.S. for 30 years -because the banks
wouldn't loan money to build them - too risky. Dick Cheney's Energy Bill
solved that problem for them by specifying the Federal Government (US Taxpayers) would GUARANTEE payback of those loans.

Congress passed H.R. 6 - despite the Congressional BUDGET Office's
rating of loans to build nuclear power plants at 50% or greater Risk of default.

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. One of his largest contributors
since the beginning of his career in politics has been ... Excelon Corp.
based in his home state of Illinois; largest nuclear power plant operator
on the planet; owner of Con-Ed of New York. Excelon is planning to build some
of those 29 new nukes -along with GE & Westinghouse. (The New York Times has
published several reports about those planned nukes & a map showing the
locations of all 29 of them).

So, what's wrong with nuclear power plants? Nuclear Waste Dumps: POLLUTING
the earth with deadly radioactive waste, leaking into groundwater, tons of
plutonium particles scattered over thousands of acres in the vicinity of
Denver Colorado. Lookup Hanford Washington, Rocky Flats Colorado, Barnwell
South Carolina, and you will begin to see the dimensions of a nuclear waste
dump nightmare that has been going on for more than fifty years.

Nuclear power plants are the most expensive to build and operate. Electricity
rates are based on the COSTS of building & operating the power plant. The higher
the costs = the higher the rates they can charge the customer. Given the BILLIONS
of Taxpayer dollars the Federal Government spends supporting the nuclear industry
... the REAL Cost of nuclear power plants is astronomical.

The Cheney Energy Bill is: Cheney's Big Monopoly Energy RIPOFF #3 - waiting in the wings
....IF... either McCain or Obama is elected.

They don't want Hillary Clinton to be President; they are selling Obama & slamming her on TV every day because she voted NO on the Cheney Energy Bill & she said her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.

AFTER, Cheney's Big Energy RIPOFF #1: Enron and Cheney's Big Energy RIPOFF #2: Oil/War/Profiteering in Iraq

...WE cannot afford Cheney's Big Energy RIPOFF #3 ...we're worse than broke... we're going into deeper and deeper debt everyday ... they're killing the geese that lay the golden eggs -the working people cannot afford higher electricity bills, our government cannot afford to pay such high$$$ welfare for wealthy corporations.

Do Not ALLOW those people to sell your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren down the river into deeper & deeper poverty in a world with more and more nuclear waste.

Please FORWARD this message to everyone on your email list - expecially those in states with upcoming primaries - Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas are particularly important. Urge your friends to go vote in the primaries for Hillary Clinton.

Obama should not be running for President. Antoin Rezko goes on trial Feb. 25th on Federal political corruption charges including Bribery, Extortion, and Money Laundering. Obama says he has been "friends" with Rezko for 16 years. Rezko was a campaign fund raiser for Obama
since his first days in politics and was a member of Obama's campaign finance committee when Obama won his U.S. Senate seat in 2004. One of the federal charges against Rezko involves illegally extorted money that went into Obama's campaign finance coffers. Rezko's legal troubles also involve $41 million in Federal loans he obtained over a period of years to rehab
low income housing properties ... failed to rehab or maintain ... and eventually bankrupted.

The 12-person law firm Obama worked for specialized in financing low income housing; one of the law firm's partners went into business with Rezko on some of the low income properties;

Questions about Obama's involvement in, or knowledge of, Rezko's campaign finance crimes as well as his low income housing fraud will be asked of large numbers of Obama's friends, associates, and former co-employees at the law firm & something will definately be rotten in Denmark if
Obama is not also called into court to testify under oath.

Given all that hanging over his head and a trial starting right in the middle of the campaign ...the danger of all this coming to a head & blowing up in his face ... after he became the Democrat
Candidate --- resulting in the election of Another Republican President --- the danger of that happening is so great - he obviously cares nothing about his country or any of US people.

Posted by: elme13 | February 16, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

What is with the cocaine obsession? Is this any reflection on what is going on in your life? If you are a parent, then you should have some sense of redemption and compassion instead of this self righteous, sanctiminous, uncompromising, unforgiving attitude you have toward Obama's brief flirtation when he was a teenager with pot and coke.

By your standards, people like myself, a practicing immigration attorney and countless others shouldn't be allowed to have a professional life or strive for anything because we had a brief period in our life when we experimented with pot and coke. How forgiving.

I'm curious whether you voted for GWB in both 2000 and 2004 even though he admitted to being a former heavy drinker and probably did some blow in his younger years. Given the fact that you are a republican and not a democrat as you pretend to be, I am sure the answer is yes.

The fact that Senator Obama admitted in his book of his teenage brief flirtation with pot and coke is so refreshing and demonstrates that our country is growing up and is forgiving. If the republicans want to overplay this story to death as you seem to relish them to, I suspect it will miserably backfire.

He or she that is without sin shall cast the first stone.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"The Clinton family knows how to clean up a pile of Bush disaster."

Again, conflating Hillary with Bill.

If presidents were always the same as their relatives, the current administration would've known that invading Iraq would be costly and protracted, with a good chance of poor results -- the reason why Bush I stopped once Saddam had been forced out of Kuwait.

If presidents were always the same as their relatives, the current administration would have at least a half-decent record on the environment. After all, Bush I passed the 1990 Clean Air Act.

If presidents were always the same as their relatives, the current administration would've been willing to at least consider the idea that tax cuts aren't always the best solution to our problems.

The list goes on. Point is, simply sharing a last name doesn't ensure competence, even if it does give us a superficial feeling of reassurance.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was raised in the Chicago suburb or Park Ridge. At that time, the town was the personification of a solidly white upper middle class town with zero gangs, crime or social unpleasantries.

I wonder how many Black, Hispanic or Asian friends Hillary had growing up? Political expediency always reframes actual life experiences.

I only bring this thought up to counter the focus on Mr. Obama's early years. I wish a non-biased journalist would do a piece on "Hillary in Park Ridge" to see if my instincts are out of whack.

Posted by: brucehermann | February 16, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

I also hope that people have grown as tired as I have, of the Clintons trying to bend the rules as they go along. If the rule was that Michigan and Florida would not have their delegates counted, then that should be the way it is. I'm kind of glad that Ms. Clinton is showing her true colors and hope the voters are paying attention. Icke is a part of the Clinton years, that I would prefer to forget. I hope to see Obama (the candidate of hope), elected as president in '08. We've had enough of the Clintons and their negative politics.

Posted by: babsf342 | February 16, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Harold Ickes is flat wrong about the press inventing the term 'superdelegate'.

Here's the NYT, 4/20/88:

''It's nothing to do with Jackson,'' said Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. ''Why do we have to get committed? That's one of the things I thought superdelegates were supposed to be for, to keep a balance and have a say in the convention.''

Representative Tony Coelho of California said: ''The superdelegates are in a mood to support someone who will win. It's all about who is winning, who has the Presidential imprimatur on him.''

Were Tony Coelho and Lloyd Bentsen the 4th estate or the Democratic establishment? The Clinton camp can invent all the explanation and new words they want they want -- that doesn't mean the press has to parrot their nonsense.

Posted by: jamusco | February 16, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Such hyprocasy. The rules are no longer rules; they are flexible. Obama didn't put his name on the ballot, didn't show up at the last bell to campaign. Now HRC wants to change the rules. How unlike her to be devious and duplicitous.

Posted by: irishorse | February 16, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

I think that Hillary will one day be remembered as one of America's greatest Presidents. Having said that, I must also say that I believe that (one day) Obama will too do great things for our country and the world. The big problem that I have is this; Bush has totally screwed up this country as well as planet earth. The Clinton family knows how to clean up a pile of Bush disaster.
Obama would be best in place as VP to Hillary, then step up to President another day. They would make a great team. Please Mr. Obama, let your ego go for now, otherwise we will have President McCain to answer to and his "100 year war". America is on the verge of amazing history...a woman president and a black president! HOLY COW!

Posted by: ttmjcij | February 16, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Party's vision for Democracy:

1. 48 United States of America. The other two are not that important - one only has a little over 18 million people, just a little over 1.6 million Democrats have already voted; the other even smaller only a little over 10 million people living there, and just 700,000 Democrats actually voted.

(How do you honestly have a nominee without the input of people from these two states? How do you say to the people who took time off and went to the polls?)

2. All super delegates must follow their districts vote except John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

(Why do we even have these super delegates then if they should automatically follow the popular votes?)

3. We shall nominate a candidate representing us who is defeated in California, Floria, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and likely Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania.

Posted by: jsindc | February 16, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

irwin, I don't dispute that much of the legislative process involves tweaking bills and adding amendments. But Clinton's time in the Senate is not marked by major accomplishments, nor is there any evidence of a broader vision for what government should be like.

Sure, she had some power during the Clinton administration, and she chose to do things with it. But was she successful? Did she show good judgment? What policy stances did she advocate? Who has any clue?

The claims that she was such a successful adviser would be much more convincing if they came from anyone other than the same people who are trying to ride her to get back in the White House -- chief among them Bill, who has a knack for creativity in his recollections. Her claims to experience would also make a lot more sense if she'd, say, had any security clearances, or participated in formal meetings, or generally held the actual responsibility for making decisions -- or if she had a better reputation for telling the truth.

(Watch here for an amusing example of her blowing her White House experience out of proportion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs )

But working hard and having power are not the same things as making good use of power. Dick Cheney works hard, has experience, and seems very knowledgeable. Yet we all know that he'd make a bad president, mostly because we see that he has a horrific track record on giving advice to the president. Problem is, if we couldn't see what he'd actually advocated for and how those things turned out, it would be awfully hard to argue that he wouldn't be a formidable presidential candidate. Same thing with Hillary; until we see what she's actually been fighting for, it's awfully hard to judge how good her judgment has been.

But I will tell you what we do have a record of. We know that she was fully entrusted with the project of getting universal health care. And she failed, in the biggest disaster of the Clinton presidency. We know that she was given a free hand with Justice appointments, and that she advocated for the selections of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood. We know that she was behind the bumbled travel office firings. In the Senate, we know that she stood for the Iraq war, and continued to support it until 2005. We know that she voted for the bankruptcy bill. We know that she's badly mismanaged her campaign's finances, and that the campaign manager she hired wasn't even comfortable enough to tell her that the money was running low.

Look, we all know she works hard, and that she likes to get all the details. But it's very important that working hard adds up to real accomplishments and good decisions. There's just too little record that she's made good decisions -- and too much record that she's made bad ones -- for me to accept the line that she'd do a good job.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RichardMiller333 | February 16, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

mehadim says... "Clintons are the best thing ever happened to America. It's sad how people forget so fast the best 8 years of American economy and world peace". You're right, I forgot how peaceful it was in the Balkans, Rwanda and Somalia. Not to mention Waco. Let's direct this conversation back to policies rather than hyperbole.

Posted by: twofeathers50 | February 16, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

If you stand for nothing , you'll fall for anything.


NOBAMA 2008

Posted by: cleocat | February 16, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

HRC how do you spell President?

O-b-a-m-a

Posted by: msmithnv | February 16, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Dean: My phone's been ringing off the hook with calls from the DNC. I'm waiting to see if you're going to change the rules for the Clintons before I ever contribute again. I think you've been subject to arm-twisting by backers of Bill and Hill not so long ago, so I expect you can withstand the pressure. My candidate, John Edwards, is out, but you'll see a lot of us old-timers finally walking away from the party for good if we feel another Presidential election is fixed.

Posted by: maddiegroves | February 16, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

This is what you get from Nice Talker cashing on Musical Tune. Uniter is TRUE divider (This just a sample). BHO started 3rd world politics - based on Tribe Mob emotional cliff leaders.
Unmask Nice Talker. Now first semester freshman may be awarded Graduate Degree based on 1 month grade. What is Nice Musical talk.
All the way Osama and Saddam Hussein (re-spirited) laughing on America's Dem party.

Vikrant

Posted by: vikrantbindal | February 16, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

1.7 million Floridians voted in the Democratic primary.

Senator Obama says those votes count for nothing.

If I didn't know what a righteous guy he is, I might think Obama was an ambitious, unethical, old-school pol.

But then he learned his politics in Chicago.

Posted by: WylieD | February 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

All the way to hell, Hillary! The bloody, anti-Semitic, Anti Negros, etc., murderous creature belongs to straight jacket or much better to death row. That is why she would not concede even on 3/4/08 after she would undoubtedly lose four more states. Criminals belong to justice, not to the convention's nomination what she is trying to get ILLEGALLY!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Exciting Times!!

What Obama means by "Change" -- Google this - Obama Liberation Theology

Then Vote

Obama's public statements, his speeches, even his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature leave one dangerously unsure of his true intentions.

Whatever Obama's concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In the absence of any genuine explanations from candidate Obama himself, the change of which he speaks reasonably may be inferred to be quite antithetical to anything even remotely resembling American patriotism.

And that is a legitimate concern for every American voter.

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 16, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

It seems the one thing Senatory Clinton keeps returning to is her experience v. Senator Obama. What experience exactly? Her one term is not significantly longer than Obama's. Abraham Lincoln had one term in the House by comparison; none in the executive. Clinton has experience on the board of Walmart and other corporate boards and a couple of non-profits, none of which has anything to do with running a country (unless you want the country run like a corporation and I know some would, but a democracy is not a corporation and corporate America is only democratic in terms of shares and shareholders, not the rank and file).

That leaves a failed health care effort which was cut the mold for Dick Cheney and energy policy in the way he later pursued the process of policymaking, and the claim she won't and can't utter aloud - I am Bill Clinton's wife. If she is standing on her foreign policy experience in the Senate; she stands on voting to enable the worst foreign policy mistake in the past century. On immigration policy, do any of you remember Operation Gatekeeper - the Clinton attempt to seal the border in 1994? Or the ADPEA following Oklahoma City which was more about depriving death row prisoners (and thus all of us, ultimately) of rights to appeal under habaeus corpus?

How long do you think it will take if she wins office, for her to mount a military operation to prove she's "as tough as any man," much like Margaret Thatcher or Indira Ghandi? We will elect a woman one of these days and I will vote with joy for the right woman. Hillary Clinton is not the right woman for the job. She has proved in both Senate speeches and votes and her actions in the White House that her administration would look a lot like a hybrid of the worst of the Bill Clinton years and the Bush years. I'll take my chances Obama.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 16, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

How many women do you know that wear sleeveless dresses in the dead of winter? And wear a bouffant hairdo and a little string of fake pearls around their neck. When Jackie Kennedy did this, it was spring and summer, not blasting cold winter like we have had all of the primary states. I was watching Michelle aka Jackie on Larry King this week and while I was listening to her, I felt a vague familiar feeling and I couldn't put my finger on it. Then it struck me, she is purposely striking a Jackie look. It's visual manulipation, no words need to be said. Whoever is doing her over make sure to tell her to wear spanks too. By the way she was right, her husband's campaign did catch fire when black people woke up. Go Hillary, if we're going to be manulipated, at least it's out there and not an underhanded marketing ploy.

Posted by: rosies95 | February 16, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

No, I'm a Democrat and want to see Democrats win.

Republicans are chomping at the bit about Obama repeated hard drug use.

Repeated use of cocaine cannot and should not be swept under the rug.

The more I think about it, the more angry it makes me as a parent.

The fact that he "got away with it" doesn't change the fact that its a Felony.

That's not acceptable to this parent.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have won the election. All the Obama talk of bringing us together is negated by the onslaught of namecalling by his supporters. Comments such as the one posted by amc7150 that--"Obama voters are sick of Clinton voters because they are being bought by Billery and Hillary. Stupid people don't even know when they are being USED. Wake up stupid people - YOU'RE BEING SUCKERED INTO THE CLINTON'S handbag"--only divide the party.

I'm in a predominantly Republican region and they're all cheering for Obama and his supporters. These are the same people who listen to Fox News. Many of them voted for Obama in the primary but are McCain contributors. The clever Republicans have beaten us again!

Posted by: wcowan1 | February 16, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I think a lot of the outrageous anti-Obama stuff is placed here by Republican dirty tricks people. That's their style. Ignore them. Folks like SVreader say they "used to be Republicans," then say they're "longtime Democrats." Can't even get their stories straight. Don't let these skeeves disrail the process.

Posted by: edwcorey | February 16, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

If we nominate Obama, what do we say to everyone rotting in jail on cocaine charges?

We take away Felons right to vote.

How can we be thinking of electing one President?

The only difference between Obama and those people rotting in jail is that Obama didn't get caught.

How can we justify such a double standard?

Obama used cocaine repeatedly.

He says so in his book.

What are we supposed to say to our kids???

This is not a small issue.

We're talking about repeated use of "hard drugs"

A a parent, I couid never vote for Obama.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Svreader,

Bill Clinton lied under oath while president and has been disbarred and Hillary Clinton lied to investigators about the whereabouts of documents required to be produced by her in connection with the Whitewater investigation.

Please, tell us more about Rezko, the man Hillary and Bill had their picture taken with and while you are at it, please tell us more about Norman Hsu, Marc Rich and the MacDougals, for starters.

Why can't you respond to my post asking Hillary supporters to provide a list of her "accomplishments" rather than continuing to make inane baseless assertions?

Posted by: KAM3 | February 16, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

AMEN, jovitman! Again, I too have to point out that we are all Dems here. And, the views of a handful of poeple bickering on these blogs do not represent the overwhelming sentiment of America. We all have different views dictated by any number of reasons. But at the end of the day, Americans will vote for the Dem nominee. I already had my chance (I live in MD), and many of us have already. At this point, spewing venom is such a waste of energy. Lets let WI, HI, OH, TX, PA, OR, NC, etc. have their say. Either HRC or BHO will win, and we will ALL need to rally behing him or her in November.

Posted by: hikaya | February 16, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

I think what is upsetting about Ickes is that he appears to be willing to say anything so long as it furthers his presnet agenda. The voters in all states should have their votes count, whether in a primary or any other election. Rules that disenfranchise voters are counter American values, and should be changed. We should do away with the electoral college and the superdelegates. We should have the same voting methods and rules in every state and every district.

The problem is that we have a mishmash of inconsisent rules and equipment, so many voters feel like their vote doesn't matter at all. I live in California, a state that is virtually guaranteed to vote democratic in the presidential election, so it makes no difference in the outcome of the presidential election whether any more than 50% of the democrats vote. However if we are going to have these crazy rules then at least the candidates and voters need to know in advance what the rules are. If I lived in Florida I suspect I may not have voted in the democratic primary since I knew my vote wouldn't get and delegates. The results of the vote in Florida cannot be considered to truely reflect the wishes of Florida democrats because they went to the poles (or decided not to ) with the knowledge that their vote would get no delegates.

Posted by: bjuhasz | February 16, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

The Felony issue will come back to bite Obama, hard.

