Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who's the Stronger Democrat for the General Election?


Presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) shake hands after a Democratic presidential debate in this Feb. 26, 2008 file photo, in Cleveland. (AP.)

By Dan Balz
When The Post compiled the "8 Questions" project over the weekend, the question that split the so-called experts more than any other was whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would be the stronger general election nominee against John McCain next fall. We invite everyone to weigh in with your own views.

The answer to this question is critical to Clinton's hopes of winning the nomination, although it may not turn out to be a terribly relevant. Obama has a lead in the delegate battle that will be hard for Clinton to overcome, and if she isn't ahead in pledged delegates, states won or the popular vote, the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will be hard-pressed to deny Obama the nomination.

The Clinton camp and the New York senator herself are well aware of these dynamics. Absent a change in the pattern of results of the primaries and caucuses, Clinton may be able to narrow but likely not overtake Obama in either delegates or the popular vote. By then the question of who is stronger may be clear to everyone.

The Clinton campaign's hope is to keep drawing contrasts with Obama, continue to raise doubts about him and hope that external events like the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. prompt a reevaluation of Obama, not just by superdelegates, but by enough voters to make Clinton the dominant candidate down the stretch.

Obama supporters and some neutral Democrats fear Clinton's campaign will end up trashing the Illinois senator for the remaining weeks of the nomination battle, leaving him badly wounded for the fall campaign, if he is the nominee, or the party terribly split, if she were to end up as the nominee.

The results of the last 10 contests are likely to determine the outcome of the nomination battle, but what many Democrats -- from ordinary voters to uncommitted superdelegates -- will be weighing is which candidate they believe has the better chance of defeating McCain. Let's start with how a random group of Democratic strategists answered this question late last week.

"Senator Obama has the potential to expand the Democratic base with younger voters, independents, and an energized African American community. Senator Clinton's will energize women and regular Democrats," wrote Bill Carrick, who is a California-based Democratic strategist. "It is a close call but an Obama versus McCain match up would be a stark contrast on many levels. These contrasts advantage Obama, making him the stronger candidate against McCain."

"Clinton," according to one female strategist. "McCain needs her natural constituency -- working class whites and suburban women (who will return to her) -- more than he needs Obama's natural constituency."

Another Democrat agreed that Clinton, marginally, is the better choice. "It's hard to know how to measure the unknown, the possible, the innovation of leadership that Obama present," she wrote. "Maybe because the economy makes us nervous and risk averse, we will feel safer with Hillary against McCain."

Democrat Tad Devine said he believed Obama has greater potential to alter the Democratic electorate and expand the electoral map. "So, notwithstanding Hillary's considerable strengths, Obama would be stronger," he said. "It's also easier for Obama to draw a contrast on Iraq, and for him to argue that he is a true change agent."

Two other female Democratic strategists named Obama. One simply said he was the better candidate, "period." The other wrote, "Obama will turn out more Democrats and bring new people to the party more than Clinton, while Clinton will energize Republicans more than Obama."

Steve Murphy, who was part of Bill Richardson's campaign, said he thinks Obama is the better choice. "Ironically, in Red states Obama is much stronger but Clinton is the safer pick in Blue states," he wrote. "Do the math and it comes out Obama would be the best general election candidate."

The most negative view came from a pro-Obama Democratic strategist. "He has a chance to be a transformational leader," this Democrat wrote. "She has been a huge disappointment as a candidate, her campaign a depressing joyless slog through the mud, her presidency would be a disaster."

Donnie Fowler offered a long and ultimately inconclusive answer. "With McCain's victory and his powerful ability to draw independent voters, Obama appears to be stronger because he has can better attract the swing universe," he wrote. "On the other hand, we know that Hillary Clinton is a fighter like Democrats have not had in years. (Just ask the junior senator from Illinois.) Because she will take no grief and give no ground, this makes the argument for her being the stronger candidate. It's a tough call on who is stronger."

Pollster Mark Mellman offered this assessment. "Last week Obama would have been the stronger candidate but the election wasn't held last week and it won't be next week or next month either," he wrote. "Only someone endowed with the gift of prophecy could tell you with any certainty who would be stronger in November."

A Democrat who said she believed Obama would be stronger offered this caveat about his candidacy. "The one area where Obama needs to get stronger because McCain is so weak is on the economy," she wrote. "HRC¹s strongest card in her current campaign is that she has credibility on the economy ( in many ways she is benefiting ­ like Bush did in 2000 on her last name to give her credibility here) Obama need to get a clear and simple economic message and then use it against McCain in the general election."

Those views represent the current thinking of Democratic insiders. Though they are not superdelegates themselves, they may see the world the way many of those superdelegates do, and if their views are representative, the party is split at the moment on this question. Now it's time to hear from the rest of you. What do you think? Clinton or Obama?

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 24, 2008; 11:42 AM 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: Clinton Camp Says Obama Has Double Standard
Next: In Pa. Address, Clinton Homes in on Economy

Comments

Any consideration of who would be a stronger candidate must account for the current state of the race. Most forseeable paths for Hillary to get the nomination will be alienating to major portions of the base she needs to win.
That puts her at an inherent disadvantage to Obama, unless there is an as yet unforseen scandal of major proportions.

Posted by: MShaughn | March 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Any consideration of who would be a stronger candidate must account for the current state of the race. Most forseeable paths for Hillary to get the nomination will be alienating to major portions of the base she needs to win.
That puts her at an inherent disadvantage to Obama, unless there is an as yet unforseen scandal of major proportions.

Posted by: MShaughn | March 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the least experience man to run for President in Modern times. He is a great speaker, and has a great press agent, but he's been caught in so many lies and his friends are racist... that does say something about him, considering he fictionalizes his past in books, says he has no records from the time he spent in the Illinois Senate, and has leid about Rezko, again and again.

At 47, his only real experience helping people outside of his qust for power in politics is 10 months as a civil servant.

This should have been an easy win for Hillary, who is brilliant and down to earth and has devoted her life to working for change. People deep down knows she has what it takes to lead us back to peace and prosperity.

Obama uses race to intimidate the press and manipulate everything. He talks about drugs in his books, and race, but the press is afraid to mention any of that accept on Obama's terms.

Obama is tied to Bush trhough Rezko, and I bet his purpose all along was to destroy Hillary so a republican could win.

His friend Farrakhan is helping him, Bush is helping him, Axelrod is helping him, sexists are helping him, and McCain will be the big winner.

Obama said "he can't help it if Farrakhan thinks he's a nice guy", and I hadn't hear Farrakhan, and saw this on another post at it's scary.

YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-MH7ty55E28&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrP706-MZKM&eurl=http://youtube.com/profile_video_blog


Posted by: CassZives | March 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

For those who will for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination because you support Obama and to those who will vote McCain if Obama gets the nomination because you support Hillary, you should be ashamed and YOU are the reason the dems will lose in November, not any campaign or media or any other excuse you want to use to justify your spite. Bottom line, we vote for the issues and our two candidates, as tarnished as they are right now, are still the best two choices of the three. I support Obama, but I WILL vote for Hillary and not because I love the dems and hate repubs, but because McCain does not support the policies on issues I believe in. Any other option is clear indication that you vote not based on necessity or intellect but on your emotional need for the day.

Posted by: sydneyg77 | March 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

CassZives: I checked your petition and the first signature was from March 22. Where have you been as a champion of voter's rights and democracy? Where was the petition BEFORE it mattered to Hillary? I agree wholeheartedly that Florida and Michigan should have a right to vote and have them count, and I have long argued that much of our election process is un-democratic and should be changed... but I resent that when I was complaining about the injustice democratic loyalists were saying "that's the rules...", the same loyalists that have long supported Hillary. The rules should be fair from the start and you should have complained when it really mattered!

Posted by: sydneyg77 | March 25, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama is more of a Republicrat and wolf in sheeps clothing. He's been cutting Hillary off at the Knees, and playing the race card this entire campaign, all the while saying he's a uniter and not negative. Every been conned by a really good con man? Meet Obama the Republicrat. I really think he's a Bush operative and his gola was to stop Hillary to protect Wall Street Oil and Defense profits. Status Quo? Obama is status Quo, h wants to Unite Republicans and Democrats so Republicans can win all their objectives with no contest. That's Obama's game. Ever had someone claim you were guilty of what in fact they are doing? Negative? Status Quo? Vicious? Obama, you guessed it, that's been his game all along.

Obama's longtime friend Rezko, the one who original gave Obama 60K... Not he made a mistake... 125K... No he made a mistake it was more like $250 K he said recently... well Rezko also fund raised for Bush, fancy that. Obama is a Bush Operative and his goal was to destroy Hillary and pave the way for a Republican to -- you guessed it -- preserve the status quo. The opposite of what Obama says? You guessed it he lied, he's a really good con man. He destroyed his pastors career... but what the heck there are casualties of war. Obama is against war? No he said his views and Bush's are not that different, now he claims to be the one Senator who did not vote for the war... OH? He wasn't in the Senate... but Bill Clinton he says is a racist for claiming Obama's claim to be for peace is a fairytale... yet Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan and Dodd said that was Crazy... of course that was before Dodd became an Obama operative... Then there is AXELROD Obama's Bad Cop... His Press Agent... He keeps the Obama show on the road, and Obama is a good actor and brilliant Orator (though he panics in a conversation so can't negotiate effectively) but it's all working... right?

If we want to know which Democrat people want for the nomination we better well let every State have a vote!


Let Florida and Michigan Democratic Voters Vote!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/let-florida-and-michigan-democratic-voters-vote
FL & MI Citizens Deserve a Democratic Vote

The fifteenth Amendment (1870) of the US Constitution promises:
The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged, by the United Sates, or any other State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) of the US Constitution promises:
The right of citizens of Citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, on account of sex.

Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964) promises:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election... shall not be denied or abridged...

Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1971) promises:
The right of Citizens of the United States, who are 18 years old age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any other state...

If you want to protect the right under the constitution for all people to vote, PLEASE SIGN PETITION and Forward to your friends:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/let-florida-and-michigan-democratic-voters-vote

I have also written the DNCC to Protest at:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

Posted by: CassZives | March 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

ajs.vhc: Obama will not be a disaster for America, but rather it's saving grace. He will introduce much stronger ethics in Government, something that perhaps does not sit too well with the Clintons? I don't know. I just shake my head when I hear people like yourself saying Clinton supporters must do everything in their power to take Obama down - whether in the primary or beyond. Goodness knows I wonder whether Clinton would prefer to destroy Obama, lose herself in November, but be pleased to see McCain win. That being the case, she has some cheek to run as a Democrat.

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 25, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

The most dis-heartening thing I'm seeing with this primary is that I no longer hear people saying: "Well regardless who wins the primary, F*** the GOP, I'm voting Democratic." Let me just say, F*** the GOP, I'm voting Democratic.

Posted by: Terrorfied | March 25, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

I think all of these predictions are a bit stupid. Obama supporters will not support Hillary if she wins the nomination and Clinton supporters (like me) will not support Obama. McCain wins. I have never supported a Republican for any office in my life. If Obama wins the nomination I will vote for McCain and urge all Clinton supporters to do the same. Obama will be a disaster for this nation and we mst do everything we can to defeat him.

Posted by: ajs.vhc | March 25, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

If the SOOPERDELEGATES will follow Queen Pelosi's dictum (i.e., essentially "ratifying" the candidate their voters chose), then when can we expect Big-Head Ted, John Heinz Kerry, and Bill Judas Richardson to throw in their hats for Hillary? After all, she won both Massachusetts and New Mexico.

Oh? You say they're Obama supporters? Huh! Well then apparently the SOOPERDELEGATES don't follow Queen Bee Pelosi after all.

In that case neither Hillary NOR OBAMA can win the nomination. NOT UNTIL AUGUST.

So shut up already and quit trying to shove a candidate down our throats.

Posted by: pfish | March 25, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Forget what polls say right now, because Obama has been playing catch-up with Clinton in all but a few of the primaries. By Obama expanding the democratic base, and his ability to attract independents and and even real moderate Republicans (not crossing over to keep the primaries going like Clinton in TX), he has the best shot. If somehow Clinton wins the nomination (God help the Democratic party), I will vote for McCain regardless if Obama is on the ticket or not as a matter of principle, and there are many more like me. I am strongly against her tactics because they distract from the process rather than help it.

The attempts to distort Obama by his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and make us believe he doesn't love this country will not stop, but the American People will see through it in the end.

Posted by: matthew.finnie | March 25, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the stronger nominee. I recommend this site: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Now note that a couple of weeks ago, Obama had a much stronger win margin over McCain, but as is the case now - Clinton lost to McCain.

What we are seeing is the damage created to Obama by Clinton remaining in the race and using the tactics that she uses - however, it does not improve her position in November - it just harms the Democratic Party.

Now if with Obama going down she was actually doing better that would be a different story - but these figures show all she is achieving is destroying the Democratic party.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this until it gets through people's heads - but since it was clear who the Republican nominee was - Republicans have been cross-voting for Clinton in order to try and take out their strongest opposition. Happened in OH, TX and Missi - in fact, Obama would have won the popular vote in TX if it wasn't for the many Republicans 'sent by Rush'.

These republicans won't be voting for Clinton in November - they are voting against their competition. Now some may say 'all is fair in the world of politics' - but seriously - give yourselves a slap upside the head if you haven't already realized the remaining primaries are not going to accurately reflect the will of the Democratic voters.

And yeah - 5% of the vote does make a difference - a big difference - particularly when Clinton is more than happy to continue to run her campaign off the smell of an oily rag.

For Clinton to then claim this as her being the stronger candidate is beyond the gall and the Dems deserve a D cap, to be sent to the corner to remain there for the next 8 years, if they can't figure out that their chances are being stolen from them.

If Clinton will not exit willingly I advocate strong pressure to force her out - now, not in 6 weeks, not by June - now.

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 25, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

JakeD,

The idea that Obama is going to win even one of those Southern States is silly. South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi have always voted for Republicans since the Civil Rights Legislation in the 1960's so much so that they voted for Goldwater in 1964. Georgia only broke to elect Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Not happening, it will be a GOP sweep with Obama as the nominee because while you pointed out the African American Demographics, you failed to point out the racial demographic from the primary. White voters including Democrats in every Southern State will overwhelmingly vote for McCain in November against Obama. Conversely, African Americans would sit out if it is a Clinton McCain Match Up. It means that the GOP will dominate the Southern States including North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Florida is another issue but since the DNC has disenfranchised the state and Obama wants to open a dialog with Castro's brother, it will most likely go to the GOP as well.

And no, I am not a Republican but a Democrat, who will cross over and vote Republican for the first time in my life to beat Obama.

Posted by: tlroberts17 | March 25, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Hi douggriffith
Al Gore is a great option ( Gore/Obama!!). However, since it is infeasible Obama is OK. At least foreign countries can see the progress we made socially.

Posted by: DrCha | March 25, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Who runs strongest against McCain? Al Gore. That's right, the once and future President needs to signal his availability now that neither Clinton nor Obama are electable. He was correct on Iraq, the environment, he represents the prosperous 90's, is acceptable to the left, to the Clinton wing, and could answer the phone at 3:00am.

Posted by: douggriffith | March 25, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Dear awb75,
If more of us behave like responsible citizens like you and do research ( I mean really put effort in finding the truth). Good candidates automatically win.
I am an independent who never followed much of politics but HRC statements:
"I won most of swing states"
" Ohio (no mention Missouri) is bell weather state"
work with uneducated masses.


