Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Democrats' Good News Primary

By Dan Balz
There is understandable concern among Democrats that the longer the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton goes on, and the nastier it gets, the more split the party will be heading into the fall campaign. But news out of Pennsylvania overnight offers contrary evidence, suggesting this contest is good news for the Democrats.

Figures from Pennsylvania's Department of State showed that Democrats have now topped 4 million registered voters, the first time either party has crossed that threshold. Democrats added 161,000 to their rolls since last year's election, a gain of about 4 percent, while Republican registration dipped about 1 percent to 3.2 million.

That is consistent with the pattern since the beginning of the year in which Democratic turnout in the primaries and caucuses has topped Republican turnout, often by huge proportions.

In Ohio, 2.2 million voters participated in the Democratic primary compared with 1.1 million in the Republican primary. In Texas, 2.9 million voters turned out for the Democratic primary compared with 1.4 million in the Republican primary. Even in Florida, where the Republican primary was one of the most hotly contested of the year and the Democratic primary featured no active campaigning by the candidates, GOP turnout was only marginally higher: 1.9 million versus 1.7 million.

These turnout figures match what pollsters have found as they have surveyed the electorate throughout the year: The gap between Democratic and Republican identification has grown dramatically.

The Pew Research Center offered fresh evidence of this last week with a report that aggregated interviews with 5,566 voters during the first two months of the year. In that universe, 36 percent of all respondents identified themselves as Democrats while just 27 percent called themselves Republicans, a drop of 6 percentage points since the 2004 election. The Pew report noted that, on an annualized basis, this is the lowest GOP identification in 16 years of surveys.

It's not that Democratic identification is up so much as that Republican registration is down. But among independents, Pew reported, there is now a decided advantage for the Democrats. Far more of these independents say they tilt toward the Democratic Party than lean toward the Republican Party. When all the figures are put together -- hardcore party identifiers and leaners -- the Democrats now have an edge of 51 percent to 37 percent, and that's up 3 points just in the last year.

What all this means is that the combination of dissatisfaction with President Bush, a diminished Republican brand and a compelling contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has created a huge pool of voters for the eventual nominee -- and other Democratic candidates -- to go after in the fall.

Mark Gersh, who runs the National Center for an Effective Congress, which has long done some of the best analysis of congressional districts and the overall electorate for the Democratic leadership, sent over some figures that demonstrate the implications below the level of the presidential race.

Gersh has been tracking voter turnout in some of the marginal congressional districts around the country. "In marginal districts, where we have reliable compilations of total vote, Democratic turnout has far exceeded Republican turnout, even in districts with Republican leanings," he wrote.

Some examples: In Wisconsin's 8th District, where Democrat Steve Kagen won a tight race in 2006 in what had been a GOP district, 127,000 Democrats turned out for the Feb. 19 presidential primary, compared to just 56,000 Republicans. In Ohio's 1st District, represented by Republican Steve Chabot, 47,000 Republicans turned out on March 4 compared to 107,000 Democrats. That 107,000 figure represents more voters than either Chabot or his rival got in the 2006 general election and only 9,000 fewer votes than the Democratic candidate in that district captured in the 2004 general election.

When the general election arrives, Democrats will have voter lists far larger than they ever imagined and will have to spend far less money than in past years identifying these voters. That will affect every candidate up and down the ballot.

Some Democratic strategists worry that a protracted nomination battle will put the eventual nominee months behind in putting state organizations into place for the general election. That's a real issue, given that in the recent cycles Democratic and Republican nominees have been able to name their state-by-state teams in the late spring and get them moving into place by early summer.

But the Democratic race may be producing an even more valuable asset for the fall, particularly when compared with John McCain's campaign. By the time this race is over, Clinton and Obama will have competed in almost every state in the country (Michigan and Florida being two potentially costly exceptions). They've been forced to organize these states in the winter and spring. They have identified and trained legions of organizers. They will know which of their state coordinators are the best and many of these staffers will already be familiar with some of the battleground states for the fall.

That too is a contrast with past races. When the nomination battles end quickly, candidates begin the general election having had little direct experience with many of the states that are critical to winning the presidency. They have spent little time campaigning in those states and their teams have to start almost from scratch getting organized.

That is the problem McCain faces. His campaign, strapped on cash and struggling to stay alive, is far behind both Obama and Clinton in developing state-by-state operations. He certainly has the luxury of time now to get that process going, and the Republicans have done an exceptional job in recent elections in finding, wooing and turning out their voters. But there is no question that he starts in a deep hole, given what seems to be a far more demoralized GOP electorate.

Unless the Obama-Clinton contest turns far nastier than it has already, or ends in a way that seems demonstrably unfair to a portion of the Democratic electorate, the Democrats should benefit from this competition.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 25, 2008; 3:37 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama, Releasing Returns, Presses Clinton on Taxes
Next: Clinton Weighs in on Wright Controversy

Comments

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]


Twelve instances... when oh WHEN will they start doling out Pinocchios for these, eh?


U P D A T E


Wow - all these comments - all this outrage over what Hillary said and yet not one WORD about the 12 times (see above) where Obama got it wrong!

Posted by: mleyva | March 26, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The Dems in the Michigan Congress had the support of over 75% of the democrats in the state to move up our primary into January. People need to ask themselves why only Michigan and Florida were punished by Dean for moving up their primaries when New Hampshire did the same thing, yet they did not lose a single delegate. Why should two little unimportant states like Iowa and New Hampshire dictate who the candidate for the Dem party will be to all the other states in the country? The Dem Party better figure out a way to count the delegates in Michigan and Florida or the Dem Party is going to be hurting come the National Election in November. There is no reason for a revote. St. Obama made it very clear when he removed his name from the ballot in Michigan that Iowa and New Hampshire matter more to him than Michigan. Of course, when he discovered that Clinton left her name on the ballot he had his campaign machine send messages to his supporters to vote uncommitted. Even though the Democratic Party told the candidates NOT to campaign in Michigan St. Obama had his people campaigning. Even though Clinton left her name on the ballot neither she nor her supporters campaigned. This ended up with 50% of the vote going to Clinton and 40% to uncommitted. So was St. Obama punished for his team campaigning? Of course not. Then in Florida everyone's name was left on the ballot, so there is NO reason not to count those votes. If the Dem Party wants the chance to carry these states in the fall they better get their heads out of the a$$es and make the Democrats of both states happy by seating their delegates.