He, by his own admission, is guilty of multiple Felonys.

Cocaine is not Pot.

Anyone who has kids knows the difference and where the line has to be drawn.

"Mom, the President did Cocaine, why can't I?"

Is not going to go away.

Republicans are chomping at the bit to face Obama because they know they can beat him.

Bill Kristol isn't going to vote for Obama.

When he tells you to, its worth thinking twice about his motives.

Republicans will burry Obama under his Rezko TV lies and his repeated drug use.

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

You can win a primary or an election but you have to make a choice.

Obama is toast against McCain.

Hillary is the only candidate that can beat McCain, even if the Republicans pull a last-minute terrorist alert.

If they do that, and Obama is running, Democrats are toast.


Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Irwin,

Please - trying to equate her and Chelsea's goodwill missions abroad as constituting the "experience" necessary to be president is a complete joke. Also, how does someone with negative ratings of almost 50% before she is president "forge consensus"?

Provide a list of her (not Bill's) "accomplishments" when she served as first lady of Arkansas and the United States.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 16, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N

Team Clinton is bordering on an all-out meltdown and they are grasping at straws right and left.

Posted by: gthstonesman | February 16, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

badger3: It's sad what is transpiring here. Both sides firing verbal volleys at each other. I think it is a manifestation of pent up frustration of 7 years of the disaster that has been the GWB administration. As a result, any perceived slight either Senator Obama's side or Senator's Clinton's side feels gets blown out of proportion.

At the end of the day, the party elders will do the right thing and ultimately select the nominee that reflects the will of the voter based on pledged delegates, popular vote and states won. Then, I really hope we unite. The ad hominen attacks by both sides are ill served and ill considered.

Again, may I remind everyone for the upteenth time, what is at stake in this election. The U.S. Supreme Court is at stake and we can't afford a republican to put more Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts clones on the court.

I will happily support either candidate for the election over Senator, (I owe the far right my life now that I have been elected) McCain.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama voters are sick of Clinton voters because they are being bought by Billery and Hillary. Stupid people don't even know when they are being USED. Wake up stupid people - YOU'RE BEING SUCKERED INTO THE CLINTON'S handbag.

Posted by: amc7150 | February 16, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

davestickler: you know I've had this conversation before with another Obama supporters. I don't know where you get your information from, but perhaps you might want to look farther than the Obama web promotion sites. All too often Obama's "supporting" a bill gets mixed up with his supposedly "authoring" one.

Just to be clear: both Obama and Clinton did most of their legislative work on the committees, not in authoring bills. It is in the committee, by the way, where the finetuning and the bi-partisan work gets done. And Hillary has earned the respect and the trust of major Republicans because of her diligence in this area. She has not reached for the limelight and the symbolic bills, she has worked in the trenches forging consesus for legislation that affects actual people's lives. That is how you get health care bills passed that actually have teeth, rather than government-change bills that are nothing but a symbolic slap on the wrist to lobby interests.

But, by all means, give Obama credit for all of the bills that passed because of his vote in their support. With his 16% absentee rate from voting in the US Senate, and his PRESENT cop out on key controversial votes like taking a stand on principle (RvW) in the IL Congress, let's see how well he stands up.

In the end, Obama is a symbol guy. He chose to focus, not on legislation that affected peoples lives, but on stuff that was about politics itslef.

Okay, that's his choice, so be it...

But if that was what he really thought was important and if that is what he thought he needed to get done in order to prepare him for the job of running the country...

(while Clinton focused on legislation like Veteran's health care, Children's health care and security, minimum wage increases for the poor, and the need for safe schools... while she spent much of her time working on the Armed Services Committee, working to understand the issues that face the military so that she would be prepared to understand how to best address these wars should she be elected president)

... as you say, though, if these were major pieces of legislation versus her focus, i.e. if cleaning up Washington and getting money influence out of politics really was so very important to him, then you tell me:

Why is he now trying to back his way out of the electoral reform's public funding clause for the general election, being as he is so flush with cash suddenly?

I'm just asking....

And, because I can't let you get away with that final paragraph, yes: I think Clinton is by far and away more experienced in terms of government and policy. Not only has she been working to understand how to forge consensus on legislation that has more than a symbolic impact, but (your absolutely sexist comment aside), she was a key advisor in Bill Clinton's administration, she worked as a diplomat for the country on a hundred foriegn missions, and held a portfolio of duties that were not only key to the administrative agenda, they basically added up to the level a cabinet memeber usually plays.

"Anathema!" the republicans and the sexists cried at the time. How dare the little lady work in the Administration... she was supposed to be surving lunches and picking out cocktail napkins!

I suppose Bobby Kennedy was just riding on Jack's coat tails too. And Teddy who endorsed your guy... yeah, he was a self made man.

Sorry Dave: Bill Clinton said they were equal partners. She was part of that administration and the only people it bothered are people like you. People who think women who are married must automatically somehow play support and can't be part of the real game.

Heaven forbid if (like Bobby Kennedy) she might be qualified and intelligent enough to actually help the government's agenda.

Heaven forbid she take credit for that on her own account the way, say, any other advisor to the President might.

Heaven forbid a woman, who is married, might actually impress people, herself, despite her husband and his own flaws.

Did you know that a vast number of foreign leaders who met the Clintons at various functions felt, after talking to her, that Hillary was the brains of that duo, and that they were surprised she was not the one who was president?

Yeah, let's write off her experience. As a wife her only experience must have been... well... wifey.

You guys would crack me up, if I didn't find your attitude so depressing most of the time.

Posted by: irwin | February 16, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

People need to remember what we are here for, we are here to make sure that Republicans who brought war and recession to this country do not win.

mggrenkov - would it really be that much better to elect a Democrat who brought war and recession to this country? Let the record speak for itself! OBAMA '08

Posted by: diksagev | February 16, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

svreader and lowatreasures

Haven't u2 figured out nobody is buying your lies?

See, this is a perfect example of how out of touch with realities you guys are:

"At a recent gathering of Israel supporters, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said that Joe Lieberman was John McCain's top choice for a running mate.."

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 16, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: johnL1

"how are Obama's pledging to accept public financing in the general election, then going back on that when the situation changes (he starts raking in money) any different from Clinton pledging to not support sitting Florida and Michigan delegates then going back on that when the siteuation changes (the election is in doubt)??"

Obama didn't pledge to take public financing. He pledged to agree, if the other side agreed. In this very same newspaper, it is reported that McCain, who has charged Obama with reneging, put up his public financing as collateral on a loan from his bank to finance his flagging campaign. That's sneaky. The guy painted himself into a corner. Should Obama help him out? That would be as idiotic as your charge is uninformed. What I see is that Hillary supporters are more against Obama than they are for Hillary, whereas Obama supporters are more for Obama than they are against Hillary.

Posted by: edwcorey | February 16, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Can a Hillary supporter actually provide a list of Hillary's "accomplishments" as first lady of the United States or Arkansas? And I don't mean Bill Clinton's accomplishments but things that she actually spear-headed and was primarily responsible for driving to a successful conclusion. Several that come to mind is her 2000/2006 Senate campaigns.

I have asked many Hillary supporters this question and no one has been able to adequately furnish an answer. This question bears on the validty her "35 years of experience" claim.

Also, can a Hillary supporter provide a list of instances in which Hillary has shown good judgment? Again, not Bill's judgment, but her own.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 16, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

The woman even has to steal votes in her own backyard.


"Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

"a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly -- and unofficially -- on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city."


Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 16, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

THINKER, think again! Obama is not "leading the country" in that picture. He's not governing. And you know damn well Hillary and McCain are on record as bigger believers in cosmic intervention than Obama. I'm calling your bluff.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 16, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Funny how all the Clintonbots mindlessly parrot the propaganda talking points.

For instance, they claim McCain will beat Obama but not HillBilly. Yet all evidence proves it is Obama who can beat McCain, while HillBilly is questionable at best when matched against McCain.

The Hillbillies speak with forked tongue, again.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 16, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have already won the election. I'm a life-long, hard-core, contributing member of the Democratic Party and I've come to terms with McCain as our next president. I agree with Iowa Treasures (gw) when she says: "Haven't you noticed how often [Obama] says he can bring in Republicans and Independents to our side? Obama says he will unite and bring hope, but look at how fractured our own Democratic party has become."

Yes, I've noticed it, and I hear more and more long-time Democrats say that they're ready to vote Republican. Also, I've heard my Republican friends laughing about voting for Obama in the primary. The Republicans have outsmarted us again, and they were able to pull it off early without stealing Florida or any other maneuvers. Impressive!

Posted by: wcowan1 | February 16, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

It really bothers me how Obama tries to "fix" the election.

Today, the media says that Obama has been contributing money to the super delegate's future campaigns. Then he tries to pressure them into using their super delegate vote for him.

To me, that is like people in Washington doing the same old thing and expecting a different result.

In a Washington Post board recently, the writer said that Obama was working with a corporation trying to word legislation that was favorable to that Nuclear Plant corporation - the Corporation didn't donate any money to Obama's campaign, but the CEO donated $160,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and had donated money in 2004 to his senate campaign.

Obama sure talks a lot about being against the "insiders in Washington," the "fat cats" in Washington, and he is no different himself. Obama has, since he was in the U.S. senate purchased $44,000 worth of investments in some companies with relationships with Rezko.

Obama also said, when asked how he could accept donations from drug companies, when he rails about lobbyists of drug companies, and in his usualy dishonest rhetoric said, Oh, they were donations from the employees, not the Drug Company. Now, we all know how that works, don't we? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 16, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons don't care if they destroy the Democratic party to get the nomination. They make Dick Cheney look like the Tooth Fairy.

Posted by: Holcombe1 | February 16, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Exciting Times!!

What Obama means by "Change" -- Google this - Obama Liberation Theology

Then Vote

Obama's public statements, his speeches, even his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature leave one dangerously unsure of his true intentions.

Whatever Obama's concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In the absence of any genuine explanations from candidate Obama himself, the change of which he speaks reasonably may be inferred to be quite antithetical to anything even remotely resembling American patriotism.

And that is a legitimate concern for every American voter.

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it: . . the media has gotten their marching orders. Obama is to be the Democratic nominee so McCain can beat him in November. . . . Every time Hillary sneezes, she's a loser, but Obama can pass gas and he's a winner. Obama is a walking race card, but let Bill Clinton say that Obama's campaign is a lot like Jessie Jackson's because Obama drew 80% of the black vote, and the press hammers and hammers and hammers and hammers on him for being a bigot. . . . . Hillary has four times the understanding and experience than Obama; her health care plan is more of a change than Obama's, but Obama is the change candidate. . . . It's crazy but whose driving the media???????????

Posted by: coldcomfort | February 16, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton was handed two of the greatest opportunities ever: Universal Health Care in 1993, and serious presidential candidate for 2008 election. Her "experienced" record is telling. She failed both even though she was given a huge advantages in both. That is her record of leadership ability. She didn't. She can't. She won't!

Posted by: infuse | February 16, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Sarasotan - let me help you out.

This Democrat will not stand for an extension of the Bush/Clinton Axis from its current 28 years, on up to 32 or 36 years.

Enough is way more than enough.

When Barbara Bush is comfortable calling Bill Clinton "one of her sons" - there's something rotten to the core of our democracy.

Posted by: Brentmack | February 16, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Will the nastiness of the Clintons ever stop?

Here's yet another story of Bill Clinton lying about Obama. This time it's about a completely irrelevant topic, unless you consider illogical and uncivil character assignation a relevant election campaign topic:

'Former President Clinton on Friday accused Sen. Barack Obama, his wife's rival for the Democratic nomination, of trying to ignore any accomplishments they achieved during their years in the White House'

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/16/bill-clinton-obamas-ignoring-my-white-house-legacy/

Oh boo hoo! So Bill, am I to gather that we should not vote for Obama because he doesn't give you enough praise even though he is running against your wife (and you)?

How nasty and pathetic is that? Coming from the Clinton campaign, I smell desperation, and fear.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 16, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

If "superdelegates" suggests something from outer space to Mr. Ickes, it's only because he believes in superman not Democrats. Automatic delegates, on the other hand, legitimately suggests the entitlement that his candidate stands accused of believing she has - first from Democrats, now from Hispanics. Reducing Democrats to demographics is wishful thinking if not offensive and it plays to the perception that Hillary is calculating. The word "fight" is revealing of Ickes , a White House leftover Hillary is too Bushlike to fire. Her campaign is in disarray owing to her Bushlike tendencies described in this week's NewYorker.com, which cites Obama's campaign as one run perfectfully.
That decidedly marks Obama as the better choice for nominee.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 16, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Go to this link and tell me... do you want a President who is going to rock back and forth with other polilticians while leading the country? Is this going to represent and respect the separation of Church and State? Aren't we just getting rid of a Bible pounding guy who thought God sent him here to save us and attack Iraq... ? Heaven, really help us. God save the Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203184523-ZqbJ/LLABRR1FhuQ6Gx3ew

Posted by: Thinker | February 16, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Is Carl Rove advising the Obama campaign? Why is it that anyone who does not support him is immediately subjected to an onslaught of name calling? Like I said, it is strangely reminiscent of Bush 2004!

Posted by: sarasotan | February 16, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters have lots of reasons why we shouldn't vote for Obama: Republicans will eat him alive; he's a Muslim; he attends the wrong church; his speeches are too good.


I'm still waiting for them to tell us why we should vote for Hillary, especially after she's proved her incompetence by running her campaign with Bush-like precision!

Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | February 16, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Dem on Dem violence is pure stupidity. I've engaged in it myself, but no more. There is a bigger cause and I will happily support whichever candidate gets the democratic nod, provided the winner is determined fairly.

Posted by: staxnet | February 16, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

SV, you're right. The act Davestickler is referring to is modeled after the Nun-Lugar Nuclear Proliferation Act, but is noteworthy nonetheless. Here is a bit of information about it:

Lugar-Obama Bill to Keep Weapons Out of Terrorists' Hands Heads to Senate Floor
Bipartisan Effort Focuses on Antiaircraft Missiles, Stolen WMDs and Conventional Weapons used in Improvised Roadside Bombs

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee today passed out of committee, S. 2566, the Lugar-Obama Act. Modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, the bill was introduced by Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) to expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.

Lugar-Obama would expand the detection and interdiction of weapons and materials of mass destruction.

But seriously, whether you back Clinton or Obama now, we as dems all need to vote Dem in November. If not, McCain will surely put three very conservative justices on the S.Ct. If you think the Bush admin's efforts to block environmental progress or ususry laws at the state level (to name a few) are bad now, it will be tremedously worse with the backing of the Supreme Court. As a lawyer, I know how damaging that will be. We can't let that happen.

So please people. When this is all said and done, we must put aside our strong feelings and unite in November. Just sayin...

Posted by: hikaya | February 16, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

svReader - You sure have caused a stir on this board.

I didn't see you on the Charles Krauthammer board yesterday. It was awesome. Over 800 comments when I went to bed.

I wish I could find your comment, could you bring it forward so I could find it?

I have a new thing I rail about. I have noticed that what Obama talks about on the stump and in his books is, "Me, Me, Me," and not "We, We, We."

Also I have noticed the media tried to tell us how scary Obama was way back in March, 2007 - we just weren't listening then, I guess. He is now getting some vetting, even from the media, occasionally.

Between the articles on Google, Trinity Church/Obama, and the things the media are now saying, they are saying: "Obama is "scary," Obama is "cult-like," - even Bob Dole said "cult-like," and they say Obama is like that Jone's preacher who mesmerized people and they turned all of their money and their children to him, and followed him to their graves - a very tragic story, they are now saying Obama is trying to "fix" the election, that he writes memos to the media every day, and makes phone calls every day telling them what they can say and what they can't say.

Things are turning around. Obama will get his due. He can't destroy the Democratic Party the way he is doing now, and then have any credibility when he says he is a "uniter, not a divider."

The Democratic party has never been so divided. Obama has set the civil rights movement back 75 years, before the progress that MLK and LBJ made in the 60's.

Obama is a security threat to our country, with friends like REzko, and REv Wright and that anti-Israel church.

People can go to Google and look up Trinity Church/Obama, "divestment," Obama/REzko, etc. They don't have to believe me, but if they want our country to be safe, they will research and read and quit following Obama like he is the second coming of Christ. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 16, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

people- gandalfthegrey pointed out:

Votes in Virginia Primary:
McCain = 244,135
Clinton = 347,252

Obama = 623,141
translation VA is a swing state obama will carry in november- here are some more-

GA primary

mccain = 303,000 approx
HRC = 328,000

obama = 700,000

AL primary
mccain = 211,600
HRC = 226,500

obama =303,000

in these states D votes outnumber R votes.
obama makes theses states swing states and carries other swing states like MO, CO and makes KS a swing state. HRC does not do this-- and the democratic pary superdelegates have/will notice.

people get onboard w/obama.


Posted by: jacade | February 16, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

svreader, give it up and stop wasting our time with your drivel. No voter would trust or believe any candidate who claims to not have experimented with recreational drugs at some point in their young adult lives.

Personally, I believe that all laws restricting or outlawing the use of any drug is unconstitutional. Why would we need a Constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol but not for any other drug?

Besides, Obama is kicking HillBilly butt in the primaries and gets several dollars in campaign contributions for every one dollar HillBilly gets, so past recreational drug use is not an issue.

It's all part of growing up. Why don't you join us? Now go out and get high for once in your life.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 16, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is bloated with hot air on what she can accomplish on day one. The wheels are falling off her campaign wagon. If she can't manage a successful campaign that started with every advantage possible, then we soon realize there's not any hope she's ready at all, let alone day one!

Posted by: infuse | February 16, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse


Mr. Obama soaks the Wisconsin airwaves - but he's a new kind of candidate!???

He soaks those Wisconsin airwaves via dollars he owes back to many people for many things.

But he's a different kind of candidate????

Right. And I know a bridge in Brooklyn that is just right for his supporters.

I seems he thinks voters should just hear the sound of his (JFK and MLK channeled) voice and "DRINK THE KOOLAID"!

Give me a break. And, while you're at it, give me some grown ups.
Are there any grown ups in the audience?
I sure hope so - because Hillary is a grown up WITH SPECIFIC POLICIES who is ready to lead ON DAY ONE.

This is what Obama said about policies today: (Reuters news piece)
POLICIES AREN'T IMPORTANT

Mr. Obama proclaimed: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE POLICIES

"The question is not who has got the policies," Obama said at a rally in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. "The question is who can get them done, who can bring people together."

Hello???? Hello??? Hello, Mr. Obama???? I don't think you have that correct
Mr. Obama. I'm afraid you are going to get a very poor grade on this test.