Then again the political paid campaigners and hate preachers abound who muddle the issues. Please keep your wisdom present. May be it will have effect on the innocent people who get swayed by foxes...

Just to instigate a SPLIT among dems. strategists talk about disenfranchising FL and MI. It is shameless to talk about Fl/MI.

Sincere thanks.

Posted by: DrCha | March 25, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama would be the stronger candidate. While Clinton has her share of supporters one only has to look at the poll between McCain, Obama and Clinton on the matter of trust. Clinton fell 30 points below McCain and Obama. She falls so far below for good reason.

Posted by: Bulldoglover100 | March 25, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

cspan has been showing the DNC meetings where the rules were drafted as well as the meeting last August when the Fl State Dem Party appealed the decision and was again defeated

After that, the Fl State Dem party sued the DNC and lost in court -- despite all this they still moved up their primary date

Do not let the spin machines and the ill informed tell you otherwise. The bill introduced in the Fl State Senate to move the primary to Jan 29th was introduced by democratic (uncommiteed) state senator Jeremy Ring of Broward County

The Fl democratic party disenfrachised itself

As a Florida delegate I know this to be a fact --

There was never a change of a revote in Florida for the following reasons:
a: the Fl State statute forbids a mail in vote if a nomination is at stake (and despite some state legislators saying they could get around this - they could not unless a primary would be run outside the board of elections)
b: there could not be a primary because Fl is in the process of redoing all the voting machines - and at any given time at least 10 counties will not have machines until the transition is complete in mid July
c: the last option wss a caucus and when the Clinton campaign realized they backed themselves into this corner is why they quickly turned their attention to Michigan

Anyone else interested in any facts can clearly get them on the internet.

The people of Florida knew the presidential primary was not going to count.

This is why 466,000 people who coted for the property tax amendment to the Fl State constitution (which was what spurred the turnout) did not even bother to check off a candidate for president

This is why only two states that have held primary's so far this year have had less democrats vote than republicans. In Florida 1.7 m dems voted and 1.9 m repubilcans voted (and a total of 4.2m voted for the property tax amendment0

Coincidentally the only other early primary state where more repubilcans voted than democrats was --- yup -- you guessed it -- Michigan

(and to the uninformed person above: Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick has not declared support for either candidate - and will be unlikely to do so from jail)

Any other questions on Florida - lmk

Posted by: awb75 | March 25, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

None of McCain supporters who post here are posting at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/more_incoming_for_clinton.html

Because anything that hurts Hillary is a threat to McCain. Republicans are great strategists. I admire their brains.

Posted by: DrCha | March 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillary cannot tell the difference between truth and lies. For example, she did not misspeak when she lied about coming under sniper fire. She told the same lie about the sniper fire with eyes wide open and a bright smile, in public, on over a dozen recorded occasions. This story is one of her claims to her experience making her ready to be commander-in-chief from day one. The 3 a.m. red phone call will lead to disaster for the nation when Hillary, as President, answering it cannot tell the difference between fact and self-engrandizing fantasy. As President, Hillary will lie every day to the American people, just as Bill lied under oath with his hand on the Bible. If she cannot tell the difference between sniper fire and a welcoming poem, can we trust her with our national security? Where is her judgment?

Posted by: shirleylim | March 25, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama's unfavorables are already in the 50s. Clinton's may be higher, but what the heck can they find on her at this point, the republicans spent 8 years driving up her negatives. His unfavorables have no where to go but up, especially since the media has failed to vet him. Never mind Pastor Wright, the footage where he fails to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem, his admitted cocaine use, his awful wife. McCain Obama race wouldn't be close, President McCain in a landslide. Americans require passing the commander in chief threshold, Obama doesn't even pass the patriot threshold. Obama is the weakest, most vulnerable general election candidate in decades. But what do I know, I'm just a "typical white person".

Posted by: dcbill1 | March 24, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Earlier someone said half the people dislike Clinton because of what's reflected in the polls. Put another way half will not vote for Obama even if they like him.

Sen. Obama himself said he didn't have the experience to be president in 2005 in an interview on television. I believed him then and I believe him now. Although he says is about taking the higher ground, he has perfected the art of gaming the system. He won his seat in the IL legislature by getting his three other opponents disqualified and their names removed from the ballot, one of the candidates was his mentor. He ran unopposed.

He has not proven to be a uniter. In fact the party is split right down the middle. HRC is currently winning the popular vote of the Democrats. He has invited folks to become Democrats for a day in order to vote for him. The knife fight as he calls it is real. At least one can see HRC's knife when it is coming; he stabs you while he is smiling.

He has damaged himself with Rev. Wright and Rezko. No one could damage him worse. Even if he wins the nomination, he is going to lose the GE because there are many women and blue collar Democrats who will either stay home or cross party lines. Either way the Democrats lose.

HRC can be victorious by a narrow margin.

Posted by: LadyEagle | March 24, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

~

"Now he says the FL/MI votes must be counted and the race is not over yet, so why call for Clinton to get out. WHY? Because she has the potential to show superdelegates Obama is not electable.

Posted by: vammap | March 24, 2008 09:02 PM"

Well,for chrissakes, if he's not electable -- which he's not -- let's find out now.

There are millions more people left to vote.

And, MI and FL HAVE to count. If Obama tries to claim a legitimate victory without Clinton getting the 50 - 33% victory Floriday, no one is going to accept it.

Pelosi and Dean are going to try to force it their way. If they do, there will be hell to pay.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | March 24, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

I'll see your Pastorgate and raise you Snipergate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

With Snipergate the words in question come straight from the candidates mouth.

Between this and "I did not have sex with that woman..." how can we ever trust the Clintons.

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the best choice. Obama's Pastor disaster makes him unelectable period (not to mention the "typical white person") If Hillary doesn't get the nod then a whole bunch of Democrates that I know will be switching to Mccain.

Posted by: cdeboer1 | March 24, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama now has at least three significant perceptual problems:

1. Under the rigors of campaign scrutiny his campaign of unity and hope has resorted to the very thing he said he would always avoid: playing the same old Washington game.

2. Though it may have been a party rule, Obama camp was given the opporunity to seat FL/MI. He chose not to by running down the clock, by demanding half the votes, when in fact he has not done well in most primary contests. So, he is disenfranchising millions of voters, yet the press is giving him a pass? Why? The DNC was willing to work something out; Hillary camp wanted to work something out; Obama camp has essentially stymied the process. If you don't think voters will remember that; if you think Hillary supporters will vote for him, NOT.


3. His choice of associations continue to pop up making his message appear disengenuous, unity for all? with the potential to haunt him throughout the remainder of the campaign.

Obama has more critical negatives now than Hillary.

If you watched Carville on CNN tonight, though he says he's not speaking for Hillary, what he did say is how things will progress for Hill Camp: remember Carville is the one who said she had to win Texas and Ohio. Now he says the FL/MI votes must be counted and the race is not over yet, so why call for Clinton to get out. WHY? Because she has the potential to show superdelegates Obama is not electable.

Posted by: vammap | March 24, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

lpeter59:

I agree with you -- it doesn't matter SEVEN MONTHS before the general election who we think is the stronger candidate -- a lot will happen between now and then.

See you tomorrow.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama wins by a mile. Ultimately people will get over their fear of the unknown and take a chance on the possibility that we can get beyond partisan politics. Which candidate can best get us there? It's a no-brainer. HRC, on the other hand, is completely polarizing and will undoubtedly unify and energize the opposition ... all it will take is a directive from Rush Limbaugh, and we've already seen how effective that can be. If we don't grab the opportunity to get behind Obama, we are as ignorant as the rest of the world thinks we are.

Posted by: dodyc | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

It is impossible to know who would be the best candidate in the fall. They are basically tied now, but Clinton has a relatively small downside due to the exhaustive investigations and media scrutiny.

Oh the other hand, Obama has a virtually limitless downside. He has not been vetted or tested or investigated and who knows what's out there. How many times can he give a campaign saving speech?

Tell me what the 527 ads will say about Obama in the fall, and I'll tell you if he'll win.

Posted by: lpeter59 | March 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Given the postings I have read above, I can see why I have been concerned about this dilemma our party has gotten itself into.

Both sides will not vote for the other if their candidate is not the nominee. That seems to be the case and is getting worse. The latest polls indicate this is the case. It is obvious that the party is splitting and will be in shambles by November.

Personally, I am supporting Hillary and would not even think of supporting or voting for Obama. I would just not vote for president in November, if that would be the case. Unfortunately, I have several friends who are considering voting for McCain. Granted, most of them are female and are around my age - 52.

In fact, I think we are doomed to defeat in Novemeber, and I count myself among those who may make that a reality. Neither of our candidates can win a general election. We will already start at a disadvantage in Florida and Michigan. McCain could even put California in play, even as he is reviled by the right for his immigration stance. On the other hand, it may entice Hispanics to vote for him. I know he can probably win Ohio.

I also happen to be a Democratic committeeperson from Ohio and serve on my county's central committee, as do all committeepeople. This just informs some of my perspective. I find the whole situation gloomy and see no reason to engage in the nastiness some on here seem to enjoy. It just highlights the problems we will have from now through November, and that is a losing proposition.

Posted by: garman | March 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Rezko '08: "Change without experience"

Posted by: smith.jack | March 24, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Vs McCain = Status Quo Vs The Same

Posted by: unteal | March 24, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

This was an article in the LA Times today, Below in quotes:

It speaks to how endemic this racial profiling has become for blacks. The sense that the black community has only the white community to blame for all its ills; this is ingrained in Obama's psyche partially because the role models he chose to follow represented this militant anti-white theme. This was reflected in Michelle Obama's comments, and in Barack's. It's undeniable and there's no way it won't be an issue. People feel betrayed by a "hope" that is not hopeful...the result now is that the very premise he stood by, to unite us...is nothing more than words...



"As far back as that sort of exchange in high school, a recurring character type has played a role in the life of Obama: a friend or associate who is quick to blame white America for the troubles of the black community, so says the LA Times news analysis."


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama24mar24,0,2430610.story

Posted by: vammap | March 24, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Almost all of these posts are hysterically amusing. Personal insults, rhetorical lynchings, accusations of theft, sexual improprieties, fraud, undue influence, graft, corruption...why you'd think we were talking about Huey Long here! But no, you people are talking about HRC and BHO. And you have either forgotten or choose to ignore or have ignorance of basic facts, or perceptual truths, about either Dem candidate.

Let me acquaint you with some practical reality. I can tell you first hand HRC is no longer who the GOP wants. Its BHO. Go to Rasmussen or Gallup and look at the data from individual states, do the math. BHO's apparent collection of anti-American associations and actions seems to have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many swing voters in critical states. Current perceptual reality. Get in touch, folks. Deal with reality in America. Get off of the interstate and out of your Volvos and talk to real people.

Posted by: forces | March 24, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Press is so baised and dishonest with their profession that they can not stop their pro-Obama bias.

Clinton should be a stronger candiadate especially against Mccain.
That shows in almost all polls.
BTW, I realized internet political junkies form only 10% of actual voters.

Don't get panic with all posting for anti Clinton (and pro-obama). Luckily They represent fraction of the actual voters.

Posted by: angel01 | March 24, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

richmonet:

Then why hasn't she beat Obama yet?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is clearly the better candidate

Posted by: richmonet | March 24, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Wolfeman:

Another scenario is that she is turned out of office in New York and has to wait MORE than 8 years to run.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I understand that too, Logan6, but we will simply have to agree to disagree whether anyone in the Bush Administration betrayed the country by identifying Valerie Plame. See you around.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I understand your points.

Just a last comment on the patriotic issue... Georges Bush's administration betrayed the country by identifying Valerie Plame as a secret agent in order to attack her husband who was criticizing the evidences of the possession of nuclear material by Saddam.

If the republicans did not react to this, it's because the patriotic issue is like the faith issue... Most people wear them only on their sleeves.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister - I'm still curious. I asked you in an earlier post if you were from the South because of the statistics you used in an earlier post. As an often silent reader and sometime commenter in these posts, it always amuses me when assumptions are made about a specific demographic group. No insults or inferences are being made - I'm just curious. Are you a southerner?

Posted by: hallihunt | March 24, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Upon review of the play, the call is overturned -- ad hominem by #55 -- 15 yard penalty, first down.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

Thanks for the link (just barely under the deadline ; )

I will review the play and be right back with my call.

Logan6:

The "implication" I took from Bill Clinton's actual WORDS was what a Hillary-McCain contest would look like -- not that an Obama-McCain contest would NOT look like that -- now, if it were MICHELLE Obama vs. McCain . . .

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

Thanks for the link (just barely under the deadline ; )

I will review the play and be right back with my call.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. She's winning in big-state primaries (now red-state caucuses that Dems won't pick up anyway....where at least half of Obama's victories came from). Barack Obama is tanking in the polls...he was 10 points up on McCain a few weeks ago and is now 8 points behind him. We don't care why he took his children to Re. Wright's church, but we do care that those kids have been "sermoned" on hate. We don't want a First Lady who spent her lifetime "ashamed of America" and who thinks this country is "mean." Barack Obama is (dare I bring a color into this) a GREENHORN with just 2 complete years in the U.S. Senate, an IL. statehouse legacy that leaves a string of "present" votes, and a lot of questions about who he is. His "teachable moment" speech will not be compared to Lincoln's or Kennedy's but to Nixon's "Checkers" speech. Nixon with his dog and Obama with his white grandmother. Talk about giving new meaning to the phrase "he'd sell out his own grandmother." Let me conclude with the words of one pundit: "Stick a fork in 'em he's done!" Now, parse that for nuance, boys!

Posted by: mnolan2 | March 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

I never implied that Bill Clinton "SAID" that Obama was unpatriotic. But his statemement did IMPLY it as I described. Implications are as important as words; there are the relationships between the words and they have meaning .

His "3 reasons" argument does not change the fact that Bill Clinton' statement implied that Obama was unpatriotic.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Clinton will tear Obama down to make him unelectable. Obama will be loathe to retaliate because - at minimum - to do so would be incompatible with the image he has cultivated.

The result will be that Clinton will appear to be the most electable. But she may not get the nomination since Obama will probably still lead in delegates and popular vote.

But tearing Obama down is a win-win for Clinton. Either she gets the nomination now or she gets it in 4 years against a 76-year old President McCain.

The worst case that she will avoid is helping Obama win. For then she'd have to wait 8 years to run.

Posted by: Wolfeman | March 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

It appears there are a quite a few of you, so-called Obama supporters, who have become so annoyed with one person's statements/opinions, that you have collectively, symbolically lynched him.

Now isn't that what Obama's church suggests whites have done to Pastor Wright?

What's being demonstrated in these posts is exactly the type of overzealousness and fervor that we don't want..and it's coming from Obama supporters, not svreader.

When a campaign doesn't want the votes counted and wants their opponent to give up the race when there are still contests to be won, it says only one thing...

Posted by: vammap | March 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Whatmemregister --

"That story is has been repeatedly debunked.

"http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html

"The White House vandal scandal that wasn't
How the incoming Bush team nudge-nudged a credulous press corps into swallowing a trashy Clinton story.

"Rumors of extensive damage inflicted on the White House by rowdy Clinton staffers in the end turn out to be just that -- rumors."

svreader,

You obviously didn't even read the story that I was commenting on. It had nothing to do with the false rumors of Clinton staffers vandalizing abything. It documented the very real taking of tens of thousands of dollars in White House furnishings and other property by the Clintons themselves when they left office in 2001.