Posted by: sara48909 | March 26, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

This is a "good news" primary. For the first time in decades almost every state is receiving the opportunity to have its votes count. Research has consistently shown that voter apathy is the result of too many people believing that it doesn't matter whether they vote. The big reason why Michigan and Florida moved up their primary dates in violation of DNC rules was because their people were tired of the nominee already being selected by the time their primary rolled around. The uncertainty of who may win the nomination is exciting. The thought of a brokered convention is exciting. This is the way our founding fathers selected the presidents following Washington. Whichever candidate wins the nomination will also win an energized base. Even if a more negative campaign evolves, people will still be able to unite behind the nominee, especially if they pick up the other candidate as the VP.

Posted by: sara48909 | March 26, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I think that all of this abuse & face it, she's getting it from everywhere, might be a different story were her #'s to reflect her actual totals.
Check this out to help us get there... Florida is accurate. Obama won Jacksonville, Duval county by alot, it's 80% + Black, he won Alachua county (U of Fl)Tallahasse (Fl State)& most of the Georgia & the Alabama border counties. Edwards won the "Redneck" counties, as we expected =) Hillary did ok all over, won big in Miami, the Hispanic vote, again as expected.Obama had high turn-out in Miami as well for Miami St Univ. This denying these 1.7 million votes with the demographics being so correct won't last. Be a part of this history to get our votes & voices heard!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/seatourdelegates

Posted by: msophia | March 26, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Clinton should drop out at all. Why disenfranchise the people of the remaining 10 states before they've had a chance to vote?

How would that decision be any more democratic than a "brokered" conventions? Isn't that just brokering BEFORE the convention, especially since not all the votes have been cast and counted?

If Barrack was already at the 2025 needed to secure the nomination, then I'd say, sure, it's been locked up clear and simple, but since he's not there yet (and won't be able get there with his pledged delegates alone either), I think it's a little premature to declare an outright winner.

Several of the contests coming up, such as PA, KY, WY, PR, all have strong Clinton constituencies where she's favored to win. What are the Obama supporters afraid of? If they actually have enough belief in their candidate and campaign, then they'd let things play out.

If the schedule of states were different and states that had large Obama constituencies were lined up in April-June period instead, what kind of outrage or flack would Hillary and her supporters be getting if they even dared to suggest that the contest be cut short, even if she were ahead?

Elections are about competition and letting the people decided. It's not about forcing people out so one candidate can have an easier time.

If he can't stand the heat against Clinton, how will he hold up to the heat against the Republicans?


Posted by: john_ccy | March 26, 2008 6:09 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON IS THE BIGGEST LIAR EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE, GET CAUGHT AND LIE ABOUT A LIE, SHE IS A STRAIGHT OUT LIAR. ALL THE PENNSYLVINIA PEOPLE WHO VOTE IS IN FACT ARE LIAR TO THEMSELVES. HILLARY DON'T HAVE ANYMORE EXPERIANCE THAN OBAMA HAS. HILLARY IS 60 OBAMA IS 46, JUST BECAUSE SHE IS OLDER DON'T MEAN SHE IS MORE READY TO BE PRESIDENT. THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN PENNSYLVINIA IS MAD BECAUSE OBAMA IS MORE MATURE AND MORE CREDITIBLE THAN HILLARY. IN PENNSYLVINIA RACE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH YOUR VOTING. YOU ALL DON'T LIKE BLACKS AND IT IS VERY CLEAR. YOU ALL IS AFRAID OF UNITY. YOU ALL DON'T KNOW WHAT LOVE IS, CAUSE YOU ALL HAVE SO MUCH HATERD IN YOUR HEARTS AND MINDS. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY AMERICA IS SO TORN APART. GROW UP PEOPLE AND JOIN IN WITH EACH OTHER TO HELP MEND AMERICA TOGETHER. VOTE FOR OBAMA, AND LETS CHANGE AMERICA. OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA.

Posted by: jesuscares | March 26, 2008 5:43 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON IS THE BIGGEST LIAR EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE, GET CAUGHT AND LIE ABOUT A LIE, SHE IS A STRAIGHT OUT LIAR. ALL THE PENNSYLVINIA PEOPLE WHO VOTE IS IN FACT ARE LIAR TO THEMSELVES. HILLARY DON'T HAVE ANYMORE EXPERIANCE THAN OBAMA HAS. HILLARY IS 60 OBAMA IS 46, JUST BECAUSE SHE IS OLDER DON'T MEAN SHE IS MORE READY TO BE PRESIDENT. THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN PENNSYLVINIA IS MAD BECAUSE OBAMA IS MORE MATURE AND MORE CREDITIBLE THAN HILLARY. IN PENNSYLVINIA RACE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH YOUR VOTING. YOU ALL DON'T LIKE BLACKS AND IT IS VERY CLEAR. YOU ALL IS AFRAID OF UNITY. YOU ALL DON'T KNOW WHAT LOVE IS, CAUSE YOU ALL HAVE SO MUCH HATERD IN YOUR HEARTS AND MINDS. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY AMERICA IS SO TORN APART. GROW UP PEOPLE AND JOIN IN WITH EACH OTHER TO HELP MEND AMERICA TOGETHER. VOTE FOR OBAMA, AND LETS CHANGE AMERICA. OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA.

Posted by: jesuscares | March 26, 2008 5:43 AM | Report abuse

Dear Democratic Party: Bill and Hillary Clinton are actually campaigning for republicans now. If they cannot win, then let all DEMS lose--this is the character of this family. I will strongly advise the DEMS to get away from the Clintons at this time. I cannot imagine how this one family can hold a whole party HOSTAGE!!! Shame to you democrats! Shame to Caryter, shame to Al Gore, shame to bunch of you.