The American people are highly intelligent and DO KNOW , even if you do not, that the MOST IMPORTANT question is WHO HAS THE POLICIES we need. Is this your rebuttal answer to your Xeroxing problem with Hillary's policies?

To answer your next statement: Yes, who can get them done?

Do we think a first term, two years in DC Junior Senator from the weakest Republican district in Illinois can get things done? Not without a lot of help and a lot of beholden from lots of people in lots of places for lots of things and endorsements and the lots and lots of money they've been giving you. So much for the voice of the people.

Yes - we do think the question is who has got the policies. That's why we've even been listening Mr. Xerox.

That was a real loser of a statement and argument. Poor excuse for no policies of your own. And rather an admission.

Posted by: Thinker | February 16, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win it by himself and if Obama and Hillary get defeated then Hillary will lose her senate seat. So the only solution is to put Bill Clinton on the ticket as Veep. Barack/Bill -- that dog will hunt.

Posted by: blasmaic | February 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Lets give credit were credit is due.

Obama did cocaine so many times he doens't even bother to count.

McCain will tear him to pieces over it.

Cocaine isn't pot.

Its a FELONY!!!

The fact he didn't get caught doesn't change that!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

davestickler --

What are you smoking? Its called Nun-Lugar, not Obama-?

He's not even in the name.

What's next giving him credit for winning WWII?

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

kevinschmidt, I second your observation; not only Billary, but their various toadies, henches, lackeys, stooges, tokens, and surrogates of varying stripes (i.e., Sheehan, Rendell, and Bob "BET Pimp" Johnson). Let us not forget Andrew Young, either. Fine examples of deportment and fair play - NOT!

Posted by: meldupree | February 16, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

irwin, the fantasy is that Clinton is more of a "doer" than Obama. If you'd like some substance, here it is:

In the Senate, Obama passed the Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Act that helps lock up loose nuclear and conventional weapons. He wrote and passed the Coburn-Obama Transparency Bill, also known as "Google for Government". He's passed legislation to start preparations for an avian flu epidemic when he found that the government wasn't planning for it. Yes, he worked on and passed the ethics bill.

Compare that with the zero -- zero! -- pieces of major legislation that Hillary Clinton has authored in her seven years in the Senate.

In Illinois, he worked across party lines, against initial opposition in the legislature, governor's mansion, and among the police, to make criminal justice reforms that all three ended up supporting. He wrote and passed the most major campaign finance and ethics reform Illinois has seen in decades. He expanded health care access to over 100,000 new people, expanded the child care credit, and wrote and passed earned income tax credit legislation to make sure that anyone with a job could make a living.

Let's compare how smart the two candidates are. Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, arguably the most prestigious position a law student can hold, and one of his old professors called him one of the two most brilliant students to come through Harvard Law in the last few decades. Hillary Clinton finished close to the bottom of her class at Yale, and failed the bar exam on the first try.

These are facts. Whenever they've held comparable positions, Obama has performed better and has accomplished more. I know it's a little harsh on Hillary, but it's the truth. And it's borne out in the way this campaign is unfolding, as Obama has managed and organized his campaign significantly better than Hillary has with hers.

Point is, if you look at their records in terms of who's had cooler job titles, you'd think Hillary was the better candidate. But that's not really a fair comparison when one of the candidates has gotten access to a lot of power because of her marriage to a terrifically talented politician like Bill Clinton.

If you look in terms of who's actually performed better in the same jobs, I don't think you can make an argument that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than Barack Obama. I'm sorry.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"I'm as hard-core a Democrat as you can find, but I will vote for McCain over Obama if he's the one on the Democratic Ticket.

"Congratulations, Obama supporters, you've completely, totally and utterly pissed off 1/2 of the Democratic Party."

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 07:05 PM

svreader, (sigh). You are a sad person. Period.

Posted by: meldupree | February 16, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Clinton sees handwriting, tucks tail and bolts from Wisconsin day early.

www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=2/16/2008&id=35716

Posted by: infuse | February 16, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

So what's your point audart, don't vote for Obama because of an imaginary perceived trend of nasty comments coming from Obama supporters?

Meanwhile, HillBilly her/himself is engaging in a very real trend of nasty comments, ridiculous lies and mud slinging directed at Obama:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/clinton-goes-all-out-negative-in-new-ad/

'Bill Burton, the spokesman for the Obama campaign, emailed us this reply: "We've had 18 debates and we're scheduled for even more. Clinton appears to enjoy debating so much that she has engaged a quite vigorous debate with her own record of supporting NAFTA."'

Clinton wins the nasty award over Obama supporters.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 16, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

The Florida delegates should not be seated unless there is some form of "do-over", be it a primary or a caucus.

As a Florida Dem voter, I can say what noone else is saying, namely that for months before election day all of the local news stations were doing news stories about how the Democratic ballot was not going to "count", and how useless it was to vote.

The Florida Democratic delegates therefore should not be seated because Florida DID NOT have a fair say...with all of the press reinforcing the rule that the votes would not count, there is no way to know how many voters did not attend because they KNEW that the vote was not going to count.

Furthermore, some have commented about the high turnout during the Florida election but few acknowledge that also on the ballot was Amendment 1, a very important amendement dealing with property tax reform--which is an issue hurting many Floridians in this down real estate market, so the high turnout probably had as much to do with people wanting to vote on Amendment 1 as for the dem ticket.

So "Why Not Count Florida?"...because its the only election I've ever heard of that was held even though it was not supposed to count, and if it is counted there is no way to know how many did not vote because of their REASONABLE RELIANCE on the Democratice Party rules saying that it would not count.

Fair is Fair. Let's have some caucuses!!!

Posted by: dazedinla | February 16, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I apologize. For some reason the URLs I provided don't go directly to the candidates' video interviews. Instead, google the following:

candidates@google clinton
candidates@google obama

That should get you better results. Again, I urge everyone, no matter whom they support, to watch both interviews from start to finish. If you're really serious about wanting detail from the candidates, here's your opportunity.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 16, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

To: Jovitman...( : appreciated and accepted.

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

I think people are catching on, including the media.

Actually, we bash the media, but the media tried to tell us about Obama in March, 2007. See Google, Trinity Church/Obama.


Some said Obama was "scary," now they say that Obama is "cult-like," and "Pastor Jimmy Jones-like" - you know, the guy that mesmerized people and they followed him to their graves. The media agreed that the church Obama goes to is anti-Israel and preaches its doctrine, which is about separatism, to the "black homes, black schools, black churches . . ."

Don't tell me you believe Obama when he says he is a Christian and goes to a Christian Church and has for 20 years. The radical, pro-black, anti-Israel Trinity
Church is that church.

Michelle and Barack Obama were married in that church. Obama had an office for years in that Trinity Church, where he did his "community organizing" work. Obama took the title from Rev. Wright, pastor of the Trinity Church, "Audacity of Hope," from that REv. Wright's book, "Audacity of Hope."

Obama may be a pathological liar, in my opinion, or he may be a normal liar. He said he only did a small amount of work for Tony Rezko (in a recent debate = you all heard him), whereas they were pals for 17 years.

Of course, some will say this is over the top, but Obama is over the top. Obama lies and will not talk to reporters, and tries to "fix" the election - probably learned a lot of that from Tony Rezko, now arrested by the FBI, awaiting trial FEb. 25th for "influence peddling - I believe something to do with the Governor of Illinoiw," and corruption charges.

Haven't you noticed how often he says he can bring in Republicans and Independents to our side. Obama says he will unite and bring {hope," but look at how fractured our own Democratic party has become.

He has set the civil rights movement back 75 years, with his race card rhetoric. Obviously, he blames it on the Clinton's, but you can bet the Clinton's wouldn't play the race card - why would they? They already were revered and loved by the black people.

Even Michelle Obama went on morning talk shows and said to the black people, "they need to know that this is possible.

I say, if you don't want the likes of Tony Rezko, Rev. WRight, Farrakut, in the White House, with access to our government intelligence agencies and our nuclear arms.

Hillary Clinton will not be a worry as far as our national security, she will bring us universal health care, and she will bring our troops home in a careful, sensible manner. That sure trumps what George Bush has done over the past 7 years. gw

,

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 16, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Based on what Iowatreasures just said the campaign of Her Majesty Hillary Clinton, the queen of Sleezeville, must be in really big trouble!

Looks like her campaign and her supporters are now down to insidious fear-mongering because their pathetic candidate can't win elections because voters now see her for the vindictive and divisive person that she is.

No one buys your lies about Obama. He is an intelligent and decent human being; not sure if Hillary Clinton would qualify for either of these qualities!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

badger3

You are absolutely right. My sincerest apologies. I acted no better than the others who use insults to make their points. It was totally uncalled for. I'm happy to hear that you will support whoever the democratic nominee is. We all need to take the high road and persuade by reason and not by ad hominen attacks. Again, my apologies for my stupid comment.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

svreader, and what is that creative (NOT) diddy Hillary uses now? Oh yeah, "Yes We Will!" Pray tell what will we do?

We will withhold our tax returns until after the nomination.
We will lie and distort our opponent's positions.
We will whine about "life's not fair."
We will strong-arm superdelegates to choose me (Hillary).
We will say anything and do everything to win, regardless of how immoral and wrong it is.

"Yes we will . . . " get McCain elected as president at this rate!

Posted by: meldupree | February 16, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Is it my imagination or are Obama supporters really nasty to the people who don't support him and support Hillary? Is it just me or does it seem like they always have to put insults in their comments to make their point?

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I am sick and tired of Obama and his supporters with their hatred against the Clintons. He will NEVER be PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT. NO AMOUNT OF INSULTS FROM HIS CAMPAIGN WILL CHANGE THIS FACT...........

Posted by: barajo | February 16, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

badger3

I would remind you that many Senate democrats voted for Roberts and Alito and when Scalia and Thomas were selected by Presidents Reagan and the 1st Bush, democrats controlled the Senate. You assume way too much if McCain is elected President what will happen when he has the chance to appoint U.S. Supreme Court Justices. To demonstrate his conservative bona fides to the far right ala Limbaugh and Coulter, he will appoint far right justices. Why would you take such a dangerous risk and vote for McCain out of spite. Your thinking is like an impish child.

Tell you what...your arguements are so smart and well thought out...you have convinced me that yes I do think like an impish child. So I'm going to vote for Obama, but first I have to get good at insulting people's comments on the blogs so I can be like the rest of his supporters!

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

audart: I agree with you, I will never vote for McCain, the next "war president," that wants to revive the draft and take my beautiful 18 year old grand daughter off to be in his "McCain war."

I will not vote for Obama - he is a security risk to the United States. All you have to do is go to Google/ Trinity Church/Obama and to

the Chicago Tribute 1/27 article by John Kass about Obama's 17 year shady relationship with Antoin Rezko, the Syrian who is receiving huge amounts of money from someone in the middle east.

I will vote for Hillary during the General Election if I have to write her name in. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 16, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

He was misquoted. He meant "automaton" delegates.

Posted by: RossPhx | February 16, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I am a life-long Democrat--socially liberal, economically conservative--and have closely examined the voting records of all the Democratic candidates, as well as the Republicans. Senator Clinton's record is much closer to the political center; Senator Obama's record is far to the left; John McCain's voting record is close to the center. With this search, I've determined that if the choice is Clinton/McCain, I will enthusiastically vote for Senator Clinton. If it is Obama/McCain, I will vote for McCain. I will put money down with anyone that if our choice is Obama/McCain, the Democrats will take the greatest hit that they've ever had. Locally, I am in a Democratic meet-up group and the position that I've just stated is the consensus of our group. Obama's rhetoric is beautiful, but with his record, he will be eaten alive by the Republicans. KC

Posted by: wcowan1 | February 16, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama gets away with a great deal, than no other candidate ever would. I have grown tired of the lies and distortions he uses in every single speech to misrepresent Hillary, her policies and her voting record.

Nobody ever calls him on this. He will not get my vote in the general, if he wins the nomination. I will remain home on election day.

Posted by: audart | February 16, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

It's odd... that those who support Clinton have such poor writing skills. I understand, your fear and bitterness simply don't allow you to support Obama, and that's fine, we can have another 4, or perhaps 8 years of Republican rule if we must. But please, calm down and prior to submitting at least have a look at what you write. Your corrupted anger is getting in the way of the rational debate America must have.

As for Ickes, what a frightening Democrat he is. Every word he speaks tabs another independent for McCain.

Posted by: twofeathers50 | February 16, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse


There are only a few extra delegates allocated to Hillary over Obaba from Florida and Michigan. I think something like 38 from Florida and 17 from Michigan. (Obama will get the Uncommitted delegates.)

So seating Florida (where I voted for Hillary) and Michigan is not that big a deal, but the winner is obviously going to push for reconciliation that was hoped for all along.

The apportioning of delegates to basicaly split them with tiny difference as we are seeing leaves basically split automatic delegates as well, leaving for a battle to the last delegate in August, with no chance of a good outcome in my opinion. One half will feel cheated, the half for Hillary that won the big states and the half for Obama that won the majority of states.

Ickes described all but the half feeling cheated correctly (my opinion only), and summarized pretty well here by WaPo, but nuance, that thing Republicans can't understand, apparently affects Obama supporters as well.

Oh, and those Republicans "supporting" Obama until the general election as well.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 16, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

badger3

I would remind you that many Senate democrats voted for Roberts and Alito and when Scalia and Thomas were selected by Presidents Reagan and the 1st Bush, democrats controlled the Senate. You assume way too much if McCain is elected President what will happen when he has the chance to appoint U.S. Supreme Court Justices. To demonstrate his conservative bona fides to the far right ala Limbaugh and Coulter, he will appoint far right justices. Why would you take such a dangerous risk and vote for McCain out of spite. Your thinking is like an impish child.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

svreader - I'm as sick of "Yes we can" and "Ready on day one" as anyone else. Sadly, today's candidate has about 1/8 the time to get heard on the news as in 1968 (see Susan Jacoby's piece on the dumbing down of America in Wapo). Fortunately it's still possible to hear them answer tough questions that the media aren't interested in. The "Candidates@Google" series features hour-long interviews with all the Republican and Democratic candidates at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. I'd urge everyone to look at both these interviews to get a better picture of the candidates. We don't have to rely on the TV to get our information - there are plenty of other ways.

Clinton's URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYKIsJwi2c.

Obama's URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo.

More light, less heat.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

davestickler: what a strange little narrative you have made up to try and justify your prejudice.

Not too surprising though, since so many of Obama's supporters work at the level of fiction and fairy tale. All will be easy and right and just if our guy gets in. Yes. He can promise all of the soldiers will be out of Iraq in 60 days, no problem. no need to ask the military about logistics. He says the word, and poof! it happens.

He stops politics as usual. Yes. He issues a decree, and poof! everyone will play nice and the republicans will all be on side (when he can't even get much more than a squeaked out majority of elected delegates at best, let alone a majority of the democrats' popular vote in his own party).

Oh but "I have the movement of hope and of change," he tells us (having never changed anything in his less than one term in IL before his ambition drove him to a losing bid for the US Congress in 2000, and his less than one term as a US Senator, during which he spent most of his time manouvering for a presidential bid and the only legislative thing he focused on was an ethics bill that couldn't pass until it was totally defanged.)

You've been reading too much fantasy maybe. That or you are looking for a saviour not a president.

Newsflash: try a church or something, if you want to work at the level of devils and saints.

Leave reality and politics to people who are trying to grapple with real policy, and real governing, and who think maybe you should have some kind of resume as a leader or a legislator, or some kind of real experience with governing since there might be a need for more than words if one is going to try and fix the economy, or end two stupid wars, and fix healthcare so that people aren't dying and going bankrupt because of sleazy HMOs, and fix schools, oh, and maybe look at how to get 30,000,000 children out of poverty, and make sure vetrans who have given up so much for the last American government actually get the care they need when they come back from Afghanistan and Iraq, and yeah, maybe having gone up against highly funded special interests in the past might actually inform one's battle against big oil in order to figure out how to save the planet from global warming.

Yeah, maybe having some experience with foreign affairs and diplomacy, or actually knowing many of the world's foreign leaders might (oh my gosh) help in the effort to fix America's reputation abroad, and get it back on track fighting as a world leader for human rights and (okay I'll say it) women's rights as human rights in a world that still thinks its fine for some people to be slaves even today (just so long as they aren't men).

P.S. If you are not into religion, stick to fantasy books. They can be fun.

Posted by: irwin | February 16, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

What's the deal with the most state thing? The question before the convention is not how many states Obama or Hillary have won, but what the number of delegates and the margins between them. "Carrying states," is part of the electorial process in the General Election...why does state count versus delegate count matter in the primaries?

With that said, why don't they just change the primary to set aside one day for the nation to vote...Absentee ballots are allowed. We wouldn't have to worry about cross-over voting, the unfair caucus system, people in Florida and Michigan, super-delegates. And...we wouldn't be giving immense political power to four states that don't have enough commerce or populations large enough to support professional sports teams.

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

svreader, sd71 and the other Clintonistas, if Hillary Clinton is such a superior candidate, with thirty-five years of experience, name recognition, Senator from a delegate and electoral-vote rich state, a warchest that frightens most political rivals, a spouse who is the titular head of the Democratic party and the backing of the Democratic establishment, one could reasonably conclude that Hillary should vanquished Obama, a relatively green newcomer with a vapid message of hope without specifics. Right? Hillary should have had this nomination locked up by now (it was her plan to be the presumptive nominee by 5 February). But Hillary has been outwitted, outmaneuvered, out-campaigned, and outvoted by this Obama, despite having every advantage that one could bring to the nomination fight, to the point of having to lend her campaign $5M. So what does this say about the quality of leadership and management by Hillary? It is indeed a very sad commentary about her and her campaign. Let me see how you spin this observation.

Posted by: meldupree | February 16, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I guesss this is how Hillary gets things done! How desperate and pathetic.

You Clintonista's will be responsible for the destruction of the Democratic party. Hillary's illogic regarding Florida and Michigan is not only embarrasing, but a constant reminder why the Clintons should never be allowed anywhere near Pennsylvania avenue.
It's amusing reading the desperation of Hillary fans type how she can't win because everythings in Obama's favor whether it be Florida and Michigan which all candidates agreed the delegates would not be counted and seated at the convention or super delegates who are switching from the once "inevitable, invincible" Hillary.
Hillary fans get over it. Your sense of entitlement is disgraceful. Her campaign was one big "fairytale". She never had wide support within the Democratic party and she was simply shoved down our throat. Obama's candaidacy has revealed this to the horror of the Clintons and all of their supporters.
Ickes and the Clinton camps argument regarding Hillary's claim to super delegates and Florida and Michigan is a desperate ploy to steal an election she can't win on her own and it's clear a majority of their supporters agree.
If Hillary somehow pulls this off. The Democrats will suffer the most humiliating loss in political history and cease to exist as a party. Very few people will get behind Hillary and her supporters. So congrats on destroying a party none of you have respect for.