It really would help if you would actually read something before baselessly contradicting it.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I said I'd post the links to the four times svreader called someone gay.

He called ME gay here:
____________________________
Comment on: The Audacity of Chutzpah at 3/18/2008 2:30 PM EDT
saraz1 --

gbooksdc is gay and is upset because I'm not and I refuse to sleep with him.
____________________________
He repeated it at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/fix_pick_the_arrogance_equatio.html#comments:
____________________________
gbooksdc is gay.
He's angry because I'm not, and refuse to sleep with him.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 02:29 PM
____________________________

He called noozdude gay:
____________________________

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 3:59 PM EDT
Noozdude --

No, you're gay because you sleep with men.
____________________________

Now, svreader posted "u take my post to noozdude out of context. I posted it as a light-hearted response to a post by "noozdude" that was a series of back-and-forth posts, where he made a specious analogy regarding Obama and Wright."
Here are some of his other "lighthearted" posts to noozdude:

____________________________

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 2:57 PM EDT
noozdude --

Put down the crack pipe and READ.

____________________________

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 2:07 PM EDT
noozdude --

... From your handle, I assume your voting for Obama because you believe the line to the whitehouse should be paved with cocaine.

____________________________

Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/19/2008 3:30 PM EDT
noozdude --

Your choice of screen names says it all.

Why don't you do some coke?

____________________________

Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/19/2008 3:17 PM EDT
noozdude --

You've got too much nose candy up your nose.
____________________________

I leave it to the reader to judge whether svliar was being "light-hearted" when he called noozdude gay. Just as I leave it to the reader to judge whether svliar's claim that "My comment to you was a light-hearted attempt at humor in a vain attempt to get you to stop your vendetta against me" -- when he did it TWICE.

Keep in mind that this is svliar's MO -- first he denies ("total BS"). Then he attacks ("liar"). Then he tries to dismiss (I was just being light-hearted). There is nothing light-hearted about someone posting the same thing 110 times.

Anyway, back to svliar's favorite slur:

Comment on: Outspoken Minister Out Of Obama Campaign at 3/15/2008 5:37 PM EDT
Obama's supporters must all be gay.
__________________________________________________

Comment on: The Incumbent at 1/25/2008 10:28 PM EST
... Republicans are .. all closeted self-hating gays.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Well now LABC, let's see, seems to me, he ought to be, in the Presidency! Golly gee!

Why? Because he alone out of the three Senatorial choices shares the qualification one of the last senators did that actually succeeded at getting and doing the Job. HE, is a Military Man. He, is Qualified for the title Commander in Chief, because He can actually be given a loaded gun, without being a risk to himself! ;~)

NOW, the missing ingredient in my Package(JakeD I believe would support this one), is the Economic and business expert and Venture Capitalist Mittster Romney-AKA St. Mitt! :-)

The savior of the American Middle Class Businessman! :-)

My Pitch; "Executives for the Executive Branch, and Congressional Lawyers back to the Playground!" ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Logan6:

You didn't really answer my question (even though I think you imply that Carville's slam is much worse than the slam against Bill Clinton). Also, no need to paraphrase -- he never said that Obama was unpatriotic -- this is all he said after laying out "the three reasons" for his wife's candidacy ("She'd be the best for the veterans, she'd be the best commander-in-chief, and she'd be the best at managing this economy."):

Citing hypothetical match-ups between the Democrats and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the former president said his wife beats McCain in Ohio, Florida and Arkansas, while Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would lose to him in those states.

"So she can win this election," he said to applause.

"And we need to change the direction of this country," he continued. "But it won't be an easy race. John McCain is an honorable man . . . and he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other."

He then told about how she and McCain had worked together on global warming.

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," Clinton said, "and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

> svreader wrote:
> ...
> Obama supporters post the most vicious
> anti-clinton screeds imaginable.
> ...
> Stop attacking me and other Clinton
> supporters.
> ...
> Post about the candidates, and the
> issues.
> ...
> Not attacks on other bloggers.

svreader, in this comment and in the previous one you attack Obama supporters saying that they are vicious, that they are in denial, etc.

You also keep sending hate-based comments against Obama as I reported previously. Hate-based comments are and should be against the rules.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

rat-the, what would be marketing for McSame, I mean, McCain? Or did I answer my question already? You should worry about McCain, let us worry about our nominee.

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

As Salon's Mark Benjamin has documented in this space, Hillary Clinton's telling of her experiences during a 1996 trip to Bosnia doesn't jibe with either her schedule for the trip or the memory of comedian Sinbad, who accompanied her. Plenty of other reporters, bloggers and pundits have done similar analyses. But it took video evidence (which you can watch at the bottom of this post) to make Clinton's campaign walk back these comments the candidate made last week:

I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia. And as Togo [West, former secretary of the Army] said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor or too dangerous, the president couldn't go. So send the first lady. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

In a conference call Monday, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was asked about his candidate's description of what had happened in Bosnia. Wolfson said, "It is possible in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke in regard to the exit from the plane, but there is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines."

According to the New York Times' Caucus blog, Wolfson cited Clinton's memoir, "Living History," noting that in it she wrote about sniper fire in nearby hills -- not at the tarmac -- and "clearly meant to say that" in the disputed account.
***********************
Gosh, I hope this little lie doesn't mess up Svrepeat's day...

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Tony_in_durhamNC wrote(If you can believe it):

Oh dear Rat,

I write marketing copy all day long.

I'm sold on Obama because "business as usual" doesn't work anymore.
-----------------------------------------

Tony, does the thought of placing a Green Bean Junior Senator from a Congress with a dismal 11% approval, sound like any sort of Strong Marketing Spin?

FYI-HE, is a member of the Ruling Majority!

Does placing someone into a Position they do not have the proper background sound like advice a Marketing Expert would recommend to a client?

I can hear the Pitch now;

Heyyyy, he has never FAILED at anything like this yet! Just look at him! Just Listen to him! I'm telling you; HE can PLAY the Part!

It is not like he won't have experts behind him to tell him what he should say!

With the right Packaging we can really move this model! ;~)

Barack da Happa Haole for Da-Kine? No Shibai! He one Uffa-guy! :-(

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

> JakeD wrote:
>
> Is that any different than the Obama
> campaign playing the Joe McCarthy card
> against Bill Clinton?

Like most voters, I would like the campaign to be based on issues. Not weak assumptions based on gender, race, faith, patriotism, etc.

To respond to your question, I will paraphrase what Bill Clinton said...
"IF democrats choose Hillary, THEN we will have with McCain a general election between two patriots"

This statement appears to infer that Obama is not patriotic. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have said... "We can choose anyone between Hillary and Obama, and we will still have with McCain a general election between two patriots"

Bill Clinton is a good guy, and so are McCain, Hillary and Obama. But Bill Clinton's statement questionned Obama's patriotism. And this is a sensible issue, like race, gender, etc. I understand Bill Clinton to make mistakes, but I also understand the strong reaction by Obama's camp when referring to McCarthysm.

More recently, James Carville made a about Judas to refer to Richardson's endorsment of Obama. People should turn down the rhetorics on both side and correct mistatements to help focusing on issues.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 5:18 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 24, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"But probably Rush Limbaugh has already answered this question for all of us about who can win against McCain, by urging Republicans to go vote for HRC in the primaries where they can.

Posted by: jallison1 | March 24, 2008 04:52 PM "

-------------------------------------
So true, jallison1

svreader - screed? Found a thesaurus, didya? Also learned how to use it

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

kristin2 --

What are you taking about????

Obama talks about his COCAINE use in his own books.

Is this another Obama campaign dirty trick?

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget Obama's history of Cocaine use.
The Republicans' 527's will make sure America doesn't.
Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM

This seems to be where svreader gets some of his information--about cocaine, for example.
Maybe I am wrong. svreader. I wish you would give links. 

New Anti-Obama Smears in Tabloids Owned by Staunch Clintonista
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/opedne_skeeter__080323_new_anti_obama_smear.htm

excerpt:
"Why would the editors of the Enquirer, Globe, Examiner and other Altman-controlled tabloids publish these wild allegations about Obama without a shred of evidence to back them up -- and knowing full well of their boss' ties to the Clinton campaign?"


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Many of us will not vote democratic if the nominee is Obama. His resume is too light and he has created a racial divide w/ his speech and 20 yr association w/his toxic preacher. McCain is too Bush..Hillary has a resume and is your work horse, who keeps working away..she represents middle America! She initiated the health care conversation, she has better economic knowledge and she will get us out of Iraq the right way!

Posted by: laurenr1 | March 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget Obama's history of Cocaine use.
The Republicans' 527's will make sure America doesn't.
Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM

This seems to be where svreader gets some of his information--about cocaine, for example.
Maybe I am wrong. svreader. I wish you would give links. 

New Anti-Obama Smears in Tabloids Owned by Staunch Clintonista
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/opedne_skeeter__080323_new_anti_obama_smear.htm

excerpt:
"Why would the editors of the Enquirer, Globe, Examiner and other Altman-controlled tabloids publish these wild allegations about Obama without a shred of evidence to back them up -- and knowing full well of their boss' ties to the Clinton campaign?"


Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

One thing the individuals interviewed for this article ignored is that McCain appeals to the same Independent voters as Obama and will siphon off some of their support. McCain will weaken Obama's message of unity because he has proven he can reach across the aisle to get things done.

Experience may not have been a factor in the Democratic primaries, but it will be in the general election if Obama is the nominee. McCain is sure to get votes from some of the Democrats who supported Clinton for this reason.

Clinton appears to be a stronger candidate than Obama because she has demonstrated toughness and resilience throughout the campaign. Obama will appear weak next to McCain.

Posted by: loracc | March 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Post about the candidates, and the issues.

Not attacks on other bloggers.

***************************
What frigging substantive, current issues have you discussed in the last 1000 + posts you have made cutting and pasting National Enquirer b.s? Give me a break, svRerun...

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile:

What about a live, MALE hooker?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

and one more thing, peterjurk..."negros" are not some voting monolith. I know plenty who will vote for Clinton and some who will vote for McCain (military guys). But thanks for stereotyping...

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Logan6 --

Get off your high horse.

Obama supporters post the most vicious anti-clinton screeds imaginable.

Stop attacking me and other Clinton supporters.

Post about the candidates, and the issues.

Not attacks on other bloggers.

That's explicitly against the rules.

Doing so ruins the experience for everyone.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

peterjurk - hey, how about just "black" voters, okay? Surprised you didn't use
"colored".... (shaking head sadly)

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I am one of those "elderly white women", also a yellow dog, feminist Democrat, and I support Obama as being the better candidate for the party and the country. Most or all of my reasons are listed above. But probably Rush Limbaugh has already answered this question for all of us about who can win against McCain, by urging Republicans to go vote for HRC in the primaries where they can.

Posted by: jallison1 | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

A dead hooker, maybe, but it's still a maybe...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

How can Clinton supporters insist with a straight face that she's been "fully vetted"? This is a candidate who fought tooth and nail to prevent the release of her public schedules as First Lady for fear of what they might reveal; who to this day has released only partial and heavily redacted versions of those schedules (which by the way were nonetheless enough to put the lie to her oft-repeated claim to foreign policy and national security "experience"); who to date has refused to release income tax returns that might give us a clue as to how she and her husband, who left the White House dead broke just over 7 years ago and are now said to be worth up to $50 million, acquired all that money; who has conspired with Bill to keep secret the sources of the hundreds of millions of unrestricted dollars raised for his presidential library, much of it allegedly from overseas "business partners" in deals in which Bill's substantive role has been murky, at best. There's a whole lot we don't know about the Clintons and the money trail, about who's buying influence (or thinks they are). This will surely come out in a general election campaign. Hillary hasn't been "vetted" in the least; the claim that she has is just another Clinton smokescreen, trying to raise questions about Obama to deflect attention from themselves.

Posted by: bradk1 | March 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Obama is the stronger Democrat. His handling the of the Rev. Wright situation was nothing short of Presidential, and his poll numbers bounced back after his demonstration of his leadership in crisis.

The Republicans are DYING to run against Hillary, they have so much to throw against her they will have their own, at the instructions of Rush Limbaugh, go vote Hillary, though they have no intention of voting for her later.

The Republicans KNOW Clinton will energize their base and increase turnout.

That alone should tell you who the stronger Democrat for November is.

Posted by: camiloj | March 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh dear Rat,

I write marketing copy all day long.

I'm sold on Obama because "business as usual" doesn't work anymore.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

svreader, I will begin to respect your comments and believe that you are not from FOX News when you will stop using hate-based assumptions similar to those from FOX News (assumption about Barack being a muslim and which would be something bad, assumption about Barack's middle name, Hussein, being something bad, ...).

There is nothing bad about beeing muslim (but Barack is not), and there is nothing bad about having the middle name Hussein (but Barack was baptised with it, there is nothing he can do about the coincidence of sharing a name with Saddam). But the intentions at FOX News are obvious; they play the hate-based and fear-based cards. Your intentions seem similar to me.

Until you stop using hate-based assumptions in your comments, I will continue assuming that you are from FOX News because of the reasons I listed in my previous message.

I respect all people who argue against Obama if the comments are not hate-based or fear-based.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"Who will be a stronger candidate?" is not THE important issue. The most important issue is whether Democrats will be united in the general election regardless who is nominated. I doubt democrats will be united.

If you look the posts on the liberal blogs, they hate Clinton more than they hate Republicans. Clinton cannot expect to have many of Obama's supporters' votes. Obama likes to believe that Clinton's supporters will vote for him in the general election, but he forgot that people who did not vote for him in the primary have their reasons not to vote for him. If Obama is nominated, many Clinton supporters will simply not to vote. McCain is an honorable guy and not a religious right. It is easy for McCain to neutralize Clinton supporters in a general election.

I have very little hope that Democrats will be united.

Posted by: cchi1 | March 24, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a great speaker but he is pushing change and this appeals to his core voters younger people and negroes.
He is not doing very well with the over 55 group especially if you factor out the negroes in this group. Remember change is not a high priority for this group - stability, the known is.
His is also doing very poorly with the hispanics - 30% or less in most cases.
He also doesn't get over 50% of the white vote in most of the bigger states.
McCain is white, a known product, older and has a track record with hispanics. Therefore, unless Obama can show he can win
with these groups in the remain primaries he may get the nomination but I don't think he can win.
Also right now if negroes were not voting race (over 80%), just a 10% shift in the their vote would put Obama behind in delegates, popular vote and this discussion would not be held.

Posted by: petejurk | March 24, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Tony_in_durham-What YOU are willing to call smart, I prefer to call calculating, sly, devious, conniving, slick...

But, to the un-Burned eye, it appears "Smart"!

Of course, I am in Sales. It's harder to "Sell" a Salesman! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

JakeD --

I could never vote for Obama knowing the kind of person he really is, as demonstrated by the contrast between his actions as compared to his words, especially after what he did in Chicago.

If Obama gets the nomination, he will lose regardless of how I vote.

I think Hillary is great and that she should and will win both the nomination and the general election.


Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Logan6:

Is that any different than the Obama campaign playing the Joe McCarthy card against Bill Clinton?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Most of Clinton's supporters post regarding Obamma are fact-based, rather than personality based, which is what Obama's supporters attacks on Clinton tend to be.

"Obama's supporters ignore the facts we post, claim they don't exist, and then try to discredit the person posting them."