NOW TO YOU VOTERS: READ AND VOTE---

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and all good-thinking democrats need to stop this primary campaign and vote for this Mr. Obama. All America's middle class and workers better run to Obama's camp and make this man President for our sake's. This is serious. Dear fellow white folks--we better not be fooled. God will use this man to help us and America.
You may decide to let yourself be deceived by the Pastor issue or not, but we better not make a dangerous mistake this time. I may not agree with one or two things Mr. Obama stands for, but God seems to be leaning on using this man to help America at such a time as this--a time of serious turmoil in America's economy, political system, and international relations/cooperation. One of the worst mistakes America can make in all of America's history is to miss electing Obama President at this CRITICAL PERIOD of America. This man is not black, he's not white, he's not green or yellow or whatever. HE IS A GODLY AND HUMBLY SENSITIVE AMERICAN whom God will work with to bless America again. Don't be surprise that the fuel prices at the pump will soar DOWN to unbelievable price per gallon again, and OPEC will have little or nothing to do with it, and Obama himself may not have anything to do with it except that he is occupying the office. God is God when He gets the right person in place. Hillary is not the one now. Obama has to also think doubly twice before choosing Hillary as VP. She might be a source of problems!!! God is setting up America to be healed through this man. I continue to see it this way.
Ohio and hundreds of thousands of voters in Texas have been duped into voting for Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton duped them with the lies and innuendos on NAFTA and the 3:00 a.m. ad. But see-God exposed Clinton on NAFTA lies against Obama. She definitely worked to institute NAFTA and the
Canadian government also stated that someone from her campaign contacted Canada's leadership on her non-seriousness of her campaign rhetoric on Ohio NAFTA campaign. Well she gained the votes and won. I strongly call on Ohio and Texas voters to chastise Clinton and to demand their votes back!!! This exposure on NAFTA will let you know about what she means when she talks about the 3:00 a.m. phone call. Hillary will not answer that call. If she does, she won't know what to do or she will most probably make the wrong decision, trying to do things just by herself without consultation or she will be worrying and bugged down with "guilts" about what she has done to people in negative campaigning. Obama will make very good decisions, and he will make sure to get together with the right people to help him explore necessary alternatives and contingencies.
Wake up America and stop being maneuvered by people like Hillary. As someone wrote in the internet concerning Hillary's stunt on NAFTA, "When people talk about Hillary's experience, it is this type of stunt they are referring to...i.e., political experience. She's good at the Dark Arts, but that's about it as far as her experience goes."
Mr. Barack Obama is actually stronger in national security, economy, healthcare, and some of the other issues than either Hillary or McCain. America is at a stage in her life that she needs overhaul. The agent of that overhaul is Obama for such a time as this. His middle name does not matter and there is nothing wrong with it. He did not give himself the name. He loves everyone, including Israel. In fact, he might be the strongest supporter and defender of Israel ever. What people do not know is that Obama attends one of the strictest Christian denominations that commit very seriously to serving Jesus Christ. Church of Christ is STRICT! A weak Christian cannot attend such a denomination. It is seriously Pentecostal. The former Pastor certainly got carried away as many Ministers do and made some regretful comments. But that doesn't mean that man does not love America. The ex-marine just got carried away. It is also becoming very clear that Hillary can do or say anything to win while Obama, on the other hand, being a strong Christian, simply does not want to attack Hillary negatively, although he and everyone else knows how to do it. Right now, Hillary is striving to mess up the chances of the democratic party in the general election and to stop this important move toward truly refreshing and resurrecting prosperous America again. Somebody needs to help and stop the mess. I love the Clintons, but what they are doing now is not in the nation's interest. It might even be termed unpatriotic within some reason.
NOW Catch this: America cannot be resurrected into vitality and prosperity until significant number of her citizens become energized by the inspiration, wakening, and motivating spirit that God has embedded in Obama for the benefit of America AT THIS TIME. When people are aroused and awake again, then they can work hard and participate together toward believing and making everything work toward strengthening the economy, family, political system, national security, and building healthy and trusting relationships within America and between America and the rest of the world. That's NATIONAL SECURITY! THAT'S ECONOMIC STRENGTH! THAT'S PEOPLE TRUSTING AND BELIEVING IN AMERICA AGAIN! I am a Professor of Business Administration and Strategic Management for a long time. Obama is what America needs at this time. Again, I may not agree with one or two of his stands, but cost-benefit analysis clearly places him far on the top right now and for America. World leaders will actually respect him much more than others due to his humble spirit but also quiet inner strength! In fact, terrorists will think much-more than twice before they try to attack any American interests with Obama as President. They already have it in their heads that this man cannot play with them. I presume that Obama may be more humble than Reagan, but he has a tough demeanor similar to Reagan that outside world will fear and respect!
He will humble himself to negotiate with anyone and at any level, but those opponents will know (for sure) that they are not dealing with a push-over or someone they can ride even for a second. He will not make many mistakes and he relatively will not waste resources as many American Presidents have done over the years in dealing with foreign governments. He will appropriate resources wisely and monitor their use and who uses them, especially in relation to foreign aid and foreign wars. Many nations trick the United States into sending the dollars; but the dollars have usually been used to accomplish very little. Most dollars are wasted in highly corrupt foreign leaders who claim to be assisting their nations. Such leaders will find it difficult to try to play Obama. The following ad will fit the Mr. Obama:

"..... Shouldn't the President be the one, the only one that is capable of uniting people and solve problems without letting any problem turn into crises? The inspiration, my ability to relate to people instead of using intimidation or fight-posture, and my ability to manage or analyze contingencies and draw necessary conclusions and judgments define domestic and national security for America. Such qualification leads to getting problems solved without heading into crises that will bruise and drain America and wound our economy and every other thing! That's REAL security! That's the REAL experience you need! That's Barack Obama! We don't have to use force when we don't have to use force! If experience leads to consistently bad judgments, then what is that experience? You be the judge! How can someone who does not mind tricking Ohio into voting for her with lies on NAFTA be your President? How can Hillary Clinton be the President of this great nation if her experience is on flip-flops, innuendos, and accusing Obama wrongly for what she herself is doing? She is both Ms and Mrs. Hood Wink Wink and double-talk! Make Hillary pay for Ohio and Texas! Run away from HILLARY! Leave her alone! She is TOO DESPERATE to be the President of this United States of America. Her mind won't be steady at 3:00 a.m., for she will be worrying about all the negative campaigns. I will make the right judgment at 3:00 a.m., all a.ms., and all p.ms. given the circumstances of the call! People's lives are at stake; therefore, no one can jump into quick and un-chewed decision without consulting the Presidential cabinet or even the congress or even the American people. Run away from misjudgment. [EVEN the '3 a.m. Ad' Girl Wants Obama to Answer Call. Girl featured in Hillary Clinton's ad actually supports Obama. ABC News - Sun Mar 9, 12:35 PM ET] Make me your President and let us deliver Change We Can Believe In. YES WE CAN!"