Posted by: sbundley | February 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I am an Independent and I just don't get this. You have two candidates with similar policies. But half the country dislikes one of them. Nominate Hillary and I, my wife and several friends that I have spoken to will vote for McCain. Nominate Obama and we vote for him.

The irony will be thick if the "girl power" vote nominates Hillary who promptly loses to McCain who then appoints the supreme court judges that finally overturns Roe v Wade.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I guesss this is how Hillary gets things done! How desperate and pathetic.

You Clintonista's will be responsible for the destruction of the Democratic party. Hillary's illogic regarding Florida and Michigan is not only embarrasing, but a constant reminder why the Clintons should never be allowed anywhere near Pennsylvania avenue.
It's amusing reading the desperation of Hillary fans type how she can't win because everythings in Obama's favor whether it be Florida and Michigan which all candidates agreed the delegates would not be counted and seated at the convention or super delegates who are switching from the once "inevitable, invincible" Hillary.
Hillary fans get over it. Your sense of entitlement is disgraceful. Her campaign was one big "fairytale". She never had wide support within the Democratic party and she was simply shoved down our throat. Obama's candaidacy has revealed this to the horror of the Clintons and all of their supporters.
Ickes and the Clinton camps argument regarding Hillary's claim to super delegates and Florida and Michigan is a desperate ploy to steal an election she can't win on her own and it's clear a majority of their supporters agree.
If Hillary somehow pulls this off. The Democrats will suffer the most humiliating loss in political history and cease to exist as a party. Very few people will get behind Hillary and her supporters. So congrats on destroying a party none of you have respect for.

Posted by: sbundley | February 16, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

So this means the long-held confidence in Hillary victories in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania has evaporated. Why else plan for a convention fight?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | February 16, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, Hillary should just concede and do it now. She's not going to win this thing. Her time was then, Obama's time is now.
Is there anything more annoying than the Clintons and their flacks trying to politicize the primary process with their self-serving arguments and pleas? I'm awfully tired of the Boomers, because at the end of the day (or era) it's only about them. The country has moved on. Somebody needs to send that memo to Hillary.

Posted by: prdn97 | February 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Ickes is engaged in what George Orwell called "Doublethink"
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/doublethink-with-harold-ickes/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, Hillary should just concede and do it now. She's not going to win this thing. Her time was then, Obama's time is now.
Is there anything more annoying than the Clintons and their flacks trying to politicize the primary process with their self-serving arguments and pleas? I'm awfully tired of the Boomers, because at the end of the day (or era) it's only about them. The country has moved on. Somebody needs to send that memo to Hillary.

Posted by: prdn97 | February 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary all the way to hell just after
March 4, if she doesn't concede even then after three more of unavaidable failures between now and then. Obama is our next president. It s crystal clear already. Hillary should go to prison or to mental hospital. This despicable creatute has caused so much blood and has spent so much of our money that she is worse than anyone on the death row at the point of crimes and subsequent punishment!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary all the way to hell just after
March 4, if she doesn't concede even then after three more of unavaidable failures between now and then. Obama is our next president. It s crystal clear already. Hillary should go to prison or to mental hospital. This despicable creatute has caused so much blood and has spent so much of our money that she is worse than anyone on the death row at the point of crimes and subsequent punishment!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary all the way to hell just after
March 4, if she doesn't concede even then after three more of unavaidable failures between now and then. Obama is our next president. It s crystal clear already. Hillary should go to prison or to mental hospital. This despicable creatute has caused so much blood and has spent so much of our money that she is worse than anyone on the death row at the point of crimes and subsequent punishment!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has taught some Obama supporters well... they now mouth all of Rush Limbaugh's talking points (Billary, will say/do anything to win...). It's not sufficient to defeat Hillary Clinton, the goal is to DESTROY the Clintons.

Interestingly, although these GOP'ers will jump in and help you bash the Clintons, they STILL don't have a cross word to say about Bush. Beware the company you keep.....

Posted by: Alan4 | February 16, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the campaign is far from over. HillBilly has many more states, much more money, and a lot of respect left to lose.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 16, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

badger3

If McCain is elected President, he will have an opportunity to appoint probably 3 hard right justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in the mold of a Scalia, Thomas or Alito. How can you be comfortable with that as a democrat. You're reasoning is ridiculous.

====
If McCain has a democratic controlled Congress and Senate...(this is key), then it won't be very easy for him to put in hard core conservative justices. He's going to have to have to work with the Congressional branch to get what he wants. So he'll probably have appoint moderate justices to get their nominations through Congress. Reagan had to work with a democratic controlled Congress with his Justice pick. He appointed
Sandra O'Conner She was moderate.

Regardless, I will not vote for Obama....why would anyone vote for someone they think would be a terrible president regardless of their party affiliation? Plus the Messiah thing is scary to us that don't see his appeal.

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that the Obama camp has made this election about personality as opposed to fundamental democratic principles. Why is that a problem? Because too many Americans are wary of going into an election not really knowing the candidate. That is why McCain will have an edge over him; you see, the devil you don't know is worse than the devil you do know. Oh, by the way, Florida will count in the general election.

Posted by: sarasotan | February 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

treetop --

Believe it or not, I'm in the same situation. Economicaly, I should be a Republican. In fact I used to be one.

I became a Democrat after a near-death experience.

I decided I wanted to help the less fortunate, and decided to focus on health care.

Edwards and Clinton both have great health care plans.

Obama's plan stinks.

Obama's supporters remind me of a bunch of drugged-out moonies.

They need universal health care more than anyone else, especially mental health care.

If Obama gets elected they think that he'll legalize pot, when in fact, he'll run in the opposite direction because of his drug history.

I've yet to meet a single clear-headed Obama supporter, or one that had a good grasp of any of the issues.

In the final analysis, its not going to hurt me if Obama gets nominated, but its going to hurt the poor.

The saddest thing is that the people who believe in Obama the deepest will be hurt by him the most.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

svreader, and all the other Clintonistas, where is Hillary's sense of fair play. Oh, I forgot, she has not sense of fair play! Why should the delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated when they violated DNC rules? Why would Harold Icky (intended) advocate seating these delegates when he was a member of the committee who formulated the sanctions in the first place? If Obama or Dave Axlerod depended on Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, given the same circumstances, you all would cry foul, and I would be in total agreement. Just because Hillary is locked in a dogfight where she is no longer the "inevitable candidate" does not mean she or anyone else get to change the rules.

Super-delegates can choose her with less delegates and/or popular vote if they want . . . the civil war within the party will be long remembered by pundits and commoners alike as the ugly event that lead to John McCain being elected president.

So let Hillary steal this nomination if you want; there will be lots of people BOYCOTTING HILLARY (yes, this option is in play and one I strongly advocate).

Posted by: meldupree | February 16, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Clinton voters are fed up with Obama supporters.

If Obama wins the nomination, good luck winnning without 1/2 of the Democratic party on your side.

The tactics of Obama and his supporters are making them lots of enemies among mainstream Democrats.

If he steals the nomination, They'll find out just how many in November.

Obama is the best thing that ever happened to John McCain!!!

**********************************************

Considering that only 1 in 3 Democrats support Hillary Clinton I don't see how Barack Obama is going to lose 1/2 of the Democrats come November.
This is so typical of Clinton supporters and just the kind of outright lies and fear mongering we can expect out of Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is John McCain's only hope of becoming our President. Fortunately McCain can't beat Obama. And neither can Hillary.

Posted by: eco-pharm | February 16, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Please be serious to think! The Clintons are the best service ever happened to America and the world. That is a REAL fact!

I am sad how some people forget so quick the best eight years of the American economy and the world peace. Recently some people are going to make the same mistake as they made by electing Bush.

Be honest to say, Obama is a good man and a smooth speecher, but he needs to experience more time for next 4 years. If no, he will be just the same such as inexperienced, naive and "acting president!!", that couldn't beat McCain.

Posted by: yellodragon | February 16, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

svreader

When McCain appoints 3 hard right U.S. Suprme Court justices in the mold of Alito, Scalia and Thomas and then watch as Roe v. Wade is overturned and all our environmental, health, safety and labor regulations, to name just a few of our constitutional protections that will be put at risk, be proud of yourself as well as the other supporers of Senator Clinton that you helped usher in such dangerous changes. For goodness sakes, if you are a democrat and you care about your country, you will support either candidate as I gladly will because of what's at stake. Show some maturity instead of chilish petulance.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Paul Krugman, a liberal, syndicated columnist, wrote an editorial in the 2-11 edition of the NYT entitled Hate Springs Eternal. It was interesting for me because it confirmed a notion I was developing that is further supported by comments I read here; most of the venom spewed within the Democratic ranks between HRC & BO supporters comes chiefly from the Obama side. Rather than summarize the piece, I urge you to read it. Just for the record, I will vote for BO if he is the Dem nominee. But I think he will get eaten up by the worst of the Reps., and I personally think there is a lot of empty air beneath what the biased media calls his "soaring rhetoric" - the newest and flashiest car on the lot seems to be the object of desire for many. My worry is that it has become an obsession which discounts or dismisses out of hand any critical views of that view point.

Posted by: DavidRevenaugh | February 16, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

lumi21us - To be fair the Super Tuesday contest was essentially a draw, so I can understand and respect Clinton for wanting to continue the contest after that. Hardly anyone in or out of any camp believed it would be that close.

Now, if she keeps on fighting in the unlikely event that she loses all four of the upcoming primaries, that'd be different. It'd definitely be democratic to continue, but to keep clawing away as the chances of being nominated grow ever slimmer will not be in the interests of the party.

As far as those who want to vote for McCain over Obama if Clinton's not nominated, what makes you think McCain will be better? He's promised to make the tax cuts permanent and an open-ended commitment to staying in Iraq, guaranteeing more debt, less value in the dollar and the corresponding rise in the price of oil (unless it's eventually priced in Euros, an idea the Saudis have floated). Personally, I'll love it if McCain wins because I'll get rich investing in oil futures. But anyone who can't afford a boat will drown in all that debt.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 16, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm as hard-core a Democrat as you can find, but I will vote for McCain over Obama if he's the one on the Democratic Ticket.

Congratulations, Obama supporters, you've completely, totally and utterly pissed off 1/2 of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

The super delegates were put in place to vote as they wanted. Now Obama wants to change the rules to help his campaign. If the delegate votes are close in margin, why shouldn't the super delegates votes be used the way the party intended them to? Super delegates are no more unfair than caucuses. The truth is...the whole nomination process is unfair and just run dumb.

That aside, no one did more to break the democratic party than Obama's number 1 supporter..Mr. Ted Kennedy in 1980. He broke the first rule of party faithfulness...he ran against an incubment president in his own party. The fight went on all the way to the convention. The party was badly split and damaged....and the rest is history.

If the delegate votes are close, why should Hillary drop out until before every state has voted?

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

The inane and mindless attacks coming from the Obama camp are strangely reminiscent of the Bush campaigns from 2000 and 2004. It is enough to make me want to switch parties - maybe I'll just vote for Nader; I hear he might run again. Heck, judging from Michelle Obama attitude about this race, that's what she would do as well if the race does not go her way.

Posted by: sarasotan | February 16, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

As a Republican, I considerate it poetic justice that the Clintons are making a mockery of their party and the values their party holds most dear. Now you are getting a first hand taste of what Republicans knew in the 1990's. In those days you folks held the White House, so you were in denial. I know the feeling. Now the Clintons will do whatever they have to do to win. Victory at any price.

Posted by: jedsil | February 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis --

The idiots are you and the rest of the Obama supporters that have so turned off us Clinton supporters that we've reached the tipping point.

So here it is: we wiil not support your candidate, super-salesman Barry Obama, no matter what.

Now, thanks to Obama-nuts, every Clinton supporter I know feels the same way.

We will not vote for Obama, no matter what.

Good luck winning an election without 1/2 of the Democratic Party!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Notwithstanding the entertaining comments made by the supporters of Senators Clinton and Obama, I am concerned that the rheatoric amongst the supporters of both candidates has grown so vitriolic. I am more concerned that what I am reading in this forum may be mirrored by the candidates themselves. A year ago, when everyone assumed that the primaries would be decided by now, I kind of figured that those of us on the left would be able to spend a longer period of time (i.e. a longer general election season) articulating why our ideas are better than the ideas being put forward by those on the right. Unfortunately, this primary season has created a situation in which Democrats are arguing over whose health care plan covers more people, who would get U.S. troops out of Iraq more effectively, and who would promote a tax structure that is better for the middle class. If you examine Sen. Obama's positions and Sen. Clinton's positions on these issues and compare it with Sen. McCain's positions on these issues (particular the modifications made to his positions to cater to the more conservative elements of the Republican party), you will see that there is a big difference between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. By contrast, Clinton and Obama are pretty similar in their policy views. Here's where I get concerned (even fearful). Democrats have been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and may be poised to do that during this election cycle--especially if they do not keep their eyes on the prize. Sen. Clinton has argued that Sen. Obama is "all talk" and that she is "all solutions" and emphasized the fact that he has not been vetted. Unfortunately, her "long view" strategy depends on debunking (through negative ads) what she perceives as an unfairly rosy view held by many voters with respect to Sen. Obama. If she succeeds and wins the nomination, she will have killed off the enthusiasm that he has built up during this race. This may turn independents and young Democrats toward Sen. McCain (who has a pretty good following with independents and moderate Republicans) or away from voting at all. If she fails, she may still tear him down sufficiently that she will hurt his chances against McCain in the fall. Imagine a McCain attack ad running on the same talking points as a Clinton ad from the primaries (ouch!). On the flip side, Obama also has some work to do. He is perceived, unfairly I think, as weak on specifics. He needs to counter that trend by articulating precisely what he plans on doing if he becomes President. How will he extricate us from Iraq? How will he kickstart his healthcare reform plan? How will he get the Republicans to allow the portion of the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans to expire? How will he boost the sagging U.S. economy? Incidentally, those are the questions that Sen. Clinton needs to answer as well because those are the issues that will matter in the fall. So as we think about Clinton's "long view," let's hope that the Democrats do not waste all their best ammunition engaged in trench warfare while the Republicans get to keep their powder dry waiting to fit a weakened Democratic candidate who survived a grueling path to the nomination.

Posted by: swalker1 | February 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

First the Clintons said the campaign would end after Iowa, then they said after super tuesday. Then they said it would end on march 4th and now it will end after june 7th. Okay anything you say Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. The fib goes on.

Posted by: lumi21us | February 16, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

badger3

If McCain is elected President, he will have an opportunity to appoint probably 3 hard right justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in the mold of a Scalia, Thomas or Alito. How can you be comfortable with that as a democrat. You're reasoning is ridiculous.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

A vote for Hillary is a referendum of the Clinton presidency cloaked in a female candidate,
I think she is to divisive and will not be able to build a working majority in congress, which is what the GWB administration offers America.
On the other hand if Obama wins the nomination i can tell you that he is likely to win Mcain by such a large margin that history would be made.
Unfortunately i can see that Hillary will not give up for the sake of her party, but i am also sure that if Obama has more pledged delegates and the popular vote they will have no choice but to do so.
Otherwise it would simply be undemocratic

Posted by: Phoenix4 | February 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I have to echo the sentiment that these blogs usually end up a contest of one side trying to outrant and outinsult the other. Could we try have some discussion of the issues, without the personal attacks? Imagine you're trying to explain to your best friend why you're for candidate X or Y, instead of acting like your trying to explain why so and so's an idiot for not thinking like you.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

McCain and the Bethesda Bank - just check the facts.

HRC and Obama are far from completing this thing. But it is getting close, however, the tactics being employed by HRC do show desparation regardless of how you look at it. Some here may not want to admit that, but it is what it is.

Both are great and qualified candidates for the job - it just so happens the pepole will decide who gets the job. And for some of you who think you are the only "smart" people in the country is a testament to your ego.

Get over the hate, DEM 08

Posted by: J_thinks | February 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

Since you insinuate that Senator Obama is an ex-drug addict, which he never was, how should I feel about having an ex or is he an ex-sex addict named president Bill Clinton in the White House. His shameful behavior with a 24 year old intern essentially destroyed his 2nd term. His Presidency was in many respects, a wasted presidency because of his behavior that he couldn't control. Look in the mirror before you defame someone.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters do not realize that Obama is everybit as polarizing to Hillary supporters as Hillary is to his supporters. I'm as true a democrat as you can get. I have no problem voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

First, I don't want to put a democrat I don't like in the office and be stuck with him for 8 years. I'd just as soon have a republican I'm not afraid of and have a different democrat run for offic in 4 years, that could unseat McCain.

Also, I'm not afraid to vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination, because we will without doubt have a democratic controlled Congress and Senate.

McCain isn't that conservative anyway. If the nominee were Romney, you probably wouldn't see as many Hillary supporters casting protest votes...but unless something changes...there will be a lot of protest votes for McCain from Hillary supporters.

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is elected president, when all is said and done, his supporters will find out that he is not the person they thought he was. But by then, it will be too late. He will be another G. W. Bush who thought he was the messiah.

Obama knows that it is difficult for a U. S. Senator to get elected president. They have to make unpopular voting decisions that could be used against them during a campaign. I am so tired of hearing him say, "I have always been against the war and Hillary voted for it." Well, he didn't have to vote against it because he wasn't a U. S. Senator. All he had to do was speak out against it, and his supporters are happy with that. Some supporters even assume he voted against the resolution.

When the Iran resolution came up, he spoke out against it and said it similiar to the Iraq resolution and Bush could use it to attack Iran. But when it came time to VOTE AGAINST IT, he chose to skip the vote instead of backing up his opposition with a no vote. Why? Because it was a politically risky vote, and he wasn't willing to take that risk. He spoke out against the resolution and didn't vote against it. And his supporters are happy with that. That was an important issue and he cleverly avoided having a yes or no vote on his record that someone in the future could use against him. He didn't want someone doing to him that he is doing to Hillary. He will be making all sorts of self-serving decisions from now on so that he can win this election and the next one in four years.

Posted by: mafox1 | February 16, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

She'll slow down if the money runs out. How long is her staff willing to work without pay?

Posted by: SarahBB | February 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

All those bashing Obama here will be voting for him in November. (Except for a few Republican saboteurs).

Posted by: gmundenat | February 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Exciting Times:

What Obama Neans by "change" - google this

Obama and Liberation Theology

Then Vote

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 16, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"the future"

Posted by: matthewsisco2 | February 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

edhaynsworth: your comment about young voters having no real world experience is pathetic.

are the babyboomers fearful of times changing?? haven't they left the "young" vote enough to clean up in the next 50 years?!

maybe young voters are just starting to finally STAND UP, what's pathetic is the same old political cycle and families being recycled over and over over.

hillary clinton is not OWED the presidency by the democratic party.