Please tell us exactly what facts you used to claim that Sen. Obama had sexual affairs with some of his female students while teaching law. If you can't, then obviously the lack of anything factual in your own posts is what discredits you. Don't blame us for simply setting the record straight by pointing out those glaring fallacies.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 24, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Elephant in Tent Scripted by Karl Rove. Obama won "Red States" because republican strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama. Once Obama is Nominee, Rezko and skeletons will "SwiftBama"!

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time magazine published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets had not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.

The Time article went on to explain that rank and file Republicans were switching parties this spring to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Though not mentioned in the piece, a group called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006 to expedite the strategy, and the Obama campaign launched its own "Be a Democrat For a Day" campaign in 2007.(An official video distributed in in Florida, Nevada and Vermont explains how this legal form of vote stacking is accomplished .) Many states have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. The tactic, called crossover voting, appears to be part of a Rove-coordinated effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination.
http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winte...

Posted by: rmcnicoll | March 24, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I consider myself a "yellow dog" partisan Democrat.

It would only be under extreme circumstances of mis-trust, disgust or a "bitter pill" scenario that I would vote for a Republican. Because, frankly, what has any Republican done right since Reagan? That was 28 years ago!

That said, I may have to consider voting for McCain or some 3rd party whack job, IF Hillary Clinton became the Democratic nominee. The past 8 years have been a bigger disaster for this country than anyone could ever have predicted, although Molly Ivins tried. Before she died, even Molly said she could not support HRC.

Clinton as the nominee would bring back all the "fun" of the Clinton Years, and I mean that in a bad way. If she did become President, it would be contentious single term facing endless grief from the MSM, Fox and the Limbaugh crowd. I'm sorry to say I fully expect Bill to lose control of his zipper again (if he hasn't already). You know, like Spitzer Deluxe.

If that's what one partisan Democrat in North Carolina thinks, I wonder what they think in other states?

Obama is a class act. In a funny way, I sense some folks, not used to this much quality, resent him not because he's black or part black, but because he's so...smart.

Well, we've had 8 years of STUPID. Let's give SMART a shot!

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Actually, most Hillary's supporters WILL NOT vote
for Obama if he is the nominee!

Posted by: jren | March 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is stronger in the general election in large part because she's been thoroughly vetted, has no surprises and had already gone through fire in public. THere is nothing more they can find out about her or do to her in the attacking arena. Obama however, is a completely unknown and I am finding out new and contradictory things about him on a weekly basis. He's got the potential to be a world-class flip-flopper already on the Iraq issue, which is what ended up bringing down John Kerry! We want to avoid that at all costs!
She's also right on the experience factor. Sorry Hillary, but she is 15 years older, and that alone means more experience. I also like her Armed Services Committee work. She has the respect of a lot of people in the military.
Obama? Not so much.
McCain vs. Clinton has the most historic and plausible sound to it in terms of battles for president.
As far as change -- come on. What could be more change than having a woman as president? We've had enough testosterone in the Oval Office to last a lifetime! Let's give it a rest!

Posted by: worflar | March 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

middle --

There is another blogger that posts on that paper using the same name "svreader"

I assume he's another person in Silicon Valley that reads and bloggs.

If you look at his posts, you can tell he's not me because he is strongly against Israel, whereas I strongly support Israel and its right to live in peace with its neighbors.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama lost California, New York, Florida, Texas and Ohio. He'll likely lose Pennsylvania. The system the Democrats use to allocate delegates during the primary/caucus season doesn't reflect the system used in the general election/electoral college. We have put ourselves at odds with how the general election is carried out. If the Democrats can't reason that one out, then we probably don't deserve to be running the country.

Posted by: maria | March 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

LABC-The very thought of Bill Mahr, ALONE, with a President McCain Action Figure, does not bring into focus anything that could be deemed "Family Entertainment"!

The Horror!
The HORROR!!!! :-o

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 04:26 PM

*********************
Yes, it's terrifying! Fortunately, he did not have one in his hand. LOL!!!

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

After playing most cards of the deck (experience, race, patriotism, ...), the Clinton's supporters are now playing the Easter card: Richardson's non-endorsement of hillary is equivalent to Judas betraying Jesus.

After this one there is only one card left to play... the Miracle card. Huckabee played it but without success. Let's see if Hillary is really Jesus...

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

middle --

There is another blogger that posts on that paper using the same name "svreader"

I assume he's another person in Silicon Valley that reads and bloggs.

If you look at his posts, you can tell its not me because he posts againt Israel and I strongly support Israel's right to live in peace with its neighbors.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

Follow-up question -- if Hillary loses the nomination, will you vote for Obama or McCain?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

LABC-The very thought of Bill Mahr, ALONE, with a President McCain Action Figure, does not bring into focus anything that could be deemed "Family Entertainment"!

The Horror!
The HORROR!!!! :-o

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD --

No.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

logan6,

1. I'm not from Fox, I'm a Democrat.

2. No, I only post on the WP.

3. I don't post any hate-based comments.

4. No, I even don't watch or listen to Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh. I'm probably to the left of Obama.

5. See 2.

6. Yes I have a Ph.D. The WP has proof.

7. I support Hillary, you support Obama, we both should have a right to do so.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

After this I would have to say Obama is the stronger candidate.

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 24, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

There's one big reason not to accept a ticket of Obama/Clinton. Should this team be elected, there's not but one way Clinton could get to be president. Given the Clinton shenanigans in getting what they want, who could rule this out?

Posted by: gene9 | March 24, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

Are you a McCain supporter (in guise)?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister (great analysis!) , sydneyg77 ( great analysis!)SueB2, LABC ! , kreuz_missile, middlerd1 and JPRS .

Replying to peterdc: Consider Missouri, Virginia (!), New Mexico and Florida, could it be Texas (??). Also, Except for Ohio HRC did not win any real batlleground states. (Florida does not count, we do not know much about it).


sv...... seems to be a smart MCCain supporting computer that posts the same stuff all across the blogs. In fact my republican friends in Texas voted for Hillary so that they can retain the white house. But for that vote Hillary lost both popular vote and caucuses in Texas. The primaries would have halted there.

In a general elction anti-Hillary vote will be humongous.

Posted by: DrCha | March 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Here's the letter Senator Obama wrote to Bernake...

March 22, 2007

The Honorable Ben Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20551

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220


Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody's interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.

The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators' Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:

* What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.

* How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.

* How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.

* How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.

* How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.

* How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator
********************

yeah, he sucks...

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

svreader - "I don't change my stories."
So, do you still think that Hillary's Iraq war vote disqualifies her?

http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/02/clinton_to_tour_ohio_appalachi.shtml

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

We know that the "elites" of the party love Obama. Upper income people, party insiders, university students. But the election will be decided by swing voters--in previous elections, some of the swing voters have been "Reagan democrats," "soccer moms," "security moms," ethnic Catholics, and other demographic slices of the electorate. Those segments will all be key again, as will Latinos. And geographically, they will be most key in the crucial swing states that usually determine the outcome (since one has to keep in mind the electoral college). That means states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Looked at that way, all the stuff about Obama being potentially "transformative" is nice, but it's not going to win the election. The issue is who will win those key voters in the key states. In the primaries thus far, and looking at the consistent PA polls, the answer is clearly Clinton. It is of course impossible to say what the terrain will be like in November, but if anything, it will likely be even more in Clinton's favor--because the economy is likely to get worse, not better, and because things will happen on the international stage that underscore Obama's complete lack of experience in that area. In the end, Obama has an argument, but a dispassionate, reasoned analysis makes it clear that Clinton would likely be the stronger candidate to win the general election.

Posted by: roger32 | March 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

No, just a typo.

I don't change my stories.

You just try to make it look that way to undercut what I post.

I speak the truth.

You keep trying to supress it, and me.

Everyone can see that, and I hope that includes the people who moderate these boards.

Please do not make any more posts attacking me or any other blogger.


******************
uhhh, svreader, I saw those comments when they were first made. I commented on your homophobia based on those comments and I will happy to get that for you if you need it. He is not cutting and pasting to make a point. That is what you do...

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile:

You are saying that McCain could not win New York even if he picked Mike Bloomberg as his running mate AND Obama was caught with a hooker?

sydneyg77:

I am actually 76 years old.

Arjuna9:

I posted the link above http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog/

You are saying that you've never been there?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I came to the conclusion that "svreader" is an operative from FOX News; (1) ignoring facts, (2) spinning (recommending his own comments posted on other blogs), (3) spreading hate-based comments, (4) using Hannity and O'Reilly's rhetorics to not mention Limbaugh's, (5) making medias the center of his life (posting hate-based comments, 24/7), (6) looking like a college dropout (claiming to have a Ph.D. but without any ability to make a rational argument), (7) pushing democrats to vote for Hillary so that McCain can win.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

LABC-Actually, it was probably just where the Price Tag was removed. President McCain is no longer for sale.

Besides, he prefers people to Pull his Finger! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 04:05 PM

***********************
LOL!!!

Oh you! Bill Mahr has this funny riff on him as a action figure.

Now I think that if the price tag has been removed, it was because he has been bought... "how much is that politico in the window? The one with the wavy white hair?"

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama ought to be the candidate because he will have won the most votes and pledged delegates. This is a no-brainer. Bush's usurpation of the Presidency was bad enough.

That said...I would suggest that the real factor no one seems to be talking about are the 527s.

Who will most easily be sunk by the 527s? I'll tell you... "Billary". Lots of baggage...I know 8th graders who know about Monica! It's a cultural joke.

Of course, 527s will attack Obama too... but his many positives will deflect them. Her positives..."fighter"! Nonsense...echoes of Gore hollering "I want to fight for you!"

The attacks won't stick to Obama... he is our Regean...our great communicator.

Posted by: pdurand | March 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

JakeD. I could not possibly answer your question, since I have no idea what the "St.Obama blog" is.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | March 24, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed that the Clinton campaign brazenly talk about how Richardson owed her. Are they actually suggesting that he was given his cabinet post on the understanding that he will support her in the future? Were the Clintons actually selling cabinet posts back in the 90s?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

No, just a typo.

I don't change my stories.

You just try to make it look that way to undercut what I post.

I speak the truth.

You keep trying to supress it, and me.

Everyone can see that, and I hope that includes the people who moderate these boards.

Please do not make any more posts attacking me or any other blogger.


Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I think it's Obama for this reason:

Hillary's only path to the nomination seems to be to get the delegates to say to Obama: "We know you won the most states and the most delegates, but we're going to give it to Hillary anyway." If that happens, I think the new voters Obama has brought in just go away and may not come back. And I think a significant portion of the African American voters will be *extremely* upset with the Democratic Party.

If Obama's the nominee however, he will have the legit claim to the most states and most delegates, which makes it harder for Hillary's supporters to look at the process and claim that she was robbed of a legitimate victory.

So, I think more of her supporters come out for him than his will come out for her in November. Add to that the possibility of picking up a generation of voters that are new to the process, and I think it's an opportunity the Democrats can't pass up.

Posted by: gmtiffany | March 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

LABC-Actually, it was probably just where the Price Tag was removed. President McCain is no longer for sale.

Besides, he prefers people to Pull his Finger! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

And while we're on the topic, I'll repeat this post on svliar and gays:

Comment on: Even in Victory, Clinton Team Is Battling Itself at 3/6/2008 11:30 PM EST
gbooksdc --

No, its not against Post rules.

However, personal attacks like yours are.
___________________________________________

Does gaybashing count as a personal attack? Because there's

Comment on: The Audacity of Chutzpah at 3/18/2008 2:30 PM EDT
...gbooksdc is gay and is upset because I'm not and I refuse to sleep with him.
___________________________________________

and then there's

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 3:59 PM EDT
Noozdude --

No, you're gay because you sleep with men.
___________________________________________

Don't forget

Comment on: Outspoken Minister Out Of Obama Campaign at 3/15/2008 5:37 PM EDT
Obama's supporters must all be gay.
___________________________________________

Wow. Not only are individuals gay, but all Obama supoprters are gay. That's like, what half of half of everyone, 25%?

But that's not all! Look at this little jewel:

Comment on: The Incumbent at 1/25/2008 10:28 PM EST
... Republicans are .. all closeted self-hating gays.
___________________________________________

So that would make 65% of the country gay (Republican = 40%, Obama supporters = 25%). You can quibble with the math but --

I wonder why svliar is so obsessed with gays?

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Dear fellow Dems:

It's the Supreme Court stupid. If McCain is elected, expect at least 3 hard right Supreme Court nominees in the fashion of Thomas, Scalia and Alito. The average age of each Supreme Court Justice is 68 so this is entirely foreseeable. Also, McCain, to show his right wing bona fides, will continue to appoint to the federal judiciary more hard right judges in the fashion of GWB for the last 8 years, rendering our federal judiciary a right wing institution.

Food for thought as Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's campaigns and their supporters carry out their political version of mutual assured destruction.

sv reader: Where is the information you keep stating will be forthcoming about your serious allegations about Senator Obama being a slum lord and an evil politician? I have checked on such web-sites as the Nation, Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, The Village Voice, NYT, WAPO, National Review, NewsMax, Chicago Tribune and nothing. Not a word from C-Span or PBS.

Where are you getting your information from sv reader?

Posted by: jovitman | March 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

James Carville says Gov. Richardson's endorsement is likened to Judas selling out Jesus for 30 pieces of gold? Well James, how many of Hillary's supporters are selling out their country because their souls belong to the Clintons?

Many women who support Hillary at the moment are doing it because she is a woman. It stems from the age group I occupy, the over 50 crowd who remember the struggles women endured to move beyond second class citizenry. Before the 1970's it was acceptable to label jobs as a man's or woman's work. And hiring was discriminatory based on that perception. It fueled the Womens Liberation movement. A movement the Repuplicans vilify to this day.

But their heads will clear from the smoke once she is out of the race. It is then that they will finally hear Obama's message of common ground and together "yes we can" move this country to a better place for all of our posterity (not just women) and will overwhelmingly vote for Obama.

Posted by: AverageJane | March 24, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You take my post to noozdude out of context.

I posted it as a light-hearted response to a post by "noozdude" that was a series of back-and-forth posts, where he made a specious analogy regarding Obama and Wright.

These forums aren't for personal vendetta's of one blogger against another.

If you have a problem with me, or anyone else, take it to the post through proper channels.

Don't continually attack me in pubic forums just because I oppose your candidate.
__________________________________________

"Pubic" forums? Another Freudian slip for svliar.

I'm not surprised that you have an excuse for the noozdude slur -- you change your story over and over as it suits your purposes. But you don't even attempt to rationalize your slurs towards me.

As for my continually exposing your LIES, stop posting LIES and I won't have anything to expose.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary definitely has better chance to win the general election. In fact, Obama has no chance at all in general election. Here is why:

(a) The percentage of African Americans is high among registered Democriats, so Obama has advantages during the primary/caucuses. But during the general election, this advantage will not be there at all; he has no chance whatsoever to carry any of those southern states. He definitely has no chance in Florida, where I live. In contrast, Hillary has better connection with working-class people, and many of them will vote for her, but not for Obama.

(b) Obama got delegate lead because of many Caucuses. But during the general election, we do not use Caucuses. Hillary has proved that she did much better with primaries than Obama.

(c) Rev. Wright's sermons and his cloes connection with Obama make many many people very uncomfirtable to vote for Obama. From his church's teaching, which Obama has received for 20 years, he is supposed to only work for black people. Also, Obama's speech on race last week had some very disturbing contents, which give us the impression that to him, black comes first. But we need a President who is the President for all people in this country, not only for certain people.

(d) During Clinton's years at White House in 90's, they did good job with the economy, so this is a very strong point and advantage for Hillary!