Dear America, let us open our eyes and see how God is fighting for this man, Mr. Obama, who is a fairly serious Christian running to become our President. The cheep and deceiving Hillary's campaign didn't know that they were using a girl in a campaign who is actually campaigning for Obama right now. That's how God fights for people who are humble and means well like Obama. That's how God will fight for America when the right person becomes her Commander In Chief. Just read the ABC News excerpt:

---["They were parodying this ad, kind of poking fun at it," Knowles said. "My brother was like, 'Is that Casey?' And we just erupted. Sure enough, it's me." The file footage was originally shot for a railroad company advertisement. The Clinton campaign bought it from Getty Images. Knowles, a senior at Bonney Lake High School who turns 18 next month, has been campaigning for Obama. She attended his rally at Seattle's KeyArena on Feb. 8. Her mother, Pam, told The News Tribune of Tacoma that Casey cried and trembled after shaking the candidate's hand. The next day, she was a Democratic precinct captain for the state's caucuses. If she plays her cards right, she could go to the national convention. Not to mention that she could be in another ad. After her identity became known, Obama's campaign contacted her. "I mentioned that we should make a counter ad, me and Obama, against Hillary," she said. "They thought that was really funny. They actually might take me up on it."

Now you make the judgment. This is Obama's time for America. Vote for Obama to vote for America'a security, peace, economic prosperity, and political prosperity again!!!!!!!!!! Don't let any politician dupe your vote.
Dear fellow Americans and all white people: please do not make this mistake and then keep crying years later. I am independent and this is the first time I will be voting a democrat for President. Bad leadership takes away jobs and stifles cities and states. Let us wisely vote for this man Barack Obama. God will use him to resurrect and bless America in-deed through the empowering of middle class, etc. Read the following response by an Indian lady or gentleman from Canada:

"I am an Indian, living in Canada and I am fascinated by this election as an outsider I would like to make the following comments to my friends in America. This is indeed a once in a lifetime opportunity for the US middle class and it looks like they will miss it! Most economist say that the Indian and Chinese economies will equal or surpass the US by 2050 (only 40 years away). I never believed this considering the vast corruption and lack of infrastructure in those countries. But watching how this election has progressed I can see it happening and it is truly fascinating to see a nation capable of making a change in destiny choose a wrong path. The choices are John McCain - a maverick and war hero - that wants the war to continue (a war that US can not win - take a look at Kashmir and the Indian experience) Hillary and her divisive politics - which would lead US back to the 90s wherein were sown most of the seeds of the current economic downturn. NAFTA led to out sourcing of manufacturing to China/ Mexico and service jobs to India. and finally Obama - an inexperienced politician wanting to bring about change and inspiration. His biggest supporters are Intellectuals and educated and the youth however the people who need the change are not them...the people who need change are middle class (it is their wealth that is being shipped to India and China)
The middle class is being exploited by race and non issues by entrenched Washington interests (John and Hillary funders) and they are being led to candidates that will not help them. But here is the crux...the middle class will get less affluent - because of job migration and they won't have money for education the only way out. This is a cycle seen in most countries on the downturn. The 35-40 year old middle class man who needs change the most will not choose it and his grand child will suffer because all those jobs are moving elsewhere. 40 years from now - US can look back and lament this opportunity for a change (flawed as it may be!)
Everyone outside of US will tell Americans - Vote Obama for injection of new blood - But the US middle class just does not get it. It is sad to see a Great Nation take a collective step to its future downfall! Fascinating!! -- Posted by H Sudan (blog March 21, 2008, 1:17 p.m., NEW YORK TIMES, The Caucus, "Three New Obama Ads In Pennsylvania." By Kathrine Seelye).

I am a Strategic Management and International Business and marketing Professor for over 16 years. What this Indian writer stated is MOSTLY clear and true!!! Don't blame anybody but yourself if you fail to vote Obama. FORGET his race, and vote for America's future, your children's future, and strengthening and stabilizing America again! Let us leave racism alone and let God reign for a change. All working people, especially all the white people that work their hearts out and tend to be deceived by divisive politics--we better listen!!! Read:

L.A. Times Endorses Obama, McCain By ARIEL ALEXOVICH The Los Angeles Times, the largest newspaper from the Super Tuesday state with the most delegates, has just endorsed Barack Obama in the Democratic race this week. Mr. Obama, a senator from Illinois, holds most of the same positions as the paper's editorial board -- namely, being anti-war and for health care reform -- combined with a "sense of aspiration." The paper urged its readers to capitalize on this "historic moment" and vote for Mr. Obama in part because he opposed the Iraq War from the start. Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in the Senate longer, it said, but "experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment." Furthermore, the editorial had harsh words to say about the Bill Clinton years: Clinton's return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton's presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president's recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton's election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama's mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama's life story in preparing a president to understand the American character."