DEMOCRACY NOT DYNASTY.

Posted by: yvonne | February 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"this beast of a future"

Posted by: matthewsisco2 | February 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The republicans want Obama to win, because he is without a doubt the weaker of the two. If he wins you'll see more of the same race afiliation that you are seeing in a lot of places now, and this will tear this country apart and we can't have that. Just look at the remarks Jesey Jackson Jr. is saying how because you are black you have to vote for Obama. Have anyone say that if you are white or Hispanic you should vote for Hillary and see half of the country ask for his/her head. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE OBAMA, MAYBE AS VICE AND IF CONTINUES DIVIDING THE PARTY, EVEN THAT IS A DOUBT.

Posted by: wmaster | February 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I have faith in you Hillary. I have confidence in you. You can save the world from the this beast of a future.

Posted by: matthewsisco2 | February 16, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Well and Barrack Obama can walk on water!

Rubbish!

The Obama cult memebers should wake up and smell the coffee!

Who is going to vote for a muslim, cocaine smoking, jr senator for President

Cult Obama needs to move to Waco Texas and start a commune there! And take all the kool-aid drinking fools with you Obama!

Posted by: ARabiFan | February 16, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone seen McCain's challenge to Obama on public funding?

McCain said they made a commitment to the American people, and both he and Obama should follow through on their commitment to take public funding?

Obama's campaign has responded by saying there was no pledge.

Obama is on record as saying if he is the Dem nominee he will "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Way to be aggressive Obama!

Yes we sorta....CAN'T!

Posted by: camasca | February 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama's public statements, his speeches, even his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature leave one dangerously unsure of his true intentions.

Whatever Obama's concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In the absence of any genuine explanations from candidate Obama himself, the change of which he speaks reasonably may be inferred to be quite antithetical to anything even remotely resembling American patriotism.

And that is a legitimate concern for every American voter.

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Camasca,SVreader, judybroc:

Camasca- Thank you for explaining that NAFTA is not responsible for manufacturing jobs leaving over seas. Most manufacturing jobs are being lost to automation and to a lesser extent to countries where work can be done less expensively. In order to have any semblance of a manufacturing base left in the U.S., 4 things must happen:

1. A major, major commitment to rebuilding our infrastructure;schools, public buildings, existing housing stock, water treatment facilities, bridges, roads and mass transit.

2. A high school education is simply insufficient in this global economy. At a minimum, you need to have at least 2 years of a college education at a community, technical or vocational school. A full scale commitment to job retraining and education must be made.
3. We must begin the way over due process of transitioning into a green, carbon-less economy that will create the new jobs for the 21st century.
4. We need to cut defense spending and idiotic defense projects like missile defense, and every defense procurement project that bears no resemblance to the realities of the 21st century where we are fighting asymmmetrical threats like al queda. Why do we have a defense budget that is approaching $800 billion dollars and counting and have a military that resembles that of us fighting the Soviets in 1975? It's absurd and sadly neither Senators Clinton nor Obama have said a word about this.

Svreader:You would cut off your nose to spite your face, proverbially speaking and vote for a republican. That makes alot of sense. The next President will have an opportunity to appoint I believe as many as 3 U.S. Supreme Court justices in the next administration as the average age of each justice on the court is 68 years of age.

Can you imagine a Supreme Court with more Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas clones on it? That's frightening and don't forget what GWB has already done to the federal judiciary with his selection of ultra-far right picks to the federal district and appellate courts. Another 4 years of a republican in the White House and the federal courts will be completely controlled by the far right. That is where our basic constitutional protections emanate from. Think before you act emotionally and impulsively

judybroc-Quite frankly both Senators have disappointed me. Both of them seem all too happy to have a $800 billion defense budget, neither has said a word that 2 million people are locked up in prison, the overwhelming majority on drug possession charges. Neither has shown any political courage to reform our insane "war on drugs" and reform to a harm reduction strategy instead of continuing to criminalize substance abuse behavior.

We are spening billions and billions of dollars on this insane war on drugs policy and it has resulted in more crime and mayhem, more dangerous drugs and more guns on our streets. We are pressuring Mexico and Columbia to stop the supply into our country and giving both countries billions of dollars in aid and what's the result:more corruption, more murder and mayhem and more drugs on our streets.

Neither Senator has said a word that in the past year, over 50 college students have been murdered on campuses by individuals with mental illness who have complete and unfettered access to purchase weapons to murder people. Thousands of our citizens are people murdered and maimed on our streets by illegal gun purchases and drug king pins and nothing is being said and done about it. It is a complete abdication of leadership by them both.

I will vote for a democrat this fall, whoever the nominee is, because the republicans have demonstrated they are not responsible enough to lead but much more needs to be discussed on a whole array of issues by both Senators Obama and Clinton. So far, they haven't shown me much.

Posted by: jovitman | February 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

svreader -

You've changed your argument in these forums as many times as Hillary has changed her campaign message. First you hated Obama. Then you wanted Obama and Hillary to run on the same ticket because they'd be the best pair, with Hillary being president and Obama as VP. Then when Obama won the Potomac Primaries, you said that you'd be fine with Obama as president and Hillary as VP.

Now you're back to saying you hate Obama and half of the Democratic Party won't support him.

I have a new argument that I'm going to stand by for the rest of the election season:

You're an idiot.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 16, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER....seems like you have a chip on your shoulder??

As an objective voter originally committed to John Edwards, I watched all the debates and news nightly.

Hillary is competent, slippery, and voted for the war before she voted against it. Now she basically says talking provides no solutions.

Obama isn't buying it and neither am I. He is a gifted mediator and leader destined for greatness. The Edwards endorsement willl come soon. He has won my vote.

I will support the Democratic nominee, but my enthusiasm for hope comes with Obama.
Yes we can!

Posted by: dkummer1 | February 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

infantry11b4faus: Allow me to confront your bigotry with some reason.

1. Barack's a Christian, not a Muslim.
2. Even if he were a Muslim, so what? Muslim does not equal terrorist (or maybe he's willing to commit to going into Pakistan to get bin Laden because he doesn't like the competition).
3. Barack's a Christian, not a Muslim - so 2 is moot.
4. The difference between Clinton and Obama is not in policy but character. This difference will affect their abilities to deal with realities that contradict their views in a mature and constructive manner, as well as their abilities to achieve their agendas. One will be able to garner the required congressional support, one will not.
5. I will pay higher taxes if either Clinton or Obama is elected. I pay my bills at home, I expect to do the same for the services I receive from the government. If I have to pay extra so someone else can remain above the starvation threshold, so be it. A hard working poor person with a ladder up pays more taxes than a corpse.
6. Unless you want to live on the moon you'll have to live with people who are different. Deal with it.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 16, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

i am not black,of african descent or a woman. there is no question of being racist or sexist.
hillary is the best candidate by far.

Posted by: sd71 | February 16, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

DO WE KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT OBAMA THE SAME WAY THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE CLINTONS???????,
IF OBAMA BECOMES PRESIDENT COULD HE SUPRISE US??????????????
WHAT ARE HIS ALLIANCES, HIS CONTACTS, HIS SUPPORTS ETC.
NOW I KNOW ARE STUDENTS, YOUNG PEOPLE, ETC, BACKINING HIM, BUT BEFORE?????
OBAMA FOR ME IS BIG ?, I KNOW HE IS VERY CHARISMATIC, HIS RHETORICS SOUND LIKE IT COMES FROM HEAVEN, BUT?????

Posted by: storytellers13 | February 16, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

You're right, svreader, there's something really creepy about this Obama campaign. You know, the record turnouts, young people actually following politics and excited to vote, people signing up to volunteer for a campaign for the first time -- it's enough to make you think we've got some weird "democracy" cult going on out there. It'd be way less creepy if they'd all just go back home and sit on their hands like they used to.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

info4,

The retraining failure is a horrible failure by our government.

Posted by: camasca | February 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

judybroc, here's why Obama supporters seem mad. We feel like we're being lied to by the Clintons, and being lied to makes us angry. The Reagan schtick, the "I didn't support the Iraq war, even though I voted for it" bit, and even small stuff, like claiming she was named after Edmund Hillary. It adds up, and I don't think there's anything irrational about getting angry when people don't seem to be making any effort to tell the truth.

The whole Michigan and Florida thing just fits into that narrative. It actually does make me angry when someone tries to pretend that an election with only one candidate on the ballot is fair, or that we should treat the results of an election where candidates weren't allowed to campaign as legitimate -- or, even ignoring that, that the Clinton camp agreed to the darn set of rules in the first place, and changes their mind the moment it's convenient.

The point of the Obama message is that it's not ok to try to make things gratuitously personal, to try to manufacture scandals out of nothing, and that we should understand that people with different viewpoints often hold them for totally legitimate reasons.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be mad when someone does all those things. If you were mad at the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton for his sex life, or if you were mad at George Bush for not telling us the truth about Iraq, or if you were mad at how dirty the 2000 and 2004 campaigns were, then you should understand this anger.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama continually preaches about "change", and he wants to change the old politics in Washington. He has hired some of Hillary's former campaign managers. He was greateful to Ted Kennedy for his endorsement. Does it make sense that he is using the old politics to help him get elected to the presidency so that he can get rid of the old politics in Washington?

Posted by: mafox1 | February 16, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry treetop --

I don't drink kool-aid.

What will Obama supporters do once their MDMA wears off?

Let's hope they get wake up or get treatment for their addiction before its too late.

Is it any wonder Obama supporters display cult-like symptoms?

They're looking for somthing and think they'll find it in Obama.

When they grow up, they'll realize they have to look inside themselves to find it.

Obama supporters are looking more like a cult every day.

To sober people, Its scary.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Its Puerto Rico now! Thats funny! I am positive - based on evidence - that Clinton campaign will fold before Pennsylvania.

Posted by: soodus | February 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Leave it to the Clintons to run unopposed in the renegade state of Michigan's grab for power and money and then press to have those results be counted "so the voter' voices can be heard". They really will do anything to win.

Posted by: b_wythoff | February 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

how are Obama's pledging to accept public financing in the general election, then going back on that when the situation changes (he starts raking in money) any different from Clinton pledging to not support sitting Florida and Michigan delegates then going back on that when the situation changes (the election is in doubt)??
The moral superiority that Obama and supporters continually shout about is the false piety of the sinful. Any candidate who runs on the argument that his opponent is ethically inferior, is in effect a negative politician.

Posted by: johnL1 | February 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Ickes is a liar, plain and simple. The Candidates in Michigan were not on "an equal footing." I voted for Uncommitted because Edwards and Obama were not on the ballot, and write-in ballots would be invalid for those candidates. Michigan should have a caucus rather than give Clinton delegates won on an uneven playing field.

Posted by: LevRaphael | February 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

camasca

I have a plamsa HD tv made in Mexico. You know how many TVs are made in the United States? Zero. That is because of NAFTA. When Bill Clinton signed NAFTA he said it is okay for big corporations to set up elsewhere and pay workers less and not worry about environmental issues. NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton, he is to blame for the loss in manufacturing and jobs. He and Hillary said at the time they will re-train people that lose their jobs for the high tech jobs but the high tech jobs went to people that live in India. No matter how you cut it it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA and that cost jobs.

Posted by: info4 | February 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

there is only one difference between barack HUSSEIN obama and hillary rodham clinton. one is a black man and the other a white woman. that is it. they hve the same vision for America. they want America to become the nanny state, which follows every failed socialist model from around the world. if you dont have to work you wont work and then you will just expect that that state will support you by stealing from those that will work. it will fail, it never works. the ussr is gone for that reason.
so let me ask you - are you paying enough or are you one of those people that thinks they pay enough and its other people who work hard and make more money than you that should be taxed?

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | February 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

To info4:

It's not the loss of jobs, but the lack of retraining for displaced workers.

Posted by: bear90 | February 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

As someone who lives in one of Clinton's "irrelevant" red state and on top of that a caucus state I find the attitude of her campaign polarizing, cynical and depressing. 50 + one just won't due it anymore, the tactics of division and polarization just won't work, the politics of personal destruction needs to end. The Country is in desperate need of a new direction after 30 years of Bush/Clinton monarchy and their army of court jesters like Karl Rove and Harold Ickes ripping us apart and feeding off our fears.

Barack Obama is right, I don't live in a red state, I live in the United States.

Posted by: dwarren | February 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Considering the Billarists' baldfaced efforts to fix the nomination, among other things, Obama, his gfamily and his security team should be on red alert.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's put the superdelegates aside for a moment. It would seem to me that if we want to be fair the democrats would consider both the pledged delegates and the popular vote. If neither of those is two is conclusive, then superdelegates come into play. Neither Obama or Clinton should try to change the rules that were set out and agreed to at the start.

P.S. Also, lets get away from demographic stereotypes on the part of the people who blog here. It's shameful - many sound like a bunch of bigots or whining children. I know white and African American blue-collar dems who voted for Obama and I know well eduacated and higer income white and American American dems who voted for Clinton.


These blogs seem to bring out a lot of mean spirited comments. I can only wonder who's writing them.

Posted by: russell2 | February 16, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

In third world countries, the ruling party often restricts opposition candidates from getting on the ballot, or they restrict campaigning so that the election comes down to name recognition.

Will it be Clinton administration policy to consider those elections to be fair? Or is it that they recognize what's wrong with those kinds of elections, but they just can't bring themselves to apply standards of decency and honesty to their own behavior?

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

info4,

But Bush I started NAFTA, Bush II continued NAFTA, and Barack has voted for continuing NAFTA type deals with Peru.

More factory jobs have been lost to robots than Mexico. We manufactur more than we ever have, we just don't need people to make the stuff.

With our without NAFTA, the manufacturing sector would have shed a large number of jobs.

It will continue, science is close to making human like robots, so in the long run, even more jobs will be lost to automation.

Posted by: camasca | February 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Ickes is boasting from a position of weakness and failure. Few are taking him seriously. His candidate has lost 8 straight contests by very large margins. It will probably be 10 in row after Tuesday. If Hillary loses either TX or OH it will be all over but the "crying", for real this time.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This is the same Bill Clinton who brought us the healthiest economy we had seen in a long time and haven't seen since!
Posted by: judybroc | February 16, 2008 05:40 PM

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

We haven't seen it since because the same Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and sent jobs out of the country. Wakeup his signing of NAFTA is the reason there is no manufacturing in this country. That is why there is no jobs. Bill Clinton sold out the American workers. That is a fact.

Posted by: info4 | February 16, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

As a registered Independent and a former Republican from Oregon, I am constantly being bombarded with push-polls to get me to join Hillarity's campaign; but I am sooo up to here with the Clintons I could puke. I am now considering voting for Obama just to get the Clintons out of my face! Harold Ickes, thank you for helping defeat your candidate.

Posted by: david | February 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

svreader: You seem sad, so angry. Here, sip some of this kool-aid and relax... ;-P

Honestly, it's amazing the garbage we're supposed to swallow. You forgot to mention Obama's plans to annex the Sudetenland and invade Poland. We're supposed to rename the superdelegates so they disappear from the conversation. We've been told now that to support Obama is to be a cultist, so we better not support him anymore. Ickes and the rest trying to give us marching orders - who the hell are they, and what the hell makes think they have the right?!?!? Manipulative mind-frakkers, the lot.

All the polls show Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton. The "true blue" states will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is (you think California and New York will vote for McCain under any circumstances? Please!), but Obama will carry the purple states like Virginia (which narrowly picked Bush in '04 and just as narrowly chose Webb in '06). THAT is the value of someone who can reach across the aisle. Obama will break the deadlock in the Senate, while Clinton will harden it or just plain cave (unless you call her votes on Iraq and Iran standing tall).

svreader, please come up with some facts instead of just sullen, sour grapes ranting.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I am a citizen of the state of Michigan and I don't believe that:

"Delegates to Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention, Ickes said. "Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?" he asked. When asked if those contests should be held again, he replied, "We don't need a re-do. Everybody was on equal footing."

I am a disenfranchised voter who would have voted for Bill Richardson.
Unfortunately my option to do that was taken from me.
I DID NOT and WOULD NOT have voted for Hillary Clinton.
I resent her stealing my voice and vote.
I'm going for Obama.

Posted by: bear90 | February 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters! Please look in your heart and acknowledge that if the situation was reversed, and your man won Florida decisively, with record turnout, you would now be shouting about "democracy" and "robbing the people of their voice" and "how can millions of voters be disenfranchished", and "why not just do what the Republicans did, and take away half the delegates for punishment, instead of alienating two crucial states in the REAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER".
please be intellectualy honest.

Posted by: johnL1 | February 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Quote"I think the nation is quickly tiring of the Clintons. I can't imagine four years of this petty garbage."

By the time the Dems chew each other up, a majority of independents will have tired of the BS and put McCain in office.

Notice that there is as much bickering among the Republicans as there is among Democrats, but the former are wisely closing ranks whereas the latter are demonstrating that they are devisive. Who wants that kind of 'leadership' to replace the garbage we've been living with for over seven years??

Present day Democrats are certainly not the party of JFK.

Posted by: rrau22 | February 16, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Right on Svreader, darleneann, tiwaringp, and others,

I can't agree with all of you enough - Clinton voters are completely horrified and disgusted with the non-stop Clinton-bashing slanderous mocking attacking race-baiting constantly negative tactics of Obama supporters, Obama's campaign manager, nearly all of the media, and at times, Obama himself.

I can't count how many times I read words like "sleazy" being applied to Hillary or Bill.
I am just amazed at the short memory people have - this is the same Hillary who, as first lady, worked her butt off to try desperately to bring universal health care to America when she could have been baking cookies! I knew THEN that this was a deeply committed advocate of the people; someone willing to fight for real CHANGE (anyone tried to get private health insurance lately???) This is the same Bill Clinton who brought us the healthiest economy we had seen in a long time and haven't seen since! The same Bill who, on his way out as a lame duck president, nearly succeeded in bringing peace to the middle east - he absolutely didn't have to try to take on anything of that magnitude at that point. Yet he did because he is the farthest thing from sleazy I can think of - only someone incredibly DECENT and committed to HUGE CHANGE (what else could anyone call peace in the middle east) would have bothered.

I do agree: if Obama wins the nomination, don't count on alot of the other 1/2 of the Democratic party to be on his side. This thing has gotten too ugly.