Posted by: jren | March 24, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

bgooksdc --

Your constant attempts to discredit me only discredit yourself.

My comment to you was a light-hearted attempt at humor in a vain attempt to get you to stop your vendetta against me.

Your constant attacks on me do not reflect well on you or your candidate.

You are wasting the time of everyone on these boards.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to add: as an Ohioan, I can say that Obama probably won't get OH or PA in the fall but, as opposed to the fantasies of Hillary supporters, neither will Hillary. OH and PA will go for McCain come November because of all the candidates, the whitest person with the bluest collar wins here and that's McCain.

Posted by: sydneyg77 | March 24, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The second time svliar slandered me is at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/fix_pick_the_arrogance_equatio.html#comments:

gbooksdc is gay.

He's angry because I'm not, and refuse to sleep with him.


Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 02:29 PM

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You take my post to noozdude out of context.

I posted it as a light-hearted response to a post by "noozdude" that was a series of back-and-forth posts, where he made a specious analogy regarding Obama and Wright.

These forums aren't for personal vendetta's of one blogger against another.

If you have a problem with me, or anyone else, take it to the post through proper channels.

Don't continually attack me in pubic forums just because I oppose your candidate.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say it, but amongst Obama and Clinton supporters I know, all the Clinton supporters say they will vote for Obama if Clinton loses, but most of the Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain if Obama loses.
Clinton is a very divisive figure and I am not sure how much will be done in congress with her as president. Also, all the conservative wacko's will come out in force and vote for McCain if Hillary is nominated. Remember 1992 and what happened 2 years later (rep retake congress). I fear if Hillary wins, the rep will take back congress in 2010.

Posted by: jweber91 | March 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama should be the nominee of the Democratic Party for 2008. He is clearly ahead in all criteria: delegates, popular vote, and number of states won. His campaign has raised more money and spent it more wisely. Obama has campaigned honestly and without negativity. He has inspired huge numbers of voters to participate, many for the first time in a primary. He has broad appeal to the Democratic base, as well as to Independents, and many Republicans. His presence in the general election will help bring victories for many Democratic congressional races, which will ensure that his presidency will be productive and advance Democratic goals. Hillary Clinton has now only the most remote chance to win the nomination. To do so, she continues to be divisive and inflict damage on Obama, impugning that he is "weak", "inexperienced", "not patriotic", etc. She is happy to stand by and let him be smeared for the rhetoric of his pastor. Her campaign has alienated vast numbers of Democratic supporters, which will make her chances of winning in November impossible. I have big questions about her campaign's finances: why is the amount her campaign is refunding to contributors ($2,500,000.00+) so much larger than the other candidates (in the $500,000.00+ range)? She claims she is fully "vetted" but has not released any tax returns or earmarks. To my view, she should have conceded the race to Obama weeks ago, for the good of the Democratic Party. By staying in, she is self-destructing, and will take the party down with her if allowed to continue. Democratic Party leaders need to unite behind Barack Obama now and wage the campaign to beat John McCain in November.

Posted by: designbarr | March 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Is "writing-in" St. Obama the latest talking point over at the St. Obama blog?


Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 03:43 PM

******************************
Well, actually we are having a discussion about the economy and comparing Clinton's speech today and Obama's speech on Friday. What are you guys doing over at "Snarky snarkfest" blog?

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

That last post by GeorgePS sounds a lot like the argument Hillary tried to use: You can vote for both of us - just me first!

First, for all the Obama-supporter bashing, I would like to say that BOTH SIDES passionately like their candidate and have reduced their support to nasty name-calling and harassment. I have heard just as many Hill supporters declare their support of McCain if Hill doesn't get it and, as a woman, have heard all the same arguments of my betrayal of the female gender and that I take women's rights for granted because I support Obama. So quit complaining about he said she said CRAP. We all support our candidates and I will gladly state right now that I support Obama, I believe that he has a better chance of winning than McCain, I don't believe Hill has any chance of beating McCain (not her fault and not because she is a woman, just a fact) but I will gladly vote for her if she gets the nom because I am voting for the candidate that reflects my concerns about the issues the best and that is a democrat this year. I don't vote out of spite and I don't vote based on personality and anyone that does should stay at home.

One side note, I have been enjoying the banter between JakeD, SVreader and everyone else and I don't think everyone should get their panties in a bunch over SVreader or JakeD because I am convinced that SV is a McCain supporter (in guise) and JakeD is a young Ron Paul supporter looking for the next sit-in on the man. Please ignore and they will go away (hopefully to the FoxNews blogs where they belong).

Posted by: sydneyg77 | March 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the stronger of the two.

Barak blew it with middle America and me with his 20 year listening to hate mongering and has permanently damaged the democrats in the general election if he is the nom. I was going to vote for him if I had to, but I don't have to, i am just not going to vote.

Hillary is the only one I will vote for.

I will not vote for McCain or Obama as I feel neither one of them even comes close to Hillary.

I am an independent.

Posted by: lndlouis | March 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

svreader,
Give it a rest. Your arguments are played out and tired. Many Americans are sick of the Bush and Clinton families turning the White House into some kind of time share with them passing the keys back and forth while ripping our nation in half. Obama will bring far more Democratic turnout than Hillary, and Hillary would energize Republicans while Obama's young voters stay at home. Face it. The race is over. Pick a side. McCain or Obama.
I also thought there was a democratic principle in the Democratic Party that would look to the crucial bloc know as "voting voters" rather than your measuring stick that changes weekly, e.g. big states, popular vote, primaries only, and now electoral votes (hint: primary results do not directly correlate with general election wins). If Obama was facing an insurmountable lead, as Hillary is, he would be pushed out of the race. What is Hillary's excuse other than her rampant sense of entitlement and desire to ruin Obama and run in 2012?

And what is Obama's connection to the mayor of Detroit? Why is this relevant? Is that you, Bill, with a new Jesse Jackson type link? I guess a common skin color is the only link needed to throw mud at Obama.

Rezko is at least nullified by Hsu. Do you honestly think that Hillary is going to be able to steal the nomination now and then win the general with her record negatives? Put on some tea, take a nap, get to know your family again, just do anything but keep repeating the same BS 60 times a day per article. Good luck coping with reality.

Posted by: BlahBlahBlah314 | March 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Ok, Just a few examples of svreader's "positive" comments. Here is the url :
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/12/obama_on_race_and_the_race.html

So, boothe, this is the guy you are supporting? The guy(?) who chastises Obama supporters of personal attacks? Seriously?

.............
He's the same self-centered egotistical jerk he was when he called himself Barry Obama in high school.
...............
Posted by: svreader | March 12, 2008 09:17 PM
-----------------------------------------


One ex coke-fiend in the whitehouse has been more than enough!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 26, 2008 04:02 PM
-----------------------------------------
svreader:

Barak Obama is the "Paris Hilton" of Politics.
He's a blank-slate that people project their fantasies onto.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/obama_the_messiah.html
------------------------------------------
A very interesting post by svreader that tells a very different story though
http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/02/clinton_to_tour_ohio_appalachi.shtml
svreader:

In the only important vote of Hillary's Clinton's career in the US Senate, she voted to invade Iraq. Because of that vote, millions of people died, including thousands of americans. Rather than taking responsibilty for the stupidity of that vote, Hillary wants a "do over." She now disavows her vote to invade Iraq - Hillary, will disavowal bring the millions of dead and maimed back to life and full health? No, you have failed in your only foreign policy test, and failed miserable. Hillary should be voted out of the US Senate by New York Democrats as a miserable failure...She certainly does not have the "Right Stuff" to be president...

Hillary is more like Bush II, she voted to invade Iraq....a stupid vote she not tries to minimize...She claims all the political junkets she and her brat chelsea took at tax payers expense as foreign policy experience...What a joke, touring India seeing the sights, and claiming it gives her super doper foreign policy experience.. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more year of the Bush-Clinton failures in Washington, something America cannot afford...

Posted by svreader | February 26, 2008 8:39 AM
-------------------------------------------

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is by far the stronger candidate. What does Senator Obama have to offer? It was said that he would bring in independent voters and young people. He will not bring in independents if running against McCain, not since voters have found out about his minister and he has been showing lately how he is way left of the center of the democratic party. And, although moveon.org and unions have been able to send people to caucus states to get young people to the polls, they will not be able to do that in a 50-state contest in November. Once again the college students and other young people will not show up at the polls in November. And Obama's star quality has certainly faded, which may have been drawing young voters.

In addition, Senator Obama still has problems lurking out there that have not been brought to the attention of the voting public, thanks to the media's unwillingness to bring them forward. Those situations will be brought forward, just like Jeremiah Wright. Senator Obama has a lot of negatives when it comes to appealing to the average US voter. Yes, he is the darling of the press and the extreme left wing of the democratic party but they make up a small amount of the voting public. Let's see how Senator Obama brings in voters in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and North Carolina. He can no longer carry states with the black vote, very liberal democrats and republicans who have voted in Democratic primaries and caucuses to create some mischief, which was of course happening in the earlier contests, especially in Wisconsin, VA, and MD. He may still do well in Oregon though.

The press is not very good at analyzing voter preferences or what is really going on at the polls. And many of the pollsters are motivated by politics rather than getting an honest picture of voter preferences.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I do not think this can be really answered at this point. How many of us thought in Dec 1991 that the gov of Arkansas would be elected president of the US.
As for who will win, I think time and contests are on Obama's side. Yes, he will lose PA (not sure by how much, probably less than what he is behind now). He will probably lose Indiana, WV and Ky. He should win Oreg (even though he is behind now), NC (but not be very much), Wyo and Montana. so, Clinton will still be about 100 delegates behind when all the voting is done. I just do not see the super delegates (hint, Pelosi is going to vote for Obama or she would not have given the Clinton's stern warning) going against the will of the people, even though they certainly could if they want to. Remember 1984? I think Hart won more votes, but the super delegates went for Mondale. Big disaster.

Posted by: jweber91 | March 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Here are two of svliar's gay slurs:

Comment on: The Audacity of Chutzpah at 3/18/2008 2:30 PM EDT
...gbooksdc is gay and is upset because I'm not and I refuse to sleep with him.
___________________________________________

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 3:59 PM EDT
Noozdude --

No, you're gay because you sleep with men.
___________________________________________

He repeated the comment regarding me in a blog like this, at about the same time of day, so I'll have to go into the blogs to find the link.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"Thank you for the Electoral College primer, as I was just about to go look for that and post it myself"

Anyone seriously think Obama will lose California or New York? THe fact is the primary results are zero indicator of how the states will vote in the general (by that standard, no one will win Michigan since McCain lost there). The votes of the Democratic delegates will determine the nominee, and the superdelegates aren't suicidal, they won't overturn the results of the pledged competition.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Rat: I was wondering about something like that when I looked at the coverage of Leiberman leaning into McCain to whisper the right answer in his ear. Was that a pull-string on McCain's back?

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Is it just a quirk with the Photo of Obasama Shaking Paws with Billary,

or IS that, a great big BALDING section on Barack Hussein's head?

"Shiny!" to say the least! :-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Arjuna9:

Thank you for your post and explaining your motivations -- but, I believe it is non-responsive to my questions -- can you at least try to answer the question: Is "writing-in" St. Obama the latest talking point over at the St. Obama blog?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary by a mile. She has shown an extraordinary fighting spirit despite being written off repeatedly by the media. She will thump Obama in PA and the upcoming contests. The media utterly suck, btw. If they had done their jobs, instead of being fanboys, Wright would have hit the airwaves 1 year ago instead of 2 weeks ago.

With Wright, Obama has inflicted himself with a fatal wound in the general election. It's wishful thinking that this issue has gone away with one speech by Obama. Cable TV coverage of Wright was but a minor preview of the Republican 527 attack machine if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: ze-mundo | March 24, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"There is a well known video of a man who claims to have had sex with Obama and has passed a lie-detector test."

Wow, now you're just flat out lying. HE FAILED THE POLYGRAPH TEST, and even the kooks on the right have totally abandoned him as completely uncredible.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

ephemerella:

Thank you for the Electoral College primer, as I was just about to go look for that and post it myself ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"1. Saying "She will do anything to get elected" is the ultimate straw-man argument. Its part of the sexist picture Obama supporters have used against Sen Clinton from the beginning trying to paint her as "Lady McBeth""

I don't buy the nonsense for one minute that this argument is sexist. She's re-written the rules of the primary countless times all to suit her own needs, she continually reframes the debate and continually moves the goalposts to create the illusion that she has a chance, she continually misrepresents her record as well as her opponents record (but it's okay for her to do that, she's not trying to claim any sort of noble argument here, by her own admission).

"2. Obama hasn't held a single meeting of the committie on Afghanastan after strong-arming the senate into giving him the position."
The Committee is the subcommittee for European Affairs of the Foreign Relations committee, not the committee on Afghanistan (but don't let facts get in your way there, I knowe they interrupt your talking points). They have some purview over NATO in that role, but only at the basic policy level. If there was a hearing to be held on military performance in Afghanistan, the proper venue would be the full Foreign Relations Committee as Sen Lugar has stated numerous times (which Obama sits on) or the Senate Armed Services Committee (Which Hillary sits on). I think they both fail in this regard, but that again assumes there's something in this that Congress hasn't yet evaluated and should.

"3. Hillary has done a great job in the senate. Obama has not."

Well, that' baloney, but it is all the more reason to keep her there...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

I was responding to an Obama supporter that accused Hillary of being a lesbian, which is part of the constant anti-woman attacks Obama supporters use against her.

There is a well known video of a man who claims to have had sex with Obama and has passed a lie-detector test.

I actually posted that Obama was BI.

You have attacked me constantly in an attempt to drive me off these boards.

Its not going to work.
___________________________________________

svliar --

Stop lying.

You specifically attacked ME as gay. I will post the link and quote by 6PM.

ALSO -- the man in question FAILED the lie detector test. See http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4799.

The alleged lesbian lover for HRC is named Huma Abedin. There is no direct evidence linking her to a romantic involvement with HRC (but she sure is hot!).

As for my motivations -- I've posted several times that my sole interest is the truth. I'm not going to waste my time reiterating it yet again.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I have survived eight years of the most incompetent, unconstitutional, corrupt, and illegal activities of any presidential administration in the history of this country. I will survive four more years if the people vote in either Clinton or McCain. The responsibility for the Bush administration is with the intellectually challenged people who voted for him, not me. I will in no way participate if the choice is between Clinton or McCain. I was furiously anti-Hillary long long before I became pro-Obama.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | March 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

So, boothe, what you are saying is that defense for any criminal act is time? Because a few years have passed, it doesnt matter anymore?
Even if we were to accept that, Peter Paul, Norman Hsu, the sniper lies, the tax returns, etc etc are brand new. Spanking new.

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

If Obama followers live up to their threats if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and Hillary Followers, if Obama is the nominee, then the Democrats have no chance of winning the White House. And that might just be how this is going to turn out no matter who wins the Democratic nomination.

Obama supporters have brainwashed themselves with the vision of Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil to the point that they would rather vote for McCain than Clinton (or not vote at all), and Clinton supporters have been so offended by Obama supporters' characterization of them as McCarthyists and the supporter of sleaze that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama and give his supporters the satisfaction (after all, isn't McCain a closet liberal?). The division appears irreparable now.

So how is this all going to pan out? The core Republicans are never going to vote for a Democrat no matter what. The "Obama Republicans"" are now nearly extinct species since they are mostly moderate Republicans, and they are now reasonably satisfied with McCain's pragmatism and "liberal" leaning. So Obama's spiel that he appeals to Republicans is essentially empty rhetoric. In other words, the defection rate from the Republican ranks will be negligible.