To all Caucasians: I humbly ask you to vote for this man Obama. Vote for him with all enthusiasm. There is something in it. God is going to use him to help us--The United States of America, especially in building back our economy and restoring America's honor across the globe. If we fail this time, it will be a big failure. Somebody needs to tell Hillary and her husband to really throw away their own personal ambition and selfishness away and place this country ahead. We better listen. This is not a question of race. This is about saving and reinvigorating the life and blood of America!!! This is a hard letter for me to write, but I have to do it just to clear my conscience. I have done my job. I have informed you. You make your decision.
But because some of you don't hear quickly, I plead again: Pennsylvania and all states--all of you: Please let us vote overwhelmingly for this Mr. Obama for a total overhaul of America (our nation) toward resurrected and sustained economic, moral, political, and international relations prosperity. DON'T EVER LET RACE CAUSE YOU TO COMMIT SUICIDE WITH YOUR VOTE. IF YOU DO, DON'T BLAME ANYONE IN THE FUTURE. YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW! Don't forget the words of a foreigner (an Indian living in Canada) to us"...The middle class is being exploited by race and non issues by entrenched Washington interests (John and Hillary funders) and they are being led to candidates that will not help them. But here is the crux...the middle class will get less affluent - because of job migration and they won't have money for education the only way out. This is a cycle seen in most countries on the downturn. The 35-40 year old middle class man who needs change the most will not choose it and his grand child will suffer because all those jobs are moving elsewhere. 40 years from now - US can look back and lament this opportunity for a change. Everyone outside of US will tell Americans - Vote Obama for injection of new blood - But the US middle class just does not get it. It is sad to see a Great Nation take a collective step to its future downfall! Fascinating!!" -- Posted by H Sudan (blog March 21, 2008, 1:17 p.m., NEW YORK TIMES, The Caucus, "Three New Obama Ads In Pennsylvania." By Kathrine Seelye). WE BETTER NOT BE fooled this time! ---- With all love for our great nation, Dr. FSAOS.

Posted by: strongblood | March 26, 2008 5:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama, you will win the battle but lose the war. Hillary and Bill have obviously cooked up some kind of deal with Republicans NEVER have I heard any Democrat say that the Republican is better than the rival Democrat. You're a good man and by the time Hillary and Bill are done with you, you'll be a broken man. Billary are conducting a scorched earth campaign, holding the Democratic party hostage, stamping their little feet and saying that if they don't win, the Democratic party will suffer. Mark my words. If Hillary, by some miracle doesn't win the Democratic nomination, she will endorse McCain. She will talk all kinds of smack about you Obama and not stop til she's ruined you. HRC and co don't give a fig about the Democratic party. They only want power. And they'll hurt anyone who stands in their way.

Posted by: raduodogi | March 26, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

MarthaP1
Your're being too generous in your estimate I thought.
I was thinking a long the lines of 1 in a 1,000 and I thought that was being more than fair to her.

Posted by: owaggoner | March 26, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

A VERY INTERESTING FACT: since February 5th, 2008, Barack Obama has won the endorsement of 62 superdelegates. In the same time period, Hillary has been endorsed by only 4 superdelegates.

This mean that, not only has Barack Obama won way more states, more of the popular vote, and more elected delegates, BUT HE HAS ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWED THE GAP BETWEEN HE AND HILLARY IN TOTAL SUPERDELEGATE ENDORSEMENTS.

Hillary doesn't have a lot left. Even her superdelegate lead has seriously eroded. Her chances to win the nomination are about one in a hundred, and I'm being generous to her by that estimate.

I'M SERIOUS HERE, FOLKS. She needs to go bye bye VERY SOON.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 26, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to rally behind Barack Obama NOW, and they need to do it in a way that makes the message VERY CLEAR TO HILLARY that she needs to drop out of the race NOW.

Hillary will not "take a hint" on this matter, she will have to be prodded by a cattle prod to drop out.

LET ME BE VERY CLEAR... the next president of the United States will be John McCain if Hillary doesn't get out of the race VERY SOON.

The Democrats do this, but whether they have the guts to get rid of Hillary remains to be seen. Hillary will just go ahead and do what she wants to do, which is to NEVER GIVE UP HER HOPES FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, NO MATTER WHO IT HURTS, NO MATTER IF IT DESTROYS THE DEMOCRATS' CHANCE IN NOVEMBER AGAINST McCAIN.

NO MATTER IF IT MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD GO TO HELL, HILLARY DOESN'T CARE. AS LONG AS SHE WINS.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 26, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to rally behind Barack Obama NOW, and they need to do it in a way that makes the message VERY CLEAR TO HILLARY that she needs to drop out of the race NOW.

Hillary will not "take a hint" on this matter, she will have to be prodded by a cattle prod to drop out.

LET ME BE VERY CLEAR... the next president of the United States will be John McCain if Hillary doesn't get out of the race VERY SOON.

The Democrats do this, but whether they have the guts to get rid of Hillary remains to be seen. Hillary will just go ahead and do what she wants to do, which is to NEVER GIVE UP HER HOPES FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, NO MATTER WHO IT HURTS, NO MATTER IF IT DESTROYS THE DEMOCRATS' CHANCE IN NOVEMBER AGAINST McCAIN.

NO MATTER IF IT MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD GO TO HELL, HILLARY DOESN'T CARE. AS LONG AS SHE WINS.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 26, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama's tax papers are in, Now to make it fair to all Where are Hillary's tax papers or is she going to wait like she did in Ohio until all the voting is done before she turns them in?
Now kids I'm no spring chicken for I'm older than Bill Clinton and know quite a lot that went on in Collage in Little Rock, Arkansaw.

Posted by: owaggoner | March 26, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

in the ohio debate Obama challenged Clinton to show her 2007 tax returns. and said he has turned his in. well the truth be known he hasn't reported his tax returns since 2006, but say's he will. would anyone consider him a liar or what. and hope we all know if he gets the nomination. the rep's will have him for their main course, and bury the bones,i don't think all the dirt will surface on him until they manage to get hillary out of the race, which they will have the fight of their life , she is a fighter, and a fighter we need.

Posted by: jean_ohiousa | March 25, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

vThe problem we see over and over with Obama is lack of foresight.

He doesn't see problems until after the crisis is over.

Hillary saw the need for universal health care long before it became a "hot button issue"

Al Gore did the same thing with Global Warming.

In highly technical areas, it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to educate yourself to be able to make good decisions.

You have to like that kind of thing.