I am a life-long democrat and I can't stand Bush or anything the Republicans stand for. However, I am SO offended by the TONE of the Obama campaign and its supporters vis a vis the Clintons, that I feel like I just can't vote for him without being part of an enormous kick in the face to two people who I admire tremendously (both Clintons).
Because that's what it is folks. It's a betrayal of history and reality to stoop so low as to call the Clintons racists. To have the chutzpa to lump the Clinton years together with the Bush years as "politics as usual"! To say Hillary Clinton will "do anything and say anything" to get elected; that last one especially saddens, angers, and offends me.
I have NEVER heard the Clintons say these kinds of things about Obama. They are fighting fair and I sure wish he and his followers had chosen to do the same. Because then, I COULD vote for him if he wins the nomination and feel good about it, even if my candidate loses.

But smearing her character, smearing former President Clinton's character, just makes me retreat in anger and disbelief.

If THAT's the only way to get "real change", I'll do without it.

What a sad sad commentary on our country.

Posted by: judybroc | February 16, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Clintons are the best thing ever happened to America. It's sad how people forget so fast the best 8 years of American economy and world peace.

Posted by: mehadimh | February 16, 2008 05:19 PM
-------------

The economy was good until President Clinton signed NAFTA and cost jobs. We feel the effects of his signing NAFTA now. There was peace but it was Clinton that didn't get bin Laden after the bombing of the USS Cole and that allowed for 9/11. The reason the economy is bad now has much to do with NAFTA and that was Bill's doing and was supported by Hillary. In retrospect the Clinton presidency wasn't so good.

Posted by: info4 | February 16, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Ickes is quite right.

Finally, the DNC leadership is displaying the intelligence to win the general election.

Hillary will be so prepared for McCain that he won't know which ways up. :)

Go KickAss Go!

Posted by: randymk1 | February 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting to watch the back and forth with the delegates.

The rules are you need 2025 delegates, not the most delegates, 2025 delegates to win the nomination.

Barack may not get to 2025, nor may Hillary.

Pledged delegates are not legally bound to vote for their candidate!

So who will get to be the Presidential nominee will most likely not be decided by us, the people, if there are not 2025 delegates to one candidate.

If that's the case, the party big wigs will call the shots and duke it out.

If that's the case, Hillary or Obama supporters should not be upset if their candidate loses, it's just the rules.

We must unite against McCain.

Posted by: camasca | February 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I believe Democratic voters see the arrogance and grasping twisting of truth and logic in Billary's covetous hunger for the WH. There is nothing her campaign, her husband and she won't stoop to pulling in a quest for fame and unitary power. I cannot see how her presidency will bring anything good to the people. As her and Obama's stands are much alike, Obama would bring a lot of fresh air to the political process. Obama has been consistent and been able to rise above the Billary sleeze. She is a business as usual pol; Obama represents progress.

Posted by: StaggoLee | February 16, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Late word from Wisconsin is that Hillary is pulling the plug there a day early to shift to Ohio, apparently writing off Wisconsin as a lost cause. Wisconsin has a largely blue collar, downscale, older white Democratic electorate, black vote only about 6%---just the demographic that should be, and once was, Hillary's core strength, but it looks like Obama's breakthrough with white working class voters in Virginia may be going national.

Obama thrashed Clinton 2-to-1 in neighboring Minnesota and soundly beat her in neighboring Iowa. With the weakness Hillary's showing in these three crucial upper Midwest swing states, it's doubtful she could carry them in November, and without winning at least a couple of them it's doubtful a Democrat could win the presidency. Between them, these three states have 27 electoral votes---as many as Florida, and significantly more than Ohio (20).

Superdelegates can read the handwriting on the wall. They're not making any more reservations on the Clinton Titanic. At the end of the day they'll do the right thing and line up for Obama who will come to the convention with the most elected delegates, the biggest popular vote, and the best chance of winning in November.

Posted by: bclintonk | February 16, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Hazwalnut. You truly don't know what you are talking about. They did not think about "uncommited". They thought Clinton would take her name off and she didn't.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for people to start finding out who the real Obama really is.

Its almost worth losing the general election to the Republicans.

He certainly will never get my vote.

I'm a loyal Democrat, but I'm an American even before I'm a Democrat.

Obama = DEFEAT FOR DEMOCRATS

Even the most partisan Democrat will put "principles before personalities"

By the way, that's another huge group that will never vote for Obama, according to what a friend of mine in it has said.

Does the term "Dry Drunk" mean anything to readers of this blog?

That's what Bush is.

When was the last time Obama went to an AA meeting?

Obama freely admits he was a drug addict.

Do we want another untreated addict in the whitehouse?

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Who's bright idea was it to let Billary run anyway??

Didn't they realize she'd have NO CHANCE in a general election?

Talk about denial......Republicans are laughing their a$$es off.

Adultery in the oval office doesnt fly in the fly-over states.

Posted by: Rubiconski | February 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Snicker! :-)

The "Clinton's" Long View?

"Maybe Chelsea can win-in 2012!"

A Fellow named Barack Hussein Obasama.

JUST what McCain was looking for!

A Madrassa Educated fellow named Barack Hussein Obasama!

Hee Heeee...Sic-Em John! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 16, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Sunnymarky119

If Hillary has been quite unable to "chew Obama up and spit him out" what makes you think that McCain will be able to if Barack is the nominee?

Posted by: lhummer | February 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

So, we have to watch Team Clinton destroy the Democratic party just so she can receive a coronation? Even when has gotten fewer votes?

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Hey, svreader, if you want to vote for McCain over Obama, go right ahead. You vastly overestimate your own importance in supposing that anyone cares whom you do or do not vote for. Besides, there's not much difference between McCain and Clinton anyway. Obama '08!!

Posted by: lydgate | February 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The language the obama fans uses here are disgusting and republican. Why obama and his followers not just join the republic party? He has been telling people how great he is at attracting republicans to vote for him.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Clintons are the best thing ever happened to America. It's sad how people forget so fast the best 8 years of American economy and world peace. Now people are going to make the same mistake as they made by electing Bush. Obama will be just the same -- inexperienced, naive and "acting president!!"

Posted by: mehadimh | February 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama President in 2008 ?
It's risky, it's gambling since he is untested. zien106 | February 16, 2008 05:15 PM
--------------------------
Oh, stop it already.

Obama is no more or less "tested" than HRC or McCain.

If HRC is so superior, yet is losing to Obama, then he is "super-tested."

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

There's no way in the world Obama could ever hope to carry Florida in a general election.

After trying to stop their votes from counting, there's now a less than zero chance.

Count ever Vote!

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I live in Florida and Hillary would have lost like Rudy lost if Obama had a chance to camapign. Hillary won on name recogniton only. Every Florida voter knew their vote would not count towards seating delegates you can't cry now after the fact. Play within the rules or don't play at all. Clintons are cheaters.

Posted by: info4 | February 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama President in 2008 ?
It's risky, it's gambling since he is untested

Posted by: zien106 | February 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

As an independent, I find it amusing how Barak Obama claims he is another uniter, ( where have we heard that before?)but how divided the democratic party is right now. After watching all the debates and seeing how little substance there is to Obama, if Sen. Clinton doesn't secure the nomination of her party I guess Ron Paul will get my vote. Another "uniter" in the White House is not what this country needs to see us through the next 4 years!Posted by: jeiken | February 16, 2008 05:09 PM
--------------------

I've been paying pretty close attention and I have yet to see, hear or read when and where Obama said he was a "uniter." That's a Bush line. Can you provide a link to Obama saying or reportedly saying he was a "uniter?"

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Harold Ickes better hope for a short view. A couple of minor problems today for Team Hillary:
1. The Daily Kos reports today that 80 election districts in NYC recorded not a single vote for Obama in the New York primary on February 5 even though many of those districts were in Harlem. A recount of the NYC vote shows Obama picking up new votes that were not recorded on February 5 and may be enough to swing Brooklyn (which Obama lost by less than 2%) to Obama. Net result will be a switch of one or two delegate votes from Clinton to Obama.
2. While Ickes was waxing eloquent on super delegates (of which he is one from the District of Columbia), two of Hillary's "sisters" from DC who are super delegates reportedly switched from her to Obama.
Even when the voters aren't voting, Hillary and Bill lose ground to Obama.

Posted by: NewEra | February 16, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I am from Florida. We were told our vote would not count for selecting delegates in the Democratic primary because Florida violated party rules regarding the timing of the primary. The candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida. For Democrats, the only real issue on the ballot was Amendment 1, the property tax amendment. Homeowners with homestead exemption would be the primary beneficiaries of this amendment. That is what drew a lot of Democrats out to vote. These would be older voters who own property. The younger voters who are students or renters would have less interest in voting for this amendment and therefore no reason to bother to vote. The property tax amendment passed. The population of Democrats who voted were probably not representative of a voter population who had the benefit of campaigning in the state and thought their vote would matter. To go back now and declare that the Florida Democratic primary should count is a travesty on democracy. It can't be allowed to stand. Someone needs to dig a little deeper into this and analyze who voted and how the demographics compare with other states where the voters knew their votes mattered and the candidates came to the states and campaigned and ran ads. This did not happen in Florida. It is likely that older Hillary supporters were over represented, so of course she wants the vote to count. Let us have Democratic caucuses or another primary to decide the issue. Florida should be part of the convention, but not with delegates who were selected under very undemocratic-like circumstances. We can do better than this!

Posted by: elenaerts | February 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

if Sen. Clinton doesn't secure the nomination of her party I guess Ron Paul will get my vote. Another "uniter" in the White House is not what this country needs to see us through the next 4 years!

Posted by: jeiken | February 16, 2008 05:09 PM
----------------------

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot. He will not run as a third party candidate.

Posted by: info4 | February 16, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I am a Floridan who voted. There were 4 million of us. McCain and Clinton won. It was fair and try to disenfranchise us and the Democratic Party loses Florida. Also respect all the candidates. This office is for the Presidency. Stop screaming at each other and discuss current issues. I dislike the rude comments made about each candidate.
A.D.

Posted by: ddolgin | February 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I understand why Hillary is sounding so desparate. She's losing, and her ego is so large she can't face the facts. She is nothing but an ambitious politician, who will lie in your face if she thinks it will fool you. Now she is lying to herself about some overarching strategy that supposedly will win her the nomination. She is, in essence, the female Rudy Giuliani. Only difference? He looks better in drag than she looks straight!!!

This is Obama's race to run, and just on the war alone, he will kick McCain's coolie.

Posted by: queenskid | February 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

What's "automatic" about the superdelegates? They're the very definition of NOT automatic. Very Orwellian, or Rovian, on Ickes' part.

Posted by: wchang | February 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The only reason there was a large turnout in the Florida primary was to vote for a homestead tax exemption that passed. If they seat the delegates based on that election it will doom the Democrats for years to come.

All candidates agreed to the rules of not counting the delegates. Now Hillary wants to change her mind, just like she changed her mind on her vote to go to war and how she changed her mind on NAFTA. We need a president that doesn't keep changing her mind when it suits her needs. Where is her integrity?

Posted by: info4 | February 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the true believers. Very hard workers, eyes blazing with faith in Hillary...She can win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, yet still have ZERO chance of getting the nomination. She will have fewer delegates, period. Florida and Michigan will not save her. The supers will not save her. It's over, and has been since Maine. True believers are historical residue; always the last to see the handwriting on the wall.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

As an independent, I find it amusing how Barak Obama claims he is another uniter, ( where have we heard that before?)but how divided the democratic party is right now. After watching all the debates and seeing how little substance there is to Obama, if Sen. Clinton doesn't secure the nomination of her party I guess Ron Paul will get my vote. Another "uniter" in the White House is not what this country needs to see us through the next 4 years!

Posted by: jeiken | February 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Davestickler writes:

"It's truly scary that there are people posting here suggesting that an election with only candidate on the ballot should be considered fair. Do you actually believe what you're writing? Are you just saying whatever you think will get your candidate to win, regardless of whether it's related to the truth or not?"

I've been a Democrat all my life and I really had no idea why some people disliked the Clintons so much until recently. Now I understand. These peope have no class, grace, or sense of fairness. For them it is all about winning at any cost with whatever sleazy and disingenuous politics that they can muster. Just go back to the very beginnig of their careers and yo uwill see a resume filled with scandal after scandal.

Our country might have been able to absord such a poisonous candidate at a normal time but after 8 years of GWB destroying and pillging this country, we really can;t afford to have Hillary Clinton destroy this country any further.

We need someone honest who can unite the country and I'm so glad that Obama is running.

I have no issue with counting the delegates from FL and MI, as long as we have a proper election where each candidate has the opportunity to campaign and get the word out. I gues the Clinton Administration is afraid that the voters will learn about Obama and that once they get to know him, they will like him so much better than Hillary's vindictive and dishonest politics.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

It's truly scary that there are people posting here suggesting that an election with only candidate on the ballot should be considered fair. Do you actually believe what you're writing? Are you just saying whatever you think will get your candidate to win, regardless of whether it's related to the truth or not?

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 05:00 PM

No, davestickler, what's really scary is that you don't know that Obama's name was on the ballot in Florida, but he LOST. He didn't get as many votes as Senator Clinton even though he had tv ads running in the state and he gave a press conference in violation of the rules. In Michigan, he and John Edwards CHOSE not to put their names on the ballot. They decided to be "uncommitted" and the move-on.org groupies made thousands of calls to voters in Michigan begging them to vote for uncommitted. Senator Clinton still won even though Obama's and Edwards votes were combined in "uncommitted."

Posted by: hazwalnut | February 16, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

We know where we are with Hilary and she is the best chance of having a Democratic President. Obama is untried, untested empty and republicans will chew him up and spit him out by November.. But Hilary is Tough and thats whats needed. sunnymarky119 | February 16, 2008 04:22 PM
----------------------
Hillary is a weakling and a LOSER, as proven by the fact that "untried, untested, empty" Obama has kicked her sorry a$$ even though she had every advantage (name recognition, money, endorsements) going into this race.

Let's go with a winner.

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I think the best solution to MI and FL is let them be seated but cut their delegates by half like the GOP did in FL. That might be acceptable to both campaigns and will mimimize the impact of these flawed elections but still allow them to participate. From my calculations it would only give Hillary a net 25 delegates. Probaly insignificant given the lead Barack has now.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Dimocrat Socialists.

LMFAO! :-)

Posted by: rat-the | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

If we don't count Mich. and Florida's vote, then we better count them out on election night when their vote will count. I, for one, think they should be counted. Obama's name was on the ticket in Florida as well as Clinton's. He ran national ads while she didn't. He continues to whine even though he is ahead. Give 'em hell, Hillary!!

Posted by: Lucille4 | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

...sunnymarky119 writes:

"O Dear BethesdaMD .. another anti war spouter .. its the crown of hilarys soaked in 3000 US soldiers Blood.. sounds good from an educated Maryland Democrat"

Based on the fact that you trivialize the deaths of 3000+ Americans and 200,000+ Iraqis for a completely needless war, I can fully understand why you are a Hillary Clinton supporter. I'm not surprised at the patent lack of respect or regard for humanity. After all, as long as your queen wins the election, that's all that matters; right? I'm glad you found the right party for you and a queen that you can belong to.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Ickes is in denial. Sad to see intelligent well-respected people lose touch with reality. They need to face the facts and let it go. Obama will be the nominee. It time to being to focus on the real opponent, McCain.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

It's truly scary that there are people posting here suggesting that an election with only candidate on the ballot should be considered fair. Do you actually believe what you're writing? Are you just saying whatever you think will get your candidate to win, regardless of whether it's related to the truth or not?

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

well we blue Collar "Uneducated" Dems can only afford to live in a cave down here in Texas

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 16, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

How many votes would Obama get if he were white? aragorn | February 16, 2008 04:53 PM

ANSWER: a lot more than Hillary would get if she were a man.

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Tricky Icky should be Harold's name which puts him in great company with Billary. They will stop at nothing folks but unfortunately it is impossible to stop a tidal wave of hope and change when it is barreling towards you. BARACK OBAMA is a man of integrity and judgment. Let us not forget the vote to authorize the war and what that has cost us in blood and treasure. She is being supported by corporations because they have cut a deal and she will do their dirty work for them. Her sense of entitlement to the job is downright sickening. Thank God we have a man who can help u transcend the politic of old and take us into a difficult but better future. Better head for the high ground Billary the wave is coming and it is going to wash all over us with Hope as one of its main drivers. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN AMERICA WHAT A CONCEPT...

BARACK AND ROLL in 2008!!!!!

Posted by: pedraza1 | February 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama basically wants to disenfranchise Florida's and Michigan's voters and delegates. The DNC in those states broke a rule and the party judged by giving the voters and delegates the death penalty basically stripping them of their rights and voices in this all important primary. The voters still went to the polls in record number and voted anyway, and that says alot about them. Obama should be for re-instating these votes or at least for a month of campaigning and a new polling date. Democrats do not stand for disenfranchising voters and taking away their rights to vote and for their votes to COUNT. I think it is quite obvious why Obama is against it, because he knows they all voted for Hillary. Obama is a hypocrite and self serving. Here's an honest question, if they were all black voters voting for Obama in FL and MI what do you think Obama would have to say about it then? As a life long Democrat, I will NEVER vote for this guy, he is a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan. Hillary All the Way. Posted by: Hillary08 | February 16, 2008 04:48 PM
-------------------------------

NEWSFLASH: Obama IS "for a month of campaigning and a new polling date."

That is the proper solution, as even Hillary08 comcedes.

HRC is AGAINST that, which is utterly duplicitous considering her original stance in support of disqualifying the Florida and Michigan delegations.

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

As a Michigan voter, I am deeply offended that Ickes states that everyone was on equal footing in MI and FL, and that the Michigan delegation should be seated based on the pseudoprimary results. The whole country needs to understand what he and every other party operative knows: that Obama was not on the ballot, and Clinton was. That situation was a direct result of the state party choice to challenge the national committee, not by any forfeit by Obama. People should know that we didn't even have a write-in option for Obama that would be counted. State and local instructions to potential primary voters and commentary on the possible outcomes based on our votes in this quagmire were completely contradictory, so for many voters, the best option in the face of uncertainty was -- don't vote. This certainly is disenfranchisement, but that does not justify a fraudulent delegation as an alternative.

After the candidates' quality performances in the California debate, I thought the Democratic Party was the winner -- regardless of who was the eventual nominee -- by contrast with the Republican's shallow California debate. Now I worry that Clinton and my party leaders, will renounce the moral high ground. Seating the delegation based on the January vote risks relegating the Democratic Party to the same kind of sleazy politics that the Republicans used to steal Bush into the White House. The delegation, and the nomination, would have no legitimacy; it is almost Orwellian. If Clinton, Michigan party officials and the national Committee take this path, they will set the party back thirty years, and alienate the huge influx of motivated young people that should be the hallmark of a well-functioning party. To the extent that Clinton stoops to the purely power-based path of maneuvering the MI and FL delegations into place against the original Committee decision, she only highlights the clear choice between her philosophical foundation and Obama's.