So this will all come down to how the independents vote and how much defection Democrats suffer from either candidate. About 1/4 to1/3 of white Americans, depending on regions, probably would never vote for a black presidential candidate, so about 30 % of independents and a slightly less percentage of white Democrats, say between 20 to 25 % would not vote for Obama. These numbers must be quantified more precisely by surveys, but one thing that is fairly certain is that Democrats will not win the White House by a defection rate of 20 to 25% amongst their ranks. Hillary, as vile as she is to some Democrats, does not suffer this built-in defection rate. In other words, Hillary candidacy takes race out of the contest outright.

Then there is the possibility that a large number of unregistered white who normally do not vote in elections might decide to register to vote against Obama on the account of his race. If this happens then even if Obama gets 55% of the independents who normally vote in elections, the gain will be offset by the newly registered white independent voters who are oppose to him on the ground of his race. Hillary again does not suffer this sort of massive "register now and vote against Obama" reaction from the bigoted white who normally do not participate in elections.

It is a sad spectacle to see but it will happen. Unfortunately many Democrats are so enamored by Obama's intelligence and literally and rhetorical skills that they forget how the actual numbers are stacked against his success in the general election. Of course they won't admit it, because to admit it makes them look like they are endorsing racism. So they have wrapped themselves around the steering wheel of a sinking ship. As for Barack Obama he just wants to test his candidacy regardless of the outcome at the expense of Democrats winning back the White House.

Democrats ought to recognize this is not quite the time for Obama yet. After about two presidential election cycles, his chance of winning the presidency will increase substantially as many of those bigoted white, who tend to be older voters who grew up before the Civil Rights Movement era of the late 1950s and 1960s, will no longer be alive. And of course American people would know more about this man and what he really stands for, instead of just pretty words and display of his intelligence.

But Obama, like so many young, intelligent, and ambitious people, wants it now no matter what. This is the hubris of Barack Obama and the cause of his defeat in the general election in 2008, after which he probably will never be a viable presidential candidate again. Americans are not kind to a defeated presidential candidate. Happy early retirement, Mr. Obama, and happy diving, Democrats!

Posted by: GeorgePS | March 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

caminto --

You are incorrect on both counts.

1. I post lots of positive things about Hillary.

2. The negative posts I make about Obama concern the fact that his actoins prove he not the kind of person he presents himself as, and about Obama's Slums, and his failure to do his job in Chicago for the people who voted him into office.

They aren't hate messages.

I also post that I received very negative reviews of him from people I know in washington, which is also true.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

Of course I would consider smearing someone posting here as gay to be an ad hominem attack -- you aren't speaking about posts whereby someone is indeed claiming that he shared drugs / had homosexual sex with Obama, right, because that would be on-topic -- I will await your links by 6PM.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

1. Clinton has proven to be a poor candidate and has run a poor campaign. (Evidence: She had a huge lead going into January and lost it.) Obama has proven to be a superb candidate who has run a disciplined, smart campaign, which is why he now seems to have a nearly insurmountable lead in delegates and the popular vote. Advantage Obama.

2. Obama has developed an extraordinary fundraising operation -- more than one million donors, most of them small donors who can keep giving through November. Mrs. Clinton is less adept, having tapped out most of her major donors, and her campaign is again in the red. Advantage Obama.

3. Obama is drawing millions of new voters into the fold. Potentially, he can be a transformative political leader who can create a new center-left Democratic majority. He does represent some risk but I'd match that against the huge potential upside. Clinton may be more comforting to the Democratic base but that is close to all she has. If she does win in November, she will have to do it with no more than 50 percent plus one -- enough to win but the stalemate continues and nothing of substance gets done. Advantage: Obama for the potential.

4. Clinton has proven to be tenacious, she's a fighter, but Obama has shown he is pretty tough, too. The Reverened Wright incident would have ended a lesser candidate's campaign. He not only has survived that, but with his speech and the gushing coverage it received, in some ways he has emerged with his stature has been enhanced. Yes, the GOP attack machine has some good ammunition on Obama, but they will have just as much or more on Clinton. Her fibbing on her Bosnia trip, her inflation of her role in foreign affairs as First Lady, she and her husband's tax returns -- all will provide similar fodder for the Republicans. The Republicans aren't going to play nice for anyone. Advantage: Toss-up.

5. Clinton has won primaries in the big states, Many of those are going to be reliably Democratic anyway. The states that she believes she can carry that John Kerry did not are Ohio and Florida. Obama, on the other hand, can broaden the base and has a better shot at moving states like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and New Mexico into the Democratic column. Obama could also potentially put a state like Virginia in play; I don't believe that Clinton can. This also has two ancillary effects: One, it helps Democrats down ticket, and two, it requires the GOP to expend resources in states they weren't planning on having to defend. Dems need a 50-state strategy to finally break the GOP dominance over the past 27 years. Advantage Obama.

6. Media coverage. Obama gets better treatment from the media. May not be fair, anymore than it was fair that Reagan was the "teflon president," but that's the way it is and it gives the advantage to Obama.

7. The match-up against McCain. Clinton has already praised McCain as being ready to be commander-in-chief. She voted to authorize the Iraq war. She has been part of the Washington establishment for two decades. Given that McCain is a GOP maverick (that Clinton has already certified is competent), and Clitnon a conventional Democrat, the only real contrast is that she is a woman and McCain is a man. Obama opposed the Iraq war, has a better opportunity to link McCain to Bush, and represents real generational change. While I am saddened he has had to get down in the muck a bit, it is also true that at his best he is inspiring; McCain is a grouch. It's just a better match-up made more intriguing by the fact that Obama and McCain don't seem to like each other that much. Advantage Obama.

Posted by: scott_farris | March 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

>>"One of Sen. Clinton's surrogates just put forth the ridiculous new argument that the nomination should hinge on "electoral votes"

For superdelegates who are interested in the party picking the winner, this is a more relevant number than anything produced by Obama's deep red caucus state wins.

The apportioned delegates in the primary aren't a good number anyways, since they are not and never were intended to reflect the numbers of voters that they represent. The proportional voting system mathematically distorted their meaning, when winner-takes-all was removed from the mix. The Democrats undermined the value of the numbers in close primaries, because the delegates, when split proportionally and not winner-takes-all by state, don't combine in mathematically meaningful ways when lumped as a sum figure. The proportional distribution of delegates is a bigger defect than it appears on its face.

The only real sum figure that is meaningful, really, is the number of electoral votes. If you want to see who is the better winner, if you are interested in picking a winner for the general election, the electoral vote count is a more relevant statistic.

The automatic delegates are only used to see who can clinch the nomination before the convention. Since neither Clinton nor Obama can get enough delegates using automatic means, all arguments become available for persuading superdelegates.

Since automatic delegates isn't a meaningful number anymore for use as a predictor of who's a stronger general election candidate since Democrats implemented proportional allocation of automatic delegates, it's useful to find other numbers.

It just so happens, the electoral votes is a direct predictor of a candidate's strengths for the general election, since electoral votes are what actually count in the general election.

It makes perfect sense to go be electoral votes, in deciding who's the better general election candidate, if neither candidate can clinch the nomination based on automatic delegates by the convention date.

Posted by: ephemerella | March 24, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Middlered1- The only problem with your clinton list is that they are such old news. I mean all of that stuff has been hashed over and over. Vince Foster? Vince Foster? its a baseless rumor that is now 15 years old. I mean come on.

Obama's dirt is all shiny and new. And lets face it a single racist preacher > a bunch of republican fabricated lies.

In the end I will probably vote for whoever wins the democratic nomination. However, if it is Barack and he loses, I will say I told you so.

Also I have only read a few of svreaders posts but I haven't seen one personal attack unlike calling him 'svretard'.

Posted by: boothe | March 24, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

I was responding to an Obama supporter that accused Hillary of being a lesbian, which is part of the constant anti-woman attacks Obama supporters use against her.

There is a well known video of a man who claims to have had sex with Obama and has passed a lie-detector test.

I actually posted that Obama was BI.

You have attacked me constantly in an attempt to drive me off these boards.

Its not going to work.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

to:ephemerella |

REGARDING SVREADER:
Assuming that your message was posted in good faith:

1) have you noted that he is often posting the identical hate message text each few minutes ?? and sometimes 25 messages per hour, which seems a professional job!

2) That he never mentions Hillary, positively or negatively, but only attacks OBAMA, which seems to indicate e tries to hide that he works for the Clinton campaign

caminito

Posted by: caminito | March 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

MAB4- which exaclty of the red states do you think that Barak will win-

I can only see maybe VA.

When it's not a caucus- he won't win CO since he does poorly with the latin vote and McCain does well.

He has only fair chances at Ohio since he can't seem to attract working class votes and this is despite the fact that Ohio's curroption scandal would otherwise hand the state away.

He is not going to be appreciated in MI or FL after trying to deny the revote among Dems and the heavy Latin vote in FL and heavy working class vote in MI hurts him too.

So which "purple state" are we talking about? I will bet money (and I am rooting for him if he is the nominee) just based on following politics and events for over 20 years- that all of the caucus states, except maybe IO, Washington (blue state) and MN (blue for 36 years) are losses- Alaska? Utah? Idaho? Montana? Kansas? North or South Dakota? Alabama? Mississippi? Louisiana? South Carolina? Georgia? Which one do we really think that he wins?

Posted by: nycLeon | March 24, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Be it Hillary or Obama, neither will get anything done without a super-majority (61+, after watching Liberman walking behind McCain all last week, I count him as a repub, and wouldn't be surprised if he switches before Nov 08) in the Senate. Even with McCain as POTUS, dems will rule as McCain will be weak with a weakened base. Therefore, the question, who is stronger, seems irrelevant. Maybe Obama has coattails (I doubt it), but Hillary and McCain probably don't.

Posted by: bob_ip3 | March 24, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

middlerd1:

I didn't say you intended to support me -- I thanked you for supporting svreader -- unless you are now retracting your 3:02 PM post: "I would vehemently oppose banning svreader. He has every right to post."

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I have read alot about Obama winning the nomination. What I wonder is how many Hillary supporters are going to vote for him, switch to McCain or stay home?

Personaly Obama scares me. He talks the talk but can he walk the walk? Does he know that he will have to work with Congress? Can he work with Congress? Will they work with him? Does he have enough experience to gather the "best" people for his cabinets? There are a lot of questions that I haven't heard a thing about. I sometimes wonder if people forget that our country is not run by one man. (Supposedly). It has 3 branches. Executive, Legislative and Judical.

Yes, I know that don't work well together. But we can dream.

I would like for him to have a little more "seasoning" before I vote him into office. There is just two much at stake.

These are politicians that we are taling about and we all know that what they say today will be the reverse of what they say tomorrow.

Obama scares me.

Posted by: deal1954pj | March 24, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

LOL! svreader is just very anti-Barack Hussein. Although I personally am at mixed emotions about which Dim loser I would prefer to see President McCain defeat, it is exactly what I alluded to earlier that will keep ME on SV's side(For now).

The Obasama/ Senor Richardson Ticket, and what it would entail, is a very bad prospect for the Country as I love it!

FYI- SV, remind your fellow Dimocrats;

Animosity, is the Cry, of the wounded Loser! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

kristin2 --

Obama talks about his cocaine use in his books.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: back to ad hominem argument.

Would you consider smearing someone as gay an ad hominem attack? Because svliar's done it four times, and if you doubt it, I'll post the links by 6PM (my PC access is sporadic right now)?

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

(optional) svreader's page Recommend (16)
Gender: Male


Location: California
View Profile Leave me a message Add me as a friend
Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Home Messages Comments Profile
svreader's Comments
Home Messages Comments Profile My Comments
Comment on: Two Fired for Viewing Obama Passport File at 3/21/2008 12:06 AM EDT
zen --

The amount of anger many white people have about Rev Wright is very large.

Their sense of betrayal by Obama is very strong.

I haven't seen people this angry about an event, and a politician for a long time.

Its at the level of their anger towards Bush.

This isn't going to go away.

People feel taken advantage of.

The feel they been "played"

Nobody likes to be played for a fool.

Its not just an insult, its an insult to the person's self image.

Obama betrayed our trust.

The people who seem to be the most angry are the people who were his biggest fans.

They don't trust him anymore.

They feel like he used them.


Comment on: Two Fired for Viewing Obama Passport File at 3/20/2008 11:52 PM EDT
gandalf --

Obama's words cannot cancel out Obama's deeds.

Its the depth and kind of relationship that Obama had with both Rezko and Wright that is critical.

Bill had his picture taken with Wright.

Obama chose Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and went to Wright's racist church for 20 years.

Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko.

Obama had Rezko as a major campaign contributor, helped Rezko secure government contracts, was given a $300K discount on a house he bought from Rezko, lied repeatedly about his relationship with Rezko on national TV, and failed to do his job representing the citizens of his district by not following on repairs to slums in his district that Rezko received $100M of government money to do.

The argument advanced by Obama supporters that because Bill had his picture taken with Wright we should excuse Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright or that because Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko we should ignore Obama's repeated lies about about his relationship with Rezko, the transactions between Obama and Rezko, and the fact that Obama never followed up on the slum repairs that Rezko was supposed to do, is a red-herring.

Their argument is simplistic and nonsensical.

Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/20/2008 11:38 PM EDT
The depth and kind of relationship that Obama had with both Rezko and Wright that is critical.

Bill had his picture taken with Wright.

Obama chose Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and went to Wright's racist church for 20 years.

Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko.

Obama had Rezko as a major campaign contributor, helped Rezko secure government contracts, was given a $300K discount on a house he bought from Rezko, lied repeatedly about his relationship with Rezko on national TV, and failed to do his job representing the citizens of his district by not following on repairs to slums in his district that Rezko received $100M of government money to do.

The argument advanced by Obama supporters that because Bill had his picture taken with Wright we should excuse Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright or that because Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko we should ignore Obama's repeated lies about about his relationship with Rezko, the transactions between Obama and Rezko, and the fact that Obama never followed up on the slum repairs that Rezko was supposed to do, is a red-herring.

Their argument is simplistic and nonsensical.

Comment on: Will the Answer Outlive Questions? at 3/20/2008 3:42 PM EDT
People out here are now more angry at Obama than they are at George Bush.

Given how we hate Bush, that's saying a heck of a lot.

Heck of a job, Barry!!!

Comment on: Will the Answer Outlive Questions? at 3/20/2008 3:06 PM EDT
I've never seen the level of anger towards a politician that Obama's generated among liberal white democrats here in Silicon Valley.

Everyone feels "played" and "used"

This isn't just the end of Obama's run for the whitehouse.

Its going to be the end of his career.

People are furious!!!


Comment on: Obama's Speech, Sliced and Diced at 3/20/2008 11:22 AM EDT
White Americans aren't going to vote for Obama for anymore. He couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

Obama and his cult have played white America for fools.

They've "guilit-tripped" us into giving him a "free ride"

That's over.

While we were loving him, he was hating us.

Now we hate him too.


Comment on: Clinton Presses Obama on Efforts For Revotes in Florida and Michigan at 3/20/2008 11:10 AM EDT
Obama cheats in every election he's in.

He won in Chicago because he used legal tricks to get everyone else thrown off the ballot.

Now he's using every legal and illegal trick in the book to prevent Florida and Michigan voters votes from counting.

Its not going to work.

We know just who and what he is now.