Hillary does.

Obama is a marvelous speaker, but he's the farthest thing in the world from a wonk.

We've got tough problems.

We don't need flowery speeches.

We need people who know their stuff.

Hillary knows the problems we face and the tradeoffs of the possible solutions better than any other candidate.

She can guide us through the difficult times ahead.

That's what our country needs.

There are many reasons she has my vote.

That's the strongest one.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The democrats are once again the party of moral corruption. Spitzer,McGreevy,Kilpatrick and Patterson do we need any more reminders of Monica Lewinksy's boyfriend's wife and the decay that they wallow in.

Posted by: richardch_2 | March 25, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

The democrats are once again the party of moral corruption. Spitzer,McGreevy,Kilpatrick and Patterson do we need any more reminders of Monica Lewinksy's boyfriend's wife and the decay that they wallow in.

Posted by: richardch_2 | March 25, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

OBVIOUS! The campaign and the intensity of it is only good for the Democrats. The same way Giuliani fell off the radar in Florida, McCain will have real trouble staying in the news. And meanwhile the democrats are making strong connections all over the country.

Of course the media (Brooks included) can't see this obvious thing. They are too busy pushing Hillary out of the race (as if she should quit while she still has a chance!!!!)

Ah, and I support Obama.

Posted by: respostas17 | March 25, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

This is because people are fed up with the rubber stamp bushbots in our congress they cant win i mean really who in their right mind would want forgetful old mccain as our next president thats scareing people to go register and it proves the majority of Americans are stepping up to do whatever they can to get the changes we need to better our country.

Posted by: smorrow | March 25, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of"both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Jake D:

U somehow missed my point. Alot of the analysis of the Bradley defeat laid the blame on voter turnout patterns, NOT on people lying to pollsters. And, since U used to work for Gallup, U should know that the sample of voters polled in a state is geographically spread according to various standards -- voting patterns in the state over the past few yrs and/or election cycles. The pollsters in the pre-election period assumed that turnout in the state would mirror their standards -- but as I pointed out -- turnout on election day in Republican counties in CA were up over what had been predicted, and turnout on election day in NORTHERN CA Democratic counties were down over what had been predicted.

LesG

Posted by: les_ca | March 25, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Manionar, if you just hate Obama and tactically pretending that the Wright stuff affected your view of him, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

If on the other hand, you really felt turned against him by the video, you really should watch the longer clips of Wright's sermons that are available on U-tube. This guy has been preaching on video for what, 30 years, and so far they've pulled 90 seconds of stuff on him? I admit that some of it is ridiculous--but some of the stuff he's being knocked for is pretty reasonable stuff when you see it in context.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw

You might also note that he--Wright, not Obama--has been defended by people as varied as Mike Huckabee, the President of the UCC Church, and Hillary Clinton's pastor.

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 25, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

manionar:

The "Rev" Phelps still has a congregation at the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, right?

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Are you nuts? Or just being "cute"? I live in Oregon and we have LOTS of new Democratic registrations, too... about half of them are REPUBLICAN'S, planning on voting for Clinton in the primary to create more trouble. Limbaugh and his neanderthals understand that most Obama supporters will stay home or vote for McCain if Cltinon is the nominee.
______
I am Republican too. But I have hope in this election. Not the recent cynicism of Die Hard Republicans.

Posted by: humblesage | March 25, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

sethbullock53:

I have checked out the raw numbers -- so has Karl Rove -- Google: "Operation Chaos".

les_ca:

There are plenty of reasons why people LIE to pollsters (I know -- I used to work for Gallup ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I liked Obama at first- but then my view of him has soured. You do not sit in a church and listen to someone misinform the congregation- and let it happen. Preaching hate is never acceptable. And the the whole Rezko thing- Obama's house and Rezko's property close on the same day- and we are suppose to believe that this is a coincidence. Right?? or is it Wright?? Go Hillary- you are the most electable vs the Republicans. Hang in til the end and you will triumph (or should I say "you (we) shall overcome".

Posted by: manionar | March 25, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama played the media like a cheap violin.

He tricked them into failing to check him out.

Once the press realizes its been "played" they'll dig into his background and that will be the end of him.

He's not a very nice guy, to say the least.

His supporters will realize that they too have been played for fools, and his support will drop like a rock.

Obama supporters don't really hate Hillary, they just want to get rid of her because they see her as being in the way of Obama.

Once they realize Obama has fooled them, they'll remember that they liked Hillary all along.

Republicans are afraid of Hillary.

That's why they pushed so hard to make sure Obama would be the candidate.

Republicans can't beat Hillary.

They would have crushed Obama.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

to Jake D:

U've been watching too much Fox news.

The "Bradley" effect refers to former LA Mayor Tom Bradley who lost the CA Governer's election despite leading the pre-election polls. Some commentators, mostly the right wing, ultra conservative ones, thought that meant that people who were polled and said they were going to vote for Bradley, in fact didn't, and voted for his Republican, white opponent.

I voted in that election, and, and read alot of the comments and stories in the aftermath.

There were many alternative explanations for Tom Bradley's defeat that was not predicted by the polls.

One is voter turnout on election day. Voter turnout in right wing, Republican southern Calif, mostly Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County was up percentage-wise over what had been predicted pre-election. And voter turnout in the mainly Republican areas of Calif's central valley was way up as well, compared to pre-election estimates.

The opposite was true for Democratic voter turnout. Democratic voter turnout in mostly Democratic areas in the north -- San Fran, the East Bay, Santa Clara County, Marin County, Sonoma County, and Monterey County -- were all down over pre-election estimates. That was only somewhat offset by higher Democratic turnout in Los Angeles County, which benefited from Bradley's popularity both within LA City and the greater LA County.

I would suggest, Jake D, that U not jump to too many conclusions over the so-called "Bradley effect" -- at least, in so far as it affected Calif's vote in that election. LesG

Posted by: les_ca | March 25, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

Not nearly as many as are not going to vote for Barak Hussien Obama when he is in the general election where there are no caucuses of 5100 people allowing him to claim victory in a state.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 25, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Jake--you wish. Check out the raw numbers of people who voted for Obama in every any primary across the nation with the raw numbers for ALL the republicans. And explain how he outperformed most polls in most states--especially in states with few African Americans

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 25, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

sethbullock53:

See, also, The Wilder Effect.