Posted by: oneellama | February 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

How many votes would Obama get if he were white?

Posted by: aragorn | February 16, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"i dont for one minute think the US electorate will vote for him.. will they?"

:::: sunnymarky119: Apparently you must be living in the basement of the castle of Her Majesty Queen Hillary of Sleazyville. If you had stepped outside your cave and kept abreast of what is happening you will know that Obama is doing quite well with the electorate. In fact Obama won more votes in Virginia than McCain and Clinton put TOGETHER! And in case you have a hard time with reading comprehension, this happened in VIRGINIA. Exactly the kind of state that we need to carry to win a general election.

Hillary Clinton is already unelectable with 47% of the country against her. If she steals the election by overriding the wishes of the citizens she will be even more unelectable as she'd also loose the support of the majority of the Democrats!

Hillary Clinton supporters are the types that generally lack class or grace and can't accept a fair defeat. They want to use vindictive politics and hate to steal the election when they are loosing so they can have a coronation for Her Majesty Hillary Clinton, the queen of Sleazyville.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary is one of the most impressive people of our time, then what the heck has she been doing in the Senate? I challenge anyone to name a major legislative accomplishment she's had since reaching the Senate.

Pardon me for being disgusted, but it just feels like the entire Clinton candidacy is a stack of lie upon lie:

"35 years of experience"

"Michigan and Florida were fair elections!"

"Foreign policy experience"

"Stronger candidate in the general election"

"The inevitable nominee"

"The only candidate who can get universal health care done"

It's really incredible.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Ickes is a great Democrat. But he has bet on the wrong horse. The party has some master politicians other than Bill Clinton, to wit: Barack Obama. Let's go with a winner.

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

O Dear BethesdaMD .. another anti war spouter .. its the crown of hilarys soaked in 3000 US soldiers Blood.. sounds good from an educated Maryland Democrat

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 16, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters remind me of a folk song I heard once called "Jesus is healther than Heroin" that wisely said "you've still got that same glazed look in your eyes... But I guess Jesus is healther than Heroin.

Every Obama supporter I meet has that same "glazed look"

No, I don't want to buy a flower.
No, I don't want to hear the words of sung-mung-moon.
No, I'm not going to vote for Obama!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Stop bashing the Dem. party of Florida we did have $4,million to hold a separate primary. The Republican party & the
republican Gov. voted to move the primary up, the Dems had nothing to do with. I am surprise that speaker of the house don,t know this. You can bet the Republican party will seat all of their delegates. We had 1.7 million Dems vote, thats more than the first four states combine,if you think you can without Florida have at it.

Posted by: dadio4003 | February 16, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

You know, the media says that Barack Obama attracts higher educated people and a large majority are supposed to have a 4 year degree. Judging by most of the people that participate in these blogs, someone is either lying to the exit pollsters or you are really
not Obama supporters but Republican rednecks.

Posted by: hazwalnut | February 16, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama basically wants to disenfranchise Florida's and Michigan's voters and delegates. The DNC in those states broke a rule and the party judged by giving the voters and delegates the death penalty basically stripping them of their rights and voices in this all important primary. The voters still went to the polls in record number and voted anyway, and that says alot about them. Obama should be for re-instating these votes or at least for a month of campaigning and a new polling date. Democrats do not stand for disenfranchising voters and taking away their rights to vote and for their votes to COUNT. I think it is quite obvious why Obama is against it, because he knows they all voted for Hillary. Obama is a hypocrite and self serving. Here's an honest question, if they were all black voters voting for Obama in FL and MI what do you think Obama would have to say about it then? As a life long Democrat, I will NEVER vote for this guy, he is a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan.

Hillary All the Way.

Posted by: Hillary08 | February 16, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I find it curious how the Obama camp claims that Clinton should "play by the rules" in terms of disenfranchising the votes of two key states the Democrats will need to win the national election, but they keep harping on how "unfair" those same rules are, should the "automatic delegates" that have been part of the "rules" for the past three decades, actually exercise their right to vote their preference.

If you are so big on "the people" electing the leader, why would you put that principle aside in the case of Florida and Michigan? (As an aside, you might also think about who gets the popular vote instead of who wins low attendance caucuses, based on your grand principle too)

Try and stretch it any which way you like, the only reason you think one is fair and the other is not, is because automatic delegates (party leaders and long time Democrats who have actually worked for liberal causes) might not play in Obama's favour.

Now, having been made aware of the, um, fuzzy and self serving logic you are using, why don't you exercise a little critical thinking and ask yourself why so many long time party activists and strategists might think Clinton is stronger?

Go ahead, let your hopeful (not angry not negative) nature stretch around that question a bit. No hopeful answer?

That's okay, I am sure you can come up with a cynical, Hillary Hating one.

Cuz that's what you guys are good at.

Talk about pots calling kettles black.

You think Hillary is negative because she asks about one of Barack's policies? Barack's whole campaign has been about challenging one Hillary vote. Misrepresenting her reasons for voting as she did, deliberately advertising it as support of Bush's war, when she is on the record as saying as she recorded her vote that the Senate vote was NOT a vote to call a preemptive war, and that WMDs and the capacity to use them had to be found by inspectors before any action should be taken.

Out of Saint Obama's mouth that complete misrepresentation, though, is of course not negative campaigning. No.

Hillary Clinton pointing out his votes in favour of big oil on the other hand...

Oh, The HORROR, THE HORROR... She has questioned our saint! She has dared to say he might not be perfect and his record might be less pure than he has led you all to believe.... Yes, indeed this woman will DO ANYTHING!!!

I teach logic to first year university students who would be appalled at the sheer lack of rational argument coming from Obama's supporters (on line and in the news media)

Posted by: irwin | February 16, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The statement that "Hillary Clinton is one of the most impressive people of our time" is ludicrous. Her campaign proves otherwise. She will go down in history as the most over-hyped person of her time.

It seems to me that Edwards, who I supported, was vowing to "fight all the way to the convention" right before he withdrew.

HRC will be out within a month or less. She has blown a huge lead and has LOSER written all over her. The Democratic Party is not going to tolerate some ego-trip by a loser. Winning in November is more important than Hillary's ego (or Obama's).

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

sunnymarky119: After Maine, apparently Clinton is no longer even fooling the less educated demographic with her disingenuous lies and vindictive politics of hate.

If there was any substance in her campaign, she would not have been the first candidate to broadcast negative ads. Hillary Can;t even run a proper campaign, let alone a nation. All we will get from a Clinton Administration are more miserable failures.

Hillary Clinton has shown zero leadership with her vote for the Iraq war. She did not have a backbone to stand up for a wrong war because she thought voting for the war will be good for her career. What a self-serving and opportunistic queen she must think she is!

If Hillary Clinton is coronated the Queen by corrupt party insiders, her crown will be soaked in the blood of the 3,000+ Americans and the 200,000+ Iraqi's who have died because she did not have the courage to stand up for what is right.

Thankfully we have another candidate who stood up for what he believes in.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I just love the folks who want to pin Barack down as someone who just gives good speeches. Also, the idea that 'he's doing the same thing that Bush did' promising to be a uniter.

On the first point, let's be clear: Obama is not exactly an idiot. He was the president of the Harvard Law Review for heaven's sake. So, I think he has a pretty good brain on his shoulders.

On the second point, Bush made a lot of empty rhetoric about being a uniter on his way into office, but his policy positions on issues like gay rights, abortion, etc, all framed him as a good-ol run-of-the-mill divider. Obama actually advances policies that usually require some sort of compromise even for his base (e.g., telling auto-workers that they might need to support higher fuel standards). That's what real unity requires.

Posted by: alphaking5 | February 16, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Exactly sv, we think Bush is a laughing stock in the world now.. imagine obama, anyway i dont for one minute think the US electorate will vote for him.. will they?..well some damn stupid people have gottin in the oval office.

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton camp's claims of victory being just around the corner remind of the story told by John Kenneth Galbraith of the debriefing of the German Albert Speer at the close of World War II.

How was it, Galbraith asked, that Speer knew his Germans were losing?

It was, Speer replied, because the glorious victories of the Fatherland were growing ever closer to Berlin.

The Big "O" has got the Big Mo !!!

Go Obama !!!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Michigan needs to count, even though Ickes wrote the rules, Hillary agreed to them, and she was the only candidate on the ballot?

If friends of mine took me for a fool like that, I'd be quite angry, and I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting them again. I'm sorry, but that's just not how decent people behave.

Posted by: davestickler | February 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

One of the few to reveal how the emperor has no clothes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403105.html

Posted by: mayod | February 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The level of immaturity and inexperience indicated by many of the pro Obama comments I read on these pages leads me to conclude that a substantial majority of Mr Obama's supporters are indeed younger and lack any serious real world experience or responsibilities.

This lack of real world experience and or selfish unwillingness to face the realities of the political process seems to be reflected in news stories about Obama himself. Not the best recommendation or qualification for a man who wants to assume responsibility for the powerful military forces and economic processes of the United States. I am certainly happy that individuals responsible for many of the negative comments on these pages have little or no authority over issues involving my own life and family.

Posted by: edhaynsworth | February 16, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

If I can get even one person to see past Obama's "reality distortion field", its worth the effort.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most impressive people of our time.

The fact that people think a salesman like Obama could even be considered to be in the same mental league with her never ceases to amaze me.

The fact that some people still believe in Obama after seeing his poor performance in debates shows how strongly they hold onto their savior complex and how deeply in denial they are about how bad he would be at the actual job of being president.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

sunnymarky119: Hillary Clinton will be stealing he election if she makes backroom deals and twists arms behind closed doors to override the mandate of the citizens as determined by the ratio of pledged delegates.

We deride Russia because Russians are shut out of the actual election process and the leaders are selected by corrupt, selfish, and power hungry party insiders. If Obama wins the most states, most votes, and the most pledged delegates only to see Hillary Clinton fix and steal the election using party insiders, there will be a civil war within the Democratic Party.

In which case, you can chalk up at least one Maryland Democrat viting for McCain. Whoever is elected should represent the will of the people, not the will of the corrupt and selfish party insiders who buy into the sleazy politics of the Clinton Campaign.

Just take a step back and look at what Hillary Clinton has done to the Democratic party!

She's no uniter. She cant even unite her own party and the respect of those in her own party. She'll give us more of the same politics as George Bush. No thank you!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

How sad. After reading all of these useless posts (with the exception of some) I now realize that the democrat party is screwed! I am a democrat and I support both Hilary and Obama. It seems that the democrat party truly is divided. I can't believe what some of you are saying.

Hilary is qualified for the job. Obama is qualified for the job. They are both very competent and I believe they BOTH will make a difference in our government. We need a competent democrat in office in order to correct the mistakes Bush has made. If you all keep this up we are going to end up with another Republican in office. Because of all of your egos more of our troops will lose their lives. Come to your senses people!!!

Posted by: sipher3000 | February 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"I guess now it makes sense why Hillary Clinton does the best with votes with the least amount of education" How arrogant you are. Its only highly educated democrtaics who know anything about politics then?.

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons, as we well know, will do anything to win this election.

Politics is a dirty game, and we may be watching history in the making.

If it so happens that the Clintons steal the election, through what is judged to be, unethical means, I am hoping that Americans won't take this lying down.

Posted by: buzzm1 | February 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Related to foreign policy, which so many partisians want to make Mr. Obama's weakness, he is the candidate whom most understands the failures of the neo-con / Bushian foreign. Mr. Obama has in detail, most recent edition of Newsweek for example, described how and why we are less safe now, how our policies have promoted Islamic Fundamentalism, how they have worked to bolster our foes status in the World (Venezuela, Iran, Russia, N. Korea, etc... There are multiple U.S. government reports that state these facts - 9-11 commission, NIE and the Baker Report. Can we begin to understand that foreign policy, and Mr. Obama's insight on the new direction we need to take, is indeed one of his great strengths? It is truly a differentiating point between he and Clinton / McCain.

Those with foreign policy experience already know this unrelated to political partisianship already understand. It is hopeful that our country will not buy into empty partisian rhetoric attempting to make Mr. Obama's foreign policy positioning look anything but perceptive.

Posted by: dwayne.thornton | February 16, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons failed our generation by trading true vision and leadership for focus groups and doublespeak. They, and we, could have done so much more to save our endagered planet despite the ongoing decline of our representative democracy.

Posted by: swtwdc | February 16, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

:::: badcat97: I could not agree with you more. These people are so disingenuous and sleazy I am amazed at how much support they have. I guess now it makes sense why Hillary Clinton does the best with votes with the least amount of education.

The only way MI and FL delegates should be seated is to have an actual election sanctioned by the party where both candidates can campaign. Of course that would be fair and with Hillary Clinton loosing a badly run campaign I can understand why she would not want that.

Why would we want such a dishonest person to represent us? Have we not had enough of dishonest and sleazy politics after 8 years of Bush?

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

BethesdaMD. Steal the election, ? she will either get the nomination or not and win a general election or not. Its bent judges and lawyers who steal elections AKA Florida 2000

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 16, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

hillary clinton "fans" are no different than george bush "fans".

they can't see the RIGHT way about anything.

what is WRONG with this country anymore?!

Posted by: yvonne | February 16, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 16, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

McCain looks like a dead man walking. Looks like he is on life support. If he is patriotic, he should give up his presidential bid because he has one foot over his grave and another on flip-flop opportunistic politics.

Posted by: ramu1 | February 16, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Before the primary voting began, Obama went after Clinton when she was leading in the polls by saying she wanted to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Now that Obama is in the lead, why isn't Clinton allowed to note the differences in their health care plans? Comparative campaigning is different than outright attack ads.

Posted by: AGMPapp | February 16, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

sd71: Have you looked at yourself in a mirror lately? In case you had not realized it, we are all human beings.

I'm so disgusted by the Hillary Clinton supporters who claim to be reasonable people who just happen to be racists. This is the same continuation of the Clintons playing the race card to win an election. I am a Democrat and I've completely lost any respect that I had for the Clintons.

At this point I'd rather see McCain win an election fairly than to see Her Majesty Queen Hillary be coronated the queen of America by stealing the election.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"We don't need a re-do. Everybody was on equal footing."

Let's see. Hillary was on the Michigan ballot; Obama was not. How is that "equal footing", again?

The Clintons will steal the election any way possible.

Posted by: badcat97 | February 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

We know where we are with Hilary and she is the best chance of having a Democratic President. Obama is untried, untested empty and republicans will chew him up and spit him out by November.. But Hilary is Tough and thats whats needed

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

great, im already getting sick as i prepare myself for the clintons to take on the role of the bush family in the democratic party.

if it doesn't happen the right way, they'll make it happen their own way.

Posted by: yvonne | February 16, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I read in the book "The Clinton Crack-Up: the boy president's life after the white house" that the monthly payment for the Clinton's Chappaqua home is paid for by charging the Secret Service the same monthly payment to reside on their property. As a consequence, we the American People, are paying for their home. This seems absolutely over-the-top since Bill has already made at least 40 Million just by giving speeches.

Posted by: barygold | February 16, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Her Majesty, Queen Hillary of America feels that she can change the rules whenever she wants to with her sleazy, vindictive, and dishonest politics.

When she is on the verge of loosing the election fair and square, she now wants to twist the arms of party insiders so she can have her coronation. Where does she think this is; RUSSIA?

How can she stand for democracy when she's now trying to get a few corrupt and selfish party insiders to override the election, as voted for by the citizens of this country? I am so disgusted!

Coming from the Clinton Administration I am not surprized though. This is someone who took money from a banned terrorist organization's fundraisers and then gave a statement sympathetic towards terrorism.

Could Hillary Clinton possibly be any more disenginuous? Not only could she not take a stand against the war in Iraq, she can't even take a stand on terrorism!

Listen to her speak with her own words about how we should try to "understand" terrorists and how terrorism is simply a "tool" used throughout history to achieve objectives. She talks about the terrorist group the LTTE (The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka) which has killed over 60,000 people, commited more suicide bombings than all other terrorist groups in the world combined, and is responsible for the assassination of the Prime Minister of India.

In her own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z_olqBDnxA

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8699

Could this sympathy have anything to do with the LTTE terrorist supporters fundraising for Hillary Clinton (Google: Hillary LTTE). I guess the same way Hillary Clinton could not vote "no" for the Iraq war, she's not really capable of saying that terrorism against civilians is completely unacceptable in a civilized society and that there could be no justification for acts of terrorism regardless of the "objectives."

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Ickes take a hike and fly your HRC kite. All dont forget Oregon, Obama and HRC are MIA here. Oregonians will go for green party candidates in the general,if niether Bama or HRC dont care for Oregon

Posted by: ramu1 | February 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

i despise mccain but i doubt i will vote for obama either.i will vote for hillary without hesitation.

obama's parents were white and african.both were phds and he has a law degree from Harvard, and he is a good speaker. but it seems there is almost nothing black american about his upbringing and culture. he is more of a second generation african immigrant, like many latino and asian immigrants.

obama has had even support from whites and asians,who form a relatively insignificant number of voters. but he has been given an unfair advantage by black voters,who form 20 percent of the democratic party and have voted 90 percent of the time for him. that makes me very uncomfortable about obama.

Posted by: sd71 | February 16, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see people commenting directly on the article in hand as usual - NOT! Here's an example of what to do: The Clinton camp being forced into taking the 'long view' (see, I use words from the headline of this piece to make my point)is very ironic- why?- because of their collective myopia which blinds them to Obama's brilliance. And let us hope the superdelegates vote in the interests of the world and not their own back pockets and support a man who the world can respect and not someone only the 'special interests' can have a stake in. There! I support my candidate while relating it to the article - maybe some of you numbos (on both sides) could do the same.

Posted by: rupertornelius | February 16, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Ickes is a dirtbag, one of Billary's sleaziest henchmen, and when he's not pulling the wings off of flies he comes up with this pathetic stuff.

Posted by: dan1138 | February 16, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have no Political affiliation... They're in it for the money.

If their efforts destroy the party, that's not their problem. They always have the lobbyist field to fall back on.

Posted by: theman_in_black | February 16, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

We don't need another 4 years of the Hill and Bill show in my opinion. So if Billary is the democratic candidate my vote in November goes to McCain, if Obama is nominated I vote for Obama. It's a win win situation for me. Oh and the last time I voted for a Democratic president was Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: 45hounddawg | February 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Like the Clinton Years? Great.
One
Check out the Ickes argument for why you now count Florida even though he set the rules that now exclude the Florida delegates.
Two
Then check out the Clinton policy and campaign management crowd after the re-shuffle.
Three
Check out Bill unmuzzled back on the road -but with no one in the campaign even whispering what his "role" might be in a Clinton Administration (which one?).
Conclusion
Before, you could say it was "Old wine in new bottles." Now thier idea of change is old wine in old bottles served up by the same old people. What's the sound of one hand applauding?