America is a Democracy.

Obama's trying to turn America into Obama-land.

Its not going to happen.

Let him start his own country somewhere else.

This is America.

We believe everybody's vote should be counted.

That's what we fought for in 2000.

We're not going to let Black Bush pull the same crap White Bush pulled.

Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin.

They both want to be dictator. They only want the votes that help them to count, and to block any votes that help the other candidate.

America's not going to let that happen again.


Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/20/2008 11:03 AM EDT
Good luck to Obama getting elected without the white vote.

Now that we know what he thinks of us, we'll show him just what we think of people who damm the country we love.

White America isn't going to vote for Obama now that we know what a human camelion he is!!!



Comment on: Obama's Speech, Sliced and Diced at 3/20/2008 10:59 AM EDT
Bill Clinton did a great job with the economy.

He turned Republican deficit into a Democratic surplus.

Obama-nuts threw him under the bus so fast they hurt their wrists.

They don't have any loyalty except to their cult leader.

They ask God to damm America.

We say, God Bless America. God damm the people who damm America.

They hate America.

We love America.

We don't want them in our country.

We want the to get the hell out of here.


Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/20/2008 10:54 AM EDT
Bill Clinton did a great job with the economy.

He turned Republican deficit into a Democratic surplus.

Obama-nuts threw him under the bus so fast they hurt their wrists.

They don't have any loyalty except to their cult leader.

We don't want them in our country.

Get out!!!
************************
Jesus, you are warped. To read page after page of your rantings for even 5 minutes is like getting continuous paper-cuts. What is the matter with you?


Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

epheremella:

IMO neither side should be blocked from posting.

yogi11:

Are you SURE that California or New York can "never go to McCain"? What if he picks Bloomberg as his VP?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I agree that we are essentially gambling if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, but the Clinton negatives are overwhelming. I'm tired of the cautious incrementalism and poll-driven triangulation of her positions. I'm offended by her willingness to do anything and say anything to attain the nomination that she thinks she deserves. Her inability to manage her campaign is the strongest argument against her. I see no evidence that she has the skills to manage today's problems. She has memorized the numbers, but her solutions are shortsighted (e.g., re subprime mortgages.) Obama's speech on race in response to the Rev. Wright controversy and the quality of his campaign are strong arguments in his favor. His proposal regarding subprime mortgages is stronger in terms of restoring integrity of mortgages.

Posted by: bb829 | March 24, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"middlerd1:

Thanks for your support re: svreader, but I am not a Clinton supporter.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 03:11 PM
--------------------------------------------

How clumsy of me. I didn't intend to support you.

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

This seems to be where svreader gets some of his information--about cocaine, for example. Maybe I am wrong, svreader. I wish you would give links.

New Anti-Obama Smears in Tabloids Owned by Staunch Clintonista
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/opedne_skeeter__080323_new_anti_obama_smear.htm

At any rate, I think people on this thread will find this link very interesting. It sure seems to me to be the source of some unsubstantiated smears i have seen posted about Obama by various people.

Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

That story was about the $114,000 that the Clintons AGREED to pay for or return to the White House (not the "Taking Ws from Keyboard" story).

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

One of Sen. Clinton's surrogates just put forth the ridiculous new argument that the nomination should hinge on "electoral votes," of which she has a handful more. Problem with that reasoning is that Sen. Obama has his votes plus votes from key Democratic states that will never go to McCain (California, New York, others) PLUS swing states that only he can win. If you take the "electoral votes" argument seriously, he's actually way ahead of his opponent. He's also won twice the states, he has the popular vote, and he has more delegates and will remain ahead in delegates through this numbskull continuation of the primary, which should have ended by now.

Sen. Clinton knows she can't win democratically, but she thinks she can win some other way. Think hard about that. Now where have we seen that kind of attitude before for the past 8 years...?

Posted by: yogi11 | March 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

iF THESE POST IS REPEATED i APOLOGIZE. tHE FIRST ONE IS NOT APPEARING

Mr. BALZ

The main issues are not visible in your article:

1) Given the state of the contraversy and its racial/gender component, which would impede a reconciliation as it was in former elections or as it is visible at the GOP, and taking as a fact that OBAMA will have the majority of pledges delegates and most probably popular vote,

if OBAMA is nominated:
-millions of Gender motivated fanaticized women, the hidden racists between whites, Latinos and Asians will not vote for him, a
certian number of even not racist will be
repealed by the Preacher issue and a minor
number due to the other accusations.

if Hillary is nominated
- millions of blacks and young people motivated by OBAMA will not vote her
- a important number will probably be repealed because of her many questionable
issues related with her past and doubtful allegation of experience, as well of the perception of an excesive influence by BILL
- the opinion poll confirmed widespread perception of lack of sincerity will be negative
- and possibly more important as any other, the negatives above will be reinforced by the questionable nomination by the establishment politicians, i.e. the superdelegates.

2) And the same questionable nomination will
cause many other democrats not to vote and/or switch to McCAIN

Summary:
* HILLARY IS LESS ELECTIBLE THAN OBAMA

* IF THE NOMINATION BATTLE DOES NOT CEASE IMMEDIATELY, THERE IS NO VISIBLE WAY TO AVAID THAT BOTH LOSE IN RONT OF McCAIN

CAMINITO

Posted by: caminito | March 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Stop bullying svreader. He has good things to say quite often. The way that Obama supporters bully, harass and spew contempt at Clinton supporters and engage in vile, verbally abusive Clinton-bashing attests to how Street and divisive an Obama Presidency would be. It's like being in the middle of some gang circling around a lone member of a rival gang. Ugh!

Forum members who gang up on and bully someone with an opposing view are the ones who should be blocked from posting as they want to chill and censor speech. Obama supporters need to act civilized and comport themselves without ad-hominem attacks.

Posted by: ephemerella | March 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Comment on: Another Angry Black Preacher at 3/21/2008 2:39 PM EDT
The fact that Obama supporters defend Wright is almost as disturbing as Wrights original statements and the fact that Obama chose Wright as his "spiritual advisor"

The are setting race relations back 50 years.

During my entire life, I've gone out of my way to make Black friends and hire Black employees.

I've marched for civil rights and I've contributed to the NAACP, the United Negro College fund, and other similar organizations.

Now, I feel like I was an idiot to do so.

The #1 thing lacking in the Black commuity is any sense of appreciation for whites that try to help Blacks.

We're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.

I'm sick of it.

It's over.
**************************
I have go through your repetitious drivel, to find these chesnuts, but I will. And man, you are one warped person...

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

kruez --

1. Saying "She will do anything to get elected" is the ultimate straw-man argument. Its part of the sexist picture Obama supporters have used against Sen Clinton from the beginning trying to paint her as "Lady McBeth"

2. Obama hasn't held a single meeting of the committie on Afghanastan after strong-arming the senate into giving him the position.

3. Hillary has done a great job in the senate. Obama has not.

Look at the NYT article on him.

Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?scp=1&sq=obama+senate&st=nyt

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Winning is not eveything. If it was, then karl Rove should be praised by dems because orchestrated two wins for someone who is dumber than hammer. MY hunch is, so many folks never liked the idea of Obama being President of the United States. But they were not comfortable talking baout their dislikes. Finally they can using Wright controversy. if working class white voters decide not to vote for Obama because of race issue, I guess they deserve McCain, they deserve their jobs shipped away for better stock market, they deserve their oly retirement plan ( Social security) being bankrupt, they deserve tax cut for weathy, they deserve no health insurance and they should be happy because they voted for a whitey President.

Posted by: omolll | March 24, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Your article misses so much. If we who support Hillary Clinton were not used to the bias of this newspaper and many other components of the MSM, we would imagine that your entire corporate identity were focused solely on keeping Clinton from the nomination, and the presidency. But truth has rarely been less on display for the man who, as shown here, has treated Hillary Clinton with active disrespect and superiority, all of a definite malevolent nature.

Posted by: cpotter | March 24, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Whatmemregister --

That story is has been repeatedly debunked.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html

The White House vandal scandal that wasn't
How the incoming Bush team nudge-nudged a credulous press corps into swallowing a trashy Clinton story.

Rumors of extensive damage inflicted on the White House by rowdy Clinton staffers in the end turn out to be just that -- rumors.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you keep coming back to Rezko, we can point to Hsu, the pardon donors, the Pakistani indictee, the Havana donors, etc. You point to a sermon by Wright, we can point to any of ten thousand websites that will lay out the numerous scandals surrounding the Clintons. Face a simple fact: In a comparison of who has the most dirt out there that can come back to haunt them in the general eleciton, Clinton wins by a longshot.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the Clinton camp is finally acknowledging that she lied
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/24/clinton-camp-hillary-mis_n_93100.html

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

I've never posted at her blog either.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

You have every right to post here, however you wish -- just as svreader does -- there has been talk of banning svreader though. Have you had your posts DELETED?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 02:35 PM
__________________________________________

FWIW, I am also not in favor of svreader being banned. The word is out regarding his credibility, and that's enough for me. I explicitly stated last Friday (I think it was) in response to some hysterical claim from svreader (aren't they all?) that I wanted to drive him off the boards.

But he is a liar. No reasonable person reviewing the facts could come to any other conclusions. "Camelion"? From a Ph.D.? Ha ha ha! (And if you consider THAT a personal attack, so be it.)

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

middlerd1:

Thanks for your support re: svreader, but I am not a Clinton supporter.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

lmckinney: "Hill and Bill stole from the White House when they split town back in '01. The only way they could get out of this "acquisition error" was either to pay up or return the items. Kinda creepy for a presidential candidate.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=121856&page=1"

lmckinney,

Thanks for that link, though it pains me a bit to see it. Up until now, I had always assumed that the stories of the Clintons taking thousands of dollars of White House (i.e., taxpayer)property with them when they left office was just another baseless right-wing smear. I now see, sadly, that I was wrong.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 24, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

The same thing happens at the HRC blog. They're looking for cheerleaders, not give-and-take.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

..."Senator Clinton's will energize women and regular Democrats," wrote Bill Carrick, who is a California-based Democratic strategist.
-------------
I'm a woman and a "regular" Democrat, and I don't support Clinton. Many Democrats like me resent the way Hillary was shoved down our throats as "the" candidate for a few years now -- her run was inevitable. Her support of the war, and her support of Bush with her Iran vote, just isn't going to ever make her acceptable to millions and millions of Dems. That's when you have to wonder how different she is from McCain. Obama represents the true face of change.

Posted by: DogBitez | March 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"The main argument Obama supporters use against Senator Clinton is that they don't like her. That's a very weak argument."

It's also what's called a strawman. I don't trust her. I think her resume is a complete fabrication and the past several months have demonstrated that she'll say and do anything to get elected. With the Democratic party in control of both houses of Congress right now and poised to gain in their majorities this year, I also don't want a fighter either, someone who will just continue the trench warfare of the past 16 years that gets absolutely nothing done. That's hillary's bigges flaw- SHE WILL GET NOTHIN DONE. It doesn't matter how good her policy is or how much of a wonk she is, if she goes in with the attitude of a fighter with the strike of being Hillary Clinton already against her, she will be met with resistance that will stall all of her agenda in the Senate and proceed to lose it two years later, just like she did back in 1994. We need a game changer, someone who will expand the base, bring in new constitutencies, and reach across the board to get stuff done, because this is too important for too many people. That's why, above all else, I'm not against Hillary, I'm for Obama.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Again, for the record, I was banned at the Obama blog for doing exactly what I do here -- asking honest questions and pointing out inconvenient truths -- if anyone other than LABC has a question about that, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,
___.-"""-.
( (___,/\ \
\( |')' ) )
\) \=_/ (
___ / _,' \ )
.' \|-(.(_|_ ; (
/ //. (_\, | )
/`'---.._/ /.\_ ____..'| |_/
| /`'-._ / | '_|
` `;-"`; | /,'
`'.__/ ( \
'\/
Your wife is poonanny delish!

Love HUSSEIN.

Posted by: larsenist | March 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat I want to see us win. I will support either Obama or Clinton. My concern is winning at at this time I think Clinton has the better chance of doing that.

My reasoning for that is that I give both of them the credit for being able to carry all the states that John Kerry carried in 2004. That means we need something else. By looking at the polling today Clinton can carry Ohio and Obama can't. The fact that it is racism that may keep him from carrying Ohio is sad and we have to deal with that in this country along with sexism and homophobia. But we won't deal with it by November so for the moment it is a face of life. Along with Ohio she can win Arkansas. Those states will then give us the Presidency.

I haven't yet seen any proof or poll that Obama can carry any state that Kerry didn't.

That is what I am now more than ever basing my support for Hillary on. What I don't want is to see a Republican President name the next Supreme Court justice. I don't want to see John McCain develop Iraq policy and god forbid name Joe Lieberman Secretary of State. I want to see a socially and globally responible President in the White House and if no one shows us that Obama can add a state to the Kerry column than I am asking that the superdelegates support Clinton. All those small states that Obama won won't vote Democratic whether Clinton or Obama is on the ticket.

Posted by: peterdc | March 24, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama's words cannot cancel out Obama's deeds.

Its the depth and kind of relationship that Obama had with both Rezko and Wright that is critical.

Bill had his picture taken with Wright.

Obama chose Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and went to Wright's racist church for 20 years.

Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko.

Obama had Rezko as a major campaign contributor, helped Rezko secure government contracts, was given a $300K discount on a house he bought from Rezko, lied repeatedly about his relationship with Rezko on national TV, and failed to do his job representing the citizens of his district by not following on repairs to slums in his district that Rezko received $100M of government money to do.

The argument advanced by Obama supporters that because Bill had his picture taken with Wright we should excuse Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright or that because Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko we should ignore Obama's repeated lies about about his relationship with Rezko, the transactions between Obama and Rezko, and the fact that Obama never followed up on the slum repairs that Rezko was supposed to do, is a red-herring.

Their argument is simplistic and nonsensical.

Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/20/2008 11:38 PM EDT
The depth and kind of relationship that Obama had with both Rezko and Wright that is critical.

Bill had his picture taken with Wright.

Obama chose Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and went to Wright's racist church for 20 years.

Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko.

Obama had Rezko as a major campaign contributor, helped Rezko secure government contracts, was given a $300K discount on a house he bought from Rezko, lied repeatedly about his relationship with Rezko on national TV, and failed to do his job representing the citizens of his district by not following on repairs to slums in his district that Rezko received $100M of government money to do.

The argument advanced by Obama supporters that because Bill had his picture taken with Wright we should excuse Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright or that because Hillary had her picture taken with Rezko we should ignore Obama's repeated lies about about his relationship with Rezko, the transactions between Obama and Rezko, and the fact that Obama never followed up on the slum repairs that Rezko was supposed to do, is a red-herring.

Their argument is simplistic and nonsensical.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"You have every right to post here, however you wish -- just as svreader does -- there has been talk of banning svreader though. Have you had your posts DELETED?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 02:35 PM "
-------------------------------------------

I would vehemently oppose banning svreader. He has every right to post. Beside, how will I get m y daily quota of laughter?

If Wright is a negative that will sink Obama, can you imagine what will happen with:
1. Hsu
2. Vince Foster
3. Peter Paul
4. The Blue dress
5. Whitewater
6. Travelgate
7. Tax Returns
8. Bosnian lies
............

If I were a Clinton supporter, I wouldn't bring up negatives, cos this is the ONE (and ONLY) subject in which Clinton beats Obama.