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey Les, you are right on the money and speaking for a lot of us.

Obama is up to a 21% lead in NC and has picked up a bunch be behind by 10% in Pennsylvania. What was that about dropping like a stone?

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 25, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

People are finding out who Barry Obama really is and they don't like what they see.

He's a slick, slimy, Chicago politician.

The only color he cares about is the green of money.

Obama constantly took credit for bills he wasn't even involved with, starting back in Chicago, and he showed he has absolutely no shame by grabbing the microphone and talking about getting up for 7am meetings about bills that he never even went to.

Obama lied about Rezko on national TV during the debates.

Obama lied about Rev. Wright.

Barry Obama has pulled the biggest "con-job" in history by using his "new kind of politics" pitch to stop the press from looking into his past.

Republicans won't be the least bit shy about doing what the press has failed to do so far.

If we Democrats nominate him, we're going to lose by a landslide.

He's a slick politician.

Just like Bush.

He got elected in Chicago by forcing everyone else off the ballot.

Now he's trying to prevent FL and MI voters from having their votes count.

Just like Bush did with Florida.

Its not going to work this time.

People are angry.

They want their votes counted.

The do not want Obama.

His Teflon has turned to Rust.


Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to les_ca: trying Google for "The Bradley Effect".

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, just like Dukakis was "thoroughly vetted" about Willie Horton -- we all know how well THAT worked out for him -- as for who will, or will not, be sworn in on January 20, 2009, it seems as if one of us (at least) will be wrong.

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Mul: who gave U ownership of the Democratic party. Last I heard, in a democracy, ownership of a political party belongs to its members and voting electorate. Take a look at the Democratic party primary/caucus popular vote totals, w/o FL and MI (since the DNC, incl Clinton DNC delegates, ruled that those contests would not count towards electing delegates to the national convention). Obama has a clear popular vote lead. So, it looks like there are many more Obama Democrats in the US than Clinton Democrats. Whose party did U say it was? LesG

Posted by: les_ca | March 25, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I guess we can all just grin and bear it. There doesn't seem to be an alternative. Hillary Clinton is too stubborn and "entitled" to quit a losing cause. On the plus side, Obama will be thoroughly "vetted" by the time Bill and Hillary are through with him. Note to JakeD: Barack HUSSEIN Obama will be sworn in on the Holy Bible as President of the United States in January 2009.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | March 25, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The stock market is way down because the traders think the Democrats will win and bring tax increases with them.

Posted by: robinficker | March 25, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The stock market is way down because the traders think the Democrats will win and bring tax increases with them.

Posted by: robinficker | March 25, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

comment from 12thgenamerican: "don't kid yourselves. everyone here in pa. between the crime is registering to vote against obama. it will throw everything into the convention. obama i hear is dropping like a rock in N.C. black liberation theologies chickens are coming home to roost."

hey, dimwit 12thgenamerican. U need to go back to primary school and learn how to read and think at the same time.

The latest NC Dem presidential primary poll listed in Realclearpolitics.com, -- a neutral politics clearinghouse website -- has Obama's lead now up to 25 points over Hillary Clinton in NC. The poll was just completed and taken over the last few days. The poll's most significant finding: H. Clinton only leads Obama among white men by a mere 7 points --- 47% to 40%. Obama now has clear, sizeable leads among both men and women polled in NC.

And re: the recent big increase in Dem registration in PA, the largest portion of that increase comes from yuppie, independent-minded Republican suburbs of Philadelphia -- precisely the type of voters who have voted for Obama in previous primaries (see VA, MD, Wisconsin). LesG

Posted by: les_ca | March 25, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Ouch, mul!

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Please all cultist get the Hell out of my party!

Stop playing good cop and go to the GOP - you will be a moderating force and can join your fellow party member in not counting Florida, Michigan, and as few minorities as you can.

Posted by: mul | March 25, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Not counting Michigan and Florida are typically white things to do.

Going to the Virgin Islands is also Typically White.

Posted by: mul | March 25, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

gmundenat:

I will agree that the super-delegates are not going against the delegate (or popular vote) totals either ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Dan, for good news to offset the depressing news that may be the sorry denouement of FL and MI's treachery. Despite what some Dems down there would have us up North believe, it was Dems not Repubs who sponsored a bill that passed 181 to 0 in the FL House and 37 to 2 in the FL senate. As if that wasn't bad enough, some are now threatening to throw the November election to the GOP. Summer patriots, is what they are.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 25, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

flarrfan:

According to some "estimates" less than 100 of the 161,000 new registrations are part of Operation Chaos -- who knows -- but I find such a low "estimate" hard to believe.

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

The superdelegates are not going against the delegate totals. Screwing a black man who played by the rules...they don't have the guts. We all know it. Hillary and her goosesteppers are, together with Rush Limbaugh, handing the election to John McCain. Is Hillary really narcissistic enough to think she'll then be nominated in 2012? Sadly, yes. How many Hillary zealots here are dittoheads?

Posted by: gmundenat | March 25, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

12thgenamerican:

What do you mean "between the crime"?

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Operation Chaos in full swing?

Posted by: flarrfan | March 25, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Yea for Penn.

HRC has 4 million Dems to court. We will see what happens.

Press is back on the Bottle - Obama in the Islands where he can't hurt himself anymore.

I put up some bad info on PR. From what I know it is 'not' winner take all. The only info on the net points back to our own Fact Checker (but were they correct?).

Posted by: mul | March 25, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Clinton follows the rules of the Democratic Party.
She is competing against Senator Obama. The presidential primary is designed with 50 states and US territories. Lets wait for every single primary. Including Florida and Michigan. Both Senators need the superdelegates to reach 2025.
I support Senator Hillary Clinton.
Keep moving forward.

Posted by: mmarii | March 25, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are going to run Obama out of town with Rev, Wright& his new pastor Rev. Moss, they are making the comm. now.If he win the nomination he will not win the Gen.