Posted by: sleasto | February 16, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are determined to win even if they destroy the Democratic Party in the process. Oh, I guess that's not news.

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 16, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Speaking impartially, Obama supporters are far more vituperative, to use Larry King's fav word.

At every juncture of the campaign Obama has received strategic endorsements, e.g., Oprah to convince women to vote for him in CA; now the union endorsement that could lean into Clinton's working class base in the next big contests.

I don't think we've ever seen such a overt co-opting of another candidate's base.

Today I talked to someone who volunteers for the Obama campaign and they gave me the Reagan comparison e.g., the slogan campaign that ignites people...

We've learned igniters can be dividers.
A primary is not indicative of how someone will do nationally..

There's also the media dysfunction of trying to call a race that isn't over yet.
That works on Obama's favor, but it's not equitable and it doesn't speak for all those who haven't voted yet; there is no result until all the votes are in, all; then we can start talking about WHAT IS..

Posted by: vpprice | February 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is dead in the water as candidate for President. The problem is not gender but this particular and very specific woman. Before she and Bill create an even greater catastrophe for Democrats she should bow out and return to the Senate where she can do some good for all Americans.

If she fights for seating the Florida delegates, she shows herself to be the basest of persons, all Arkansas redneck and no Smith. With her votes on the Iraq war, taxes, and defense of torture she has proven she has bad principles and judgement. What does her experience count for when all is said and done, especially on national security or creating a competent government to solve domestic problems?

Ohio, Texas, and PA are not stupid enough to vote for her no matter Ikes' proforma hype.

Posted by: walden1 | February 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

mgrenkov ...let it go. You've had your turn.

Posted by: msmiller8265 | February 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Despite what most may think, between Bill and Hillary, hers could be longer.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Dem who will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton due to sleazy behavior just like this.

I am reminded of the Clinton years now.... let's talk about what "Is" is next.

Dishonest, dirty and desperate... that's the clinton plan.

Obama Now

Posted by: msmiller8265 | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Dear "darleneann,"

No one says superdelegates should abide majority, but no superdelegate in their right mind would go against public opinion and elect a candidate with fewer pledged delegates.

You know this would go against all the principles that democrats stand for, right?

No one would vote for this party if a few "special" individuals would decide who'll be the candidate, this kills the whole purpose of voting for a regular Joe.

Especially since young people are all voting for Obama. If democrats would pull this trick of electing Clinton against public will, they can kiss goodbye to any chance of their candidate being a president for at least next 30 years.

Best Regards,

Obama, 08

Posted by: mgrenkov | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?" he asked. When asked if those contests should be held again, he replied, "We don't need a re-do. Everybody was on equal footing."

I live in Florida and that is a lie. Not allowing candidates to campaign gives the advantage to celebrity candidates with name recognition. That is why Rudy was leading in Republican polls. When the other candidates introduced themsleves Rudy dropped in polls and lost the election. If Obama was able to campaign in Florida he probably would have beat Hillary because she like Rudy have name recognition and not campaigning helps her. I can tell you one thing I usually go for the democrat but if they give the Florida delegates to Hillary come Novemeber I will vote Republican staright down the ticket as a protest vote to the DNC which is owned by the Clintons and their old cronies.

Posted by: info4 | February 16, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

After Billary loses, Yucky Icki can come mow my lawn.

Posted by: rammmohan | February 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I see Hillary is campaigning to be of, by and for the middle class. Maybe she is, but that's one weird idea of middle class. How many "middle class" people do you know who can write a check for $5 million bucks to keep her campaign afloat?

Posted by: lrubin2 | February 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

obama is a hot air ballon. his supporters are naive and out of touch with reality.he will collapse like a dot com company of 2000.it is a matter of when.

hillary is a strong supporter of lawful immigrants. she even tried to pass legislation that would unite green card holders with their families much more easily than now. the thankless immigrants are now voting for obama.she is also strong on the economy,health care and defense.

there are two things the next president has to deal with

-the economy, jobs and health care.
-osama and company who are still on the loose.

Hiilary will have to do two things. revive jobs and wages and move toward universal health care. that is not possible if this country is involved in a generation-long struggle with millions of Muslims, as McCain plans to do. The religious right wingers in the Republican party have worsened matters and fueled the Al Queda's recruitment efforts. The Republicans are militant and xenophobic. It has blunted the country's ability to grow the economy and fight terror. so she'll have to plan to pull out of iraq in the next four years. osama and his supporters are not stupid idiots-they are fanatic Muslims,clever, educated, devious,manipulative, ruthless. they know how to use technology. McCains foreign policy will be Osama bin Laden's most indispensable ally.Obama opposed the iraq war(like I did) but proposed no alternative solution. His campaign is an extension of Oprah Winfrey's TV shows.It has no substance.

Hillary remains the best bet. Hillary will have to change America's foreign policy.There is no military solution as she said. We'll have to invest in think tanks and advanced studies,and pursue a comprehensive strategy that will allow us to win the ideological war against Islamic extremism and expansionism in the long run.


Posted by: sd71 | February 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

This country, so united during the beginning of its existence, had become fractured. The issues involved were, in many ways, masked in the obvious but were much more about the mistrust of one for another. One side was sure they were right, as was the other. The lines were so well drawn.

The issue dominating this country was slavery. It was the horrible practice keeping freedom from thousands upon thousands of people who had been brought to this country against their will.

By the time the 1860 presidential elections came, the country was on the precipice of dissolution. All were filled with anger or fear.

What was most needed, at that all important time, was a leader who understood the sacrifices and possibilities ahead for our country. Some were sure that a man with much experience was called for. But the electorate knew better.

The newly formed Republican Party, which had grown out of the remnants of the old Whig Party, was gathering for their nominating convention. Although there was no primary system, four men were positioning themselves to become the nominee.

Most of those in the running for the nomination had much experience, having served as governors, congressmen and senators. They were learned, caring, committed men who had already served their country with distinction. But, this experience did not lead them to their party's nomination.

The man nominated by the Republican Party had held elected office all of twice. He served in those positions for a total of ten years, eight years in the Illinois state legislature and two years in the U.S. Congress.

During his time in congress, Lincoln had taken a bold stand against the Mexican-American War. He saw it as nothing more than President James Polk's desire for military glory. In fact, he went to the floor of the House and said "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just." He knew he was risking his political future, but he also knew he had to speak the truth.

Even with his lack of experience as an office-holder, he had a keen grasp of the challenges and possibilities of our nation. He was eloquent in his speeches, lifting those who heard him from their fear and trepidation to see the higher calling of this country. He knew how to bring those of divergent ideas and beliefs together for the good of all.

We know now that his abilities saved this nation. Abraham Lincoln didn't need experience in office to know what was needed or what was right. He brought the best out of those in his administration and in our country. He was known for his ability to listen to all, and learn from them.

Although the issues confronting this nation are quite different in 2008 than they were in 1860, the underlying issue is the same. Can we really say we trust each other, that we trust our government?

Today, our country is fractured. We are in the midst of a war, which we were lied to about from the beginning. We have segregated ourselves by race, sex, religion and political beliefs. There is no desire by those in power to bring us together as a nation.

The Democratic Party, which has much the same populist message as the Republican Party did in its early years, is now looking for a nominee to bring this country together.

Those who started in this race had experience across the political spectrum. Governors, senators, congressmen, ambassadors; the experiences of those running are every bit as impressive as those of who were running for the nomination in 1860.

This field of candidates has been whittled down to two. One of these candidates is a relative newcomer to the political scene. Barack Obama announced his candidacy on the steps of the Old State Capital in Springfield, the same place Lincoln had spoken out against slavery. The same place where Lincoln had dipped his toes in the waters of public service and began his career.

This man had actually served eight years in the Illinois State Senate, the exact amount of time Lincoln had served there. To this point, he also has served three years as a U.S. Senator, surpassing Lincoln's experience in overall public office time.

Just as Lincoln had done as he served in the Congress, Barack Obama spoke out against a coming war which George W. Bush seemed determined to send our country into. In 2002, months before the war began, he said "I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Barack Obama is a man very similar to Abraham Lincoln. They spent their early years serving the common man, Lincoln as a lawyer representing the poor and middle class of his area, Obama as a community organizer in south Chicago. Both men are known for the ability to listen and their soaring oratory. Above all, they are known for their honesty and integrity.

There are those who believe that experience is what will bring this nation together. But what experience are we talking about. Playing politics with our future? Trying to improve their standing and power base by beating down others with words and deeds.

Just as 1860, this country needs a person to bring together the people and help them learn to trust each other and their government again. Barack Obama seems to be the Lincoln of his time. Just as in 1860, it is the electorate which will make that come to pass.

Posted by: kbrabant | February 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Clinton voters are fed up with Obama supporters.

If Obama wins the nomination, good luck winnning without 1/2 of the Democratic party on your side.
Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 03:12 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Washington Post serves a great many voters in the Commonwealth.

Votes in Virginia Primary:

McCain = 244,135
Clinton = 347,252

Obama = 623,141

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Any other desparate fear-monger ideas??


Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

We have been staunch clinton supporters in past years. We have switched over to the Obama camp and reasons are fully explained on http://newpoliticos.blogspot.com

The Clintons always had a tendencey to demonize their opponents. However, now they want to change the rules in mid-game; so typical of their duplicity. As if that were not enough they now diminish all the states that they have lost. We heard nothing against caucus states when she was leading in the polls. It is time to CHANGE.

Posted by: shafqat.a.khan | February 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON/OBAMA: Barack touts his 20 years of public service; Helping people find jobs...put food on the table...pay energy bills. A Harvard graduate, community organizer, civil rights attorney and now 1st term U.S. Senator. If you start with a blank page to then describe the ideal Democrat V-P (potential future President) would you not you arrive at what looks like a Barack Obama?

Our governmnet, with it's mutiple-layers of checks and balances, is often about
compromise. Whereas Obama's political prostylizing is promising his voters the
equivalent of a fast car - But might Congress insist that it have square wheels? And Hillary alone also has her weaknesses. So wouldn't a united Democrat Party have the best chance of reversing the economic inequities and ecological damage of the Reagan Revolution that Obama's impassioned supporters are hungering for?

If Obama's take-no-prisoners momentum continues to shove Clinton aside, is that not unlike the Bush/Cheney go-it-alone march on Baghdad that Barack railed against as being so obviously short-sighted and stupid?

Posted by: 4to125characters | February 16, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons shouldnt complain about Michigan. Obama got away with yanking his name off so he could say he didnt lose. But florida on the other hand is an embarrasment for Obama. He wont win the state in the general election.

Posted by: tom1966 | February 16, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

darleneann, you want substance? Here -- have at it:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Posted by: mwfree | February 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I find it shocking to realize that HRC's campaign is perfectly willing to undermine bedrock principles of democracy (i.e., one person - one vote) for the blatantly ego-centric purpose of gaining the nomination. Indeed, her approach is strikingly similar to George dubya, who willingly used the electoral college system to overturn the popular vote.

How can we serve as a role model for democracy around the world, and go so far as to force democracy on emerging economies, when we abide by such archaic and misunderstood political mechanics? Try explaining the notion of "super delegates" or the "electoral college" to someone in a third world country.

Posted by: mytonytoo | February 16, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

my goodness...how surprising that the ickes interview should be "hilariously" (or "disturbing"ly) recounted at msnbc's first read...heavens...msnbc????...ridiculing a clinton advisor???...

Posted by: es02885 | February 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

svreader said:

"If he steals the nomination..."

Yeah, right. If Obama wins, it can't possibly be fair and square because this was somehow supposed to be Hillary's turn, right? The sense of entitlement among Hillary and her supporters is just astounding to witness. The Clinton campaign screwed up. Obama did just about everything right. Obama can't possibly "steal" this election, but he can (and will) beat Hillary.

Posted by: mwfree | February 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

ARTICLE SAID: ""Delegates to Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention, Ickes said. "Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?""

...Gee, maybe because your candidate (Clinton) signed a PLEDGE that they would not count? Ever think of that Ickes you piece of garbage? Geez.

Posted by: lt1z28 | February 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I am ven parameswaran, scarsdale, n.y. Does Harold ickes realize that Clinton got only a total net of 101 delegates from NY,NJ,CA, and Mass. Based on sheer performance Obama has overtaken her consistently on the last 10 races.Like Mark Penn, the master bluffer, Ickes is bluffing. His predictions have no rationale or basis. Obama will win in WI and Hawai and most likely to take Ohio and Texas in delegates. Clinton is in the intensive care and has no chance to recover. Play realpolik Ickes.

Posted by: vpwaren | February 16, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

It's too bad for everyone that the Clinton campaign is getting so desperate; it's not pretty and has really turned me off. Especially with them saying some states and voters don't count. I used to really like Clinton, but this stuff is making me mad -- and sad that I can't support her like I used to.

Posted by: martin8146 | February 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

When Clinton demands Florida and Michigan should be represented, you folks say sorry rules can't be changed. But then rules also say that superdelegates vote on their own free accord. When she demands that, you folks say sorry they must abide by the majority. It seems rules can't be changed for Clinton but can be changed for Obama. Poor Clinton, she just can't win!
As an outsider I am amazed by the growing anti-Clinton feeling. To me it seems any scoundrel can win American presidency by promising change. Didn't Bush too wear the "outsider" tag and came to Washington promising to change things eight years ago. What did he do? What makes you think Obama is going to be any better?
I can't believe a mature democracy like the US would turn its back on sound qualifications and experience of Clinton and choose somebody just because he could give lifting speeches. Obama's grasp on issues, especially, foreign policy ones that are going to be important if America is to rediscover its position in the world, is decidedly thin. In any other country, he'd be asked to do his homework first.

Posted by: tiwaringp | February 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

While I am so sick and tired of the Bush years, I have to admit that - if Clinton loses to Obama - I will consider voting for McCain as - have never not voted - and can't vote for Obama. Need my revivals to remain in my church on Sundays. Obama's writers have been listening to MLK speeches for so long, they have the cadence down. Can close my eyes and hear him when Obama speaks. has almost turned into a cult personality. Downright scary. In politics - I need substance - and he doesn't have any.

Posted by: darleneann | February 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

@svreader -you post all of the time. You have got it backwards. Hillary can't beat McCain and her supporters are the alienating, divisive ones a la their choice pick. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton -ever. 'It's the character, stupid.' She lacks it.

Posted by: Kai_bleu | February 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Didn't the Clintons win the White House in 1992 on the promise of Universal Healthcare for all?

Didn't the Clintons win the White House in 1996 on the promise of Universal Healthcare for all? Then in 1996 Hillary dropped the ball on Healthcare because she had accomplished her goal - getting into the White House for a second term. She proved that she doesn't care about the suffering millions with poor coverage or no coverage.

Fool me once, shame on you...

Fool me twice, shame on me...

We will not continue to act the fool!

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

In addition...

We must never forget the painful experience of the Waco Branch Dividian debacle.

- A long drawn out standoff

- Using a tank to pump fuel into the facility, then igniting it.

- Then using automatic weapons to gun down the burning men, women, and children as the fleed from the building.

- Then the Clintons hire Janet Reno and it turned into a complete circus with Ms. Reno laughing about what a bargain it was to use military tanks to enflame the facility.

We can't afford these idiots to be in charge at this time of peril in the middle east.

Posted by: theman_in_black | February 16, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I predict it'll be awhile before Harold Ickes is asked to make a statement for the campaign again. Not that anyone there is anxious to volunteer - what's there to say?

Harold Ickes, meet David Icke: #1 conspiracy theorist/entertainer in the UK:
http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/
(Note: he was a professional soccer player who hit the ball with his head a few too many times. I don't know what Team Clinton's excuse is.)

Posted by: TomJx | February 16, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Dear "svreader,"

I hope your statistics is not true, I actually know it's not true, but it would be a sad day for democrats across this country if it was true.

I'm a true supporter of Sen. Barack Obama because of his views, values, background, and solutions, but if he was to lose fairly to Hillary Clinton, I would vote for her, as long as it's not a Republican leader who becomes the next president.

If a person is supporting Clinton now, and all the policies, changes their mind and votes for McCain simply because Barack Obama wins against their favorite candidate - the person doesn't support democratic beliefs, he is simply a "bandwagoner."

People need to remember what we are here for, we are here to make sure that Republicans who brought war and recession to this country do not win.

Best Regards,

Obama, 08.

Posted by: mgrenkov | February 16, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Clinton, of course, would have to say this, but I would have figured to have heard this after another potential loss in WI or even TX- so hearing it *now* is the big news. Shows they are perhaps seeing trouble ahead...

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: davidmwe | February 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton short view... this will be a cake walk and we'll have the nomination in our pocket by 2/5.

The Clinton long view...will have this tied up by Puerto Rico.

Gotta love their positive thinking.

Obama's short view...we have to win Iowa and then all of the fly over states, and chip away at Clinton's winning states.

Obama's long view... we have to win all of the fly over states and chip away at Clinton's winning states.

Gotta give a big hand to his campaigns genius. Rove is a rookie compared to them.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Svreader,

Right, he's making so many enemies among mainstream Democrats that the SEIU just endorsed Obama. Did you previously work for the GWB spin machine?

Shillary and Bubba should just high tail it back to Chappaqua, their $40 million fortune and Bubba's job at Yucaipa. America is tiring of their sanctimonious rhetoric.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 16, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton voters are fed up with Obama supporters.

If Obama wins the nomination, good luck winnning without 1/2 of the Democratic party on your side.

The tactics of Obama and his supporters are making them lots of enemies among mainstream Democrats.

If he steals the nomination, They'll find out just how many in November.

Obama is the best thing that ever happened to John McCain!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?"

Changing rules when the sun shines not thier way?

Not a good tactic if one wants to raise thier public appeal.

First, she released dirty commercials, now she is trying to change rules, does Clinton know no decency?

I hope people of America realize how manipulative and two-faced this women truly is.

Best Regards,

Obama, 08.

Posted by: mgrenkov | February 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a democrat, so I don't really care who wins this phase of the election. But I have to say this is like desperate rhetoric.

It's the kind of stuff Guiliani's campaign said before they folded.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Ickes believes that the superdelegates should more properly be called "automatic" delegates. I believe Mr. Ickes should be more properly called "Mr. Icky".

I think the nation is quickly tiring of the Clintons. I can't imagine four years of this petty garbage.

Posted by: mwfree | February 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

There is also a pretty hilarious (or disturbing) account of this call on MSNBC's First Read, which recounts how Ickes tried to justify how he (prior to working for the Clinton campaign) was a member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates, but now wants to re-instate them with full voting rights.

Posted by: gtlarkin | February 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company