Posted by: dadio4003 | March 25, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

and smart enough to know that I am not a "racist" just because I am not voting for Barak.

but not smart enough to hit the return button instead of enter before I was finished

shoulda gone to college

Posted by: lndlouis | March 25, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

don't kid yourselves. everyone here in pa. between the crime is registering to vote against obama. it will throw everything into the convention. obama i hear is dropping like a rock in N.C. black liberation theologies chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 25, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I may be a "racist feminist" and I am defintely over 50, white and according to some of you guys "less educated", but I am smart enough to know that woman can do a far better job than the "white men" have done with this country, and smart enough to differentiate between the two candidates and see which is the more qualfied and ready, and that is Hillary Clinton baby.

Posted by: lndlouis | March 25, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

edbryonadams:

I would be very surprised if "Operation Chaos" is limited to only 736 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 -
Being called a "racist feminist" or "whack job" if I support Clinton is exactly the sort of sweet nothing that you Obama supporters should keep whispering into the ears of Clinton supporters to hold onto their vote for Obama. At this point, after seeing the revival of the McGovern left liberal wing of the Democratic party, with its intolerance and elitism worn proudly on its sleeve, I'd rather vote for Vlad the Impaler than Obama.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 25, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

zukermand - did you just make that up? I am pretty sure you did.

mibrooks27 - relax. Every election somebody accuses somebody else of voting in a primary just to mess things up. This is not a big deal, even though in your social circle it might seem to be.

Posted by: morning135 | March 25, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Are you nuts? Or just being "cute"? I live in Oregon and we have LOTS of new Democratic registrations, too... about half of them are REPUBLICAN'S, planning on voting for Clinton in the primary to create more trouble. Limbaugh and his neanderthals understand that most Obama supporters will stay home or vote for McCain if Cltinon is the nominee. I and my household, all traditionally Democrats, wont vote for ANYONE who endorses Cltinon or supports her in any way. The Democratic Party has been split, with the racist feminists and gay right single issue whack jobs and self serving AFSCME parasites on the one hand and genine liberals on the other. I hope they understand that they have lost our support for good. Ths Democrat will NEVER vote for anything that they need or want again.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 25, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

How many of the new Democrats are reregistered Republicans, enlistees in Operation Chaos?

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 25, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Your comments about the vote in Wisconsin's 8th are misleading. Wisconsin's is an open primary. You walk in the polling place and don't even have to ask for a specific party ballot. Both parties were on the same ballot. The Republican primary was already decided. Most Republicans voted for their Democrat candidate of choice - with whatever motivation. To suggest the primary turnout is indicative of anything other than the nation's most open primary, is incorrect.

Posted by: joegelhoff | March 25, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

And, the Good News for the Dimocrat Socialists, is;

There is NO GOOD NEWS! :-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 25, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

The "primary to date" number is actual.

Posted by: zukermand | March 25, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

How many of those "new Democrats" are simply voting for Hillary DIANE Clinton in the primary with the intent to NOT vote for her in the general election?

Posted by: JakeD
================
Here you go:

Primary to date: 1,758
Estimated PA, IN, NC: 736

You're welcome.

Posted by: zukermand | March 25, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm making a wild guess that "johnL1" is a Clinton supporter.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The next question Mr. Balz should ask is how many of the new Democratic voters registered because of Hillary Clinton, and how many of them registered because of Barack Obama. If it's pretty much even, then there will be a big increase in Democratic turnout regardless of the nominee. But, if it's significantly more for one over the other, then there's the risk that the new voters brought into the Democratic Party during the primary season might stay home if their candidate is not the nominee.

So, Mr. Balz, how many new voters did the Clinton campaign sign up? How about the Obama camapign?

Posted by: ericp331 | March 25, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

If you have more pledged delegates than anyone else, but less than the 2,024 necessary to win on the first ballot, you are not the winner "according to the rules" as some seem to say.
I hear constantly that Hillary should quit because she "cant win", "has lost", "mathematically cant catch up", etc.
This is a partisan interpretation of the rules, using only one of several possible yardsticks for who "should" win when nobody reaches the magic number on the first ballot.
Other yardsticks: popular vote, who won crucial swing states, 'electability', etc.
To say Hillary can't win "by the rules" is not correct. Both she and Obama will need superdelegates in order to win "by the rules".
How those supers decide is not part of the rules. Whomever leads in pledged delegates is obviously preferred by Obama partisans.
But they want to have it both ways. Their argument is based on the premise that leading in pledged delegates is the best reflection of the popular will. But if they truly were worried about the best reflection of popular will, they would insist on MI and FL having their votes counted. And they would be uncomfortable with caucuses, which are not as democratic as primaries.

Posted by: johnL1 | March 25, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

As long as McCain continues to goof and the Dems show grass roots energy, there's hope. But not much...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | March 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

How many of those "new Democrats" are simply voting for Hillary DIANE Clinton in the primary with the intent to NOT vote for her in the general election?

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Although McCain is loving the Obama/Clinton battle, he surely must be dreading this fact;

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
The Google Effect:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=76

Posted by: davidmwe | March 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Dan is right; the media need to focus on the positives in the Democrat primary battle. The only thing that matters is defeating Republicans. The media will come around, as they always do, when it really counts.
-Trevor Wynne
Washington, DC
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: trevorwynnewhitehouse | March 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

LOL! I can hear them Now!

"I switched to the Dimocrat Party because I wanted (Loser A or B) to win!

NOW, I guess-Hee Heeee!, I am just going to have to support McRomney!" Snicker! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

General Patton said, "America won't tolerate a loser"!. The Republican Party, and by extension it's members, are LOSERS. They've destroyed the economy, twisted every ideal that they may have once stood for into an incompetent, hate-filled semi-fascist party. Not only the Republican politicians (who enabled Bush, the screwuper) are abandoning ship, the rank and file are deserting in droves.

If we can just get Hillary to abandon her "Audacity of Hopelessness" (thanks David Brooks) campaign, America may have a chance to pull out of this morass.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 25, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company