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Cllinton is stronger b/C Obama benefitted from certain technical advantages during the Primary season that won't exist in the general election. The result of the technical advantages is that the Democratic primary results to date are misrepresentative of the electorate's choices by a certain margin that is larger than normal.

The technical advantages were:

His strategy of focusing on caucus contests in deep red states having small Democratic caucus memberships, that were easily overwhelmed by an influx of eager, socially networked college students.

His early, historic fundraising advantage from his Internet fundraising, the results of a more wildly successful Internet campaign than that which Dean pioneered, aided by the recently established social networking of facebook and myspace. Obama caught Clinton broke and flatfooted in Feb, and outspent her 5-to-1. She has caught up to the point where she can keep his outspending of her down to 2-to-1 and 3-to-1. It appears that unless he can outspend her by 3-to-1 or more, Obama loses to Clinton except in heavily black or caucus states.

Obama benefitted from such blanket favoritism in shamelessly biased media coverage that a media blackout of his negatives and endless propaganda of his every word was firehosed at the public. What broke the media pro-Obama propaganda machine was, in part, the end of the Hollywood writers' strike and the partially engaged stepping in of conservative media. There is more recognition now of this propaganda effect of the media bias toward Obama, and there are careful attempts by Republicans and those who want more thorough coverage, to penetrate the media blackout of his negatives and propaganda of his every word. Obama peaked in the effectiveness and disingenuousness of the media bias throughout February, and it can never get that good for him again so long as a reasonable percentage of people are aware of the B.S. level in the media coverage of him. It will never get as good for him, media propaganda-wise, as it was for him throughout February and more and more the shine will fade. Unfortunately, some critical negatives will come out only after he is locked in, if he wins the nomination.

Early in the race (to early March), Obama benefitted from Rush Limbaugh's "Take her out and end all doubt" campaign. Those Republican cross-overs and Independent conservative crossovers were mainly saboteurs intent on defeating Clinton, it turns out. Now, the new Rush Limbaugh campaign is to prolong the race, so Obama's early Republican swing vote margin is now gone and will not reappear, even if Clinton drops out.

One of Obama's big negatives has come out -- his radical, separatist black activist ties. This has eroded his unquestioning support as a unifying candidate. It has also brought into question his marketing of himself as "bridging both worlds." Unfortunately, there are some people who will not return to his side after the videos of his pastor's rants. Also unfortunately, the media has imposed another blackout of this particular negative: the extent of the poisonous, terrorist-leaning activities of his pastor has been hushed up and ignored, sure to come out later. Also, he has other black separatist ties that will come out eventually. Obama has serious problems with race that has emerged as central questions in this election cycle now, and these will persist throughout the campaign. They cannot be rehabilitated early so long as the misguided media continues to interfere with and manipulate the flow of information.

MI and FL were eliminated. This is a technical advantage for Obama. Whatever the reason for eliminating them, the real issue is that the purpose of primaries is to find out how the voters will vote, not to honor a set of rules. Without MI, FL, the Democratic primary results leaning in his favor are even more misrepresentative than normal.

Obama is trying to end the race now in recognition that his funding advantage is evaporated since he cannot continue to outspend Clinton 5-to-1 levels anymore and will be losing to her regularly. There are no more caucus states. Some of his negatives are out now and the shine is off his halo (it's broken, actually, despite the media's delusion that it has rehabilitated him).

These technical advantages all converged in Obama's favor early this year. None of them will exist in the general election: there are no caucuses, but one-man-one-vote private polling; there are no expectations that Obama/DNC will outspend McCain/RNC by 5-to-1; there will be no media blackout of his negatives going forward (if anything, the conservative media will become more actively engaged in vetting him, versus its tentative moves now); MI and FL will not be expelled in the general election but will be allowed to vote; the negatives that the misguided mainstream media has stifled will continue to dribble out and erode his iconic, shiny image that is artificially clean and enhanced right now and great buyers' remorse is bound to follow; and there will be too much talk about race and socially convoluted stresses that will appear more and more to be distracting baggage, distracting from the very real economic, military and other crisis that need immediate attention.

Obama's appeal is mainly to blacks, ivory tower whites and college kids. Despite all the verbally abusive Clinton-bashing that has been heaped on Clinton's head, in reality Obama can't close the deal with voters and that a problem on his part. He can't match Clinton's rainbow base consisting of whites, asians, hispanics, jews, gays, senior citizens, security women, working moms and the rest of the Democratic electorate. He's hit his limit.

Contrary to the biased media pundits' disingenuous explanations, Obama's blacks won't be voting Republican this fall. However, Clinton's blue collar whites, asians, hispanics, working moms, security moms, senior citizens, can vote for a centrist McCain.

Obama is the loser choice for the general election. It's not that hard to see that. We've just been spoonfed propaganda by the media.

Posted by: ephemerella | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

LABC those should definitely get reported too, I don't use these boards that much but people should report posters that use language against the terms of use. If the post is going to have a forum like this, it is their responsibility to keep it clean.

Posted by: boothe | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I have never once seen svreader resort to ad hominem attacks against Obama supporters here.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Everyone destroy Obama. Vote for McCain.
Clinton '12

Posted by: AB68 | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

Try http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog/

Before I was banned there, I saw plenty of Obama supporters threatening riots.

************************
Yeah, we had a "Folks done gonna riot" blog going on there! (eye-roll) I can just imagine what you did to get banned, JakeD.

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary manages to eke out the nomination, I fear a repeat of 1968, when so many McCarthy and other young, anti-establishment Democrats were turned off by the events in Chicago and the muscle of the party machine, and simply refused to vote, thus abandoning the election to Nixon. The Clintons' DLC and some of the tactics of her campaign are all too reminiscent of that machine.

Both candidates have set-in-stone opposition that would vote for anyone else, including a write-in, to avoid voting for them; but I believe her opposition of that sort is much larger and more active than his. His, I think, is based mostly--not all, by any means--on what he is, i.e., based on race; hers is based on who she is, specifically and personally against her. People are much more likely to make an exception to their prejudices in the case of the former, not the latter.

Posted by: szwheelock | March 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

LABC --

Please provide an example of what you feel is a racist comment on my part.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Tough question ..........I am African American who went to Michigan university ........after seen what is happing with mayor of Detroit and the fiasco of primary election .......I feel like Obama will have hard time winning Michigan and also Ohio ...... . It is not his fault ......he is great candidate. I can see him doing well in the debate ............I just think there are lot of white people who wont vote for him because what he is .................who knows miracles do happen in America .......... That is how I got into this great county from africa

Posted by: netsa14 | March 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"Most of Clinton's supporters post regarding Obamma are fact-based, rather than personality based, which is what Obama's supporters attacks on Clinton tend to be. Obama's supporters ignore the facts we post, claim they don't exist, and then try to discredit the person posting them. Its not going to work."

Oh yes, posting about upcoming Rezko disclosures that nobody yet knows about (but trust you, they're coming...) is fact-based. Talking about repeated cocaine use when the biggest controversy so far about tha seems to be that he might have been embellishing how much he did experiment with the drug is certainly fact based. Claiming one sermin from 2003 proves 20 years of constant racism and anti-Americanism certainly is fact based. Claiming caucuses don't matter because "real people" don't get to vote in them is fact based. Claiming deep south states shouldn't count because of their heavy African-American populations is fact based (I guess we should just give them 3/5 of a vote, huh?).

Claiming Obama was doublespeaking on NAFTA while Clinton was being perfectly candid while the record clearly shows her working hard on behalf of NAFTA while in the White House and the only points against Obama is a memo detailing a conversation with an unpaid Obama advisor that both the Advisor and the Canadian government have cast into doubt isn't relying on facts. Claiming you came under sniper fire in Bosnia to build a fake foreign policy resume and completely misrepresenting the entire trip is not relying on facts. The facts: Obama has won 1408 delegates to Clinton's 1251, and has won twice as many contests. Bill Clinton saying a Clinton-McCain race would be good for the country because it would be between two people who really love their country "without all that other stuff" isn't about relying on facts.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

gbookssc --

Here's a post regarding Obama's Slums, including a link to the orignal Chicago Sun-times article.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

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

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Making a word play like 'svretard' is clearly against the terms of use. How do we report it?

Posted by: boothe | March 24, 2008 02:51 PM

******************************
I dunno, booth. They are a little backed up with all the racist comments, and the variations of insults used against Obama supporters.

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Ok back to the debate. How does Obama's forgeign policy differ from Hilary's? Can someone give a list instead of saying its 'sweeping' and then not giving us any details at all.

As close as I can tell there is not one idea that Obama has that isn't the straight democratic line more or less refined by dun dun dun.........Bill Clinton

Posted by: boothe | March 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Where is the dirt you have promised?


Also, where are Hillary's tax records, presidential library donors and earmark requests? We will see how electable she is when these come out.

Posted by: dawnmcmillin | March 24, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S 2012 STRATEGY!

Some say that I, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, should have spent Easter weekend in Chappaqua, writing my withdrawal speech and preparing for my return to the Senate. They ask why I stay in the '08 race when Obama has an insurmountable lead in states, delegates, and popular vote. My strategy is for victory in the 2012 presidential election. I will continue to pursue several lines of attack on Obama including denouncing his experience, blaming him for the fiascos in Michigan & Florida, and even praising our Republican rival Senator John McCain as more patriotic and experienced than Obama. My goal is to do extensive damage to Obama to ensure that he looses the general election in '08 and pave the way for my eventual election in 2012! It's a HILLARIOUS strategy, but I will be president by any means necessary.

Posted by: rickozz | March 24, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

Try http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog/

Before I was banned there, I saw plenty of Obama supporters threatening riots.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Making a word play like 'svretard' is clearly against the terms of use. How do we report it?

Posted by: boothe | March 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Censorship is censorship, regardless of whether you agree with the censor or not.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

November's election could be, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between two radically different visions of U.S. global engagement. Obama supporters help by urging Democrats and Independents to take a serious look at Obama's the sweeping foreign-affairs overhaul that he proposes in his campaign rhetoric but which is overlooked and/or purposely misunderstood by many.

"Obama's foreign-policy advisers are thrilled at the prospect of facing McCain. Had the GOP nomination gone to Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, politicians who don't particularly care about foreign policy, an Obama victory would not provide a mandate for the sweeping foreign-affairs overhaul his campaign proposes. November's election could be, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between two radically different visions of U.S. global engagement. "We want to have this debate with John McCain," a close Obama adviser says. "[Obama] will offer this clear contrast."
***********************

Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Most of Clinton's supporters post regarding Obamma are fact-based, rather than personality based, which is what Obama's supporters attacks on Clinton tend to be.
___________________________________________

svliar --

Please post links supporting your claims regarding Obama and rioting in the streets. While you're at it (for at least the third time) please provide a link to the Sun-Times article you've purportedly quoted.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

November's election could be, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between two radically different visions of U.S. global engagement. Obama supporters help by urging Democrats and Independents to take a serious look at Obama's the sweeping foreign-affairs overhaul that he proposes in his campaign rhetoric but which is overlooked and/or purposely misunderstood by many.

"Obama's foreign-policy advisers are thrilled at the prospect of facing McCain. Had the GOP nomination gone to Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, politicians who don't particularly care about foreign policy, an Obama victory would not provide a mandate for the sweeping foreign-affairs overhaul his campaign proposes. November's election could be, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between two radically different visions of U.S. global engagement. "We want to have this debate with John McCain," a close Obama adviser says. "[Obama] will offer this clear contrast."
***********************

Posted by: Kristin2 | March 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The main argument Obama supporters use against Senator Clinton is that they don't like her.

That's a very weak argument.

We've seen where electing "the guy you'd rather have a beer with" has gotten us.

The main argument Clinton supporters use against Obama is that his record doesn't match his public image, that he has very little experience, and has spent almost all his time in the Senate running for President, not doing real work.

We now know that he did the same thing in Chicago and did a very poor job there.

We also know that he takes credit for bills he didn't work on, lied about Rezko, etc.

As Democrats, we know these things will be fatal to him in a national election.

Republicans will point out all the things that Hillary won't and the press seems to lack the courage to do.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see Republicans in a closed primary election being that motivated to re-register to vote for Senator Clinton as a means to preclude Senator Obama from winning in PA. Is there any evidence of that happening as opposed to in TX where it was an open primary?"

I've only seen the raw numbers of those who have newly registered (about 100K as of the end of last week), but no polling data on their motivation for doing so. I think it's one thing to get someone to cross over in an open primary, but to change their registration too is another matter. So, my gut tells me whoever crosses over here is more motivated to vote FOR someone, as opposed to against someone or just to mess with an election, but that's just my gut talking there.

"The problem is that many American voters won't just let it go"

Hillary voters and the media don't seem to want to let it go, most others I talk to just think the whole thing is stupid and want to know how the candidates will help bring jobs back to the economy and end the war. And I live deep in the heart of Texas, btw.

And JakeD- I've never had a post deleted. Maybe my stuff has all been found to be relevant, and not the same stuff copied and pasted over and over again no matter how much it had been debunked.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

svliar --

We know you are not a well-read man. Your spelling errors (as distinct from typos) give that away. I cannot understand how anyone who ever took a biology course spelling "camelion". (That's not only not a typo, it's not even close. Same for "heartship". Embarrassing. And I won't even mention "kadish". I particurly like how, after I first posted how you'd gotten it wrong, you tried again with "cameleon". Nope, that's not it either Ph.D? Try ha ha ha!)

We know you do not have the inquisitive mind of a scientist. A scientist deals in provable facts. You, on the other hand, consider posting the same drivel over and over argument.

And we know you cannot, ever, admit that you are wrong. You DID say God is a Democrat, after you said it was "total BS" when I said you'd said it, and after, when I provided a link to your own words, your initial reaction was to cal me a liar. You owned up to it when you tried to pass it off as a "lighthearted comment", but here's what you didn't do: say, "gbooks, you were right". That'd kill you. (Scientists never let their ego get tied up in the pursuit of truth. But hey, you're no scientist.)

So if all of this is true -- and it is -- why would anyone think you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion of the Democratic Presidential nominee? Your mind is dull and your thought processes clumsy -- insight is out of the question. Your veracity is highly questionable, and your intellectual honesty lacking. (How about your reply to the post _from a Clinton supporter_ where the earthshattering thought that your screeds might be counterproductive elicited from you the charge that this person sounded like an Obamanut?) The fact is, that someone like you would support Clinton would make any sane Clinton supporter reevaluate their stance.

Well, you also lack self-awareness. You changed your story about your Jewish roots three times, yet posted "They're tired of his lies, of his constantly changing stories." You call people who disagree with you gay, yet have posted "These boards are supposed to be for readers to discuss issues and personal attacks on other readers are explicitly forbidden, for good reason. Let's focus on the issues, everyone, OK???" And after posting the same link at least 110 times, you have the nerve to post "Hillary-haters screeds are so over-the-top they've become self-parody."

Ah well, post away. No one cares, no one's persuaded, and it makes you feel good.

PS I invited you at least twice to provide the cite for the article you claim is from the Chicago Sun-Times. Since you have not provided the link, I'll presume the article is as real as the imaginary book you have mentioned, or your imaginary lawyers who will file an imaginary lawsuit against me.

PPS Your statement, "They're smarter than anybody knows", is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Here is why: if they (and it doesn't matter who "they" is) are smarter than anybody knows, how does anybody know how smart they are? HTG, you are WAY too stupid to have completed a reputable four-year program, let along anyone's Ph.D. program for anything. Idjit.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Governor Bill Richardson came out to finally endorse Barrack Obama. Richardson said that Obama's' speech on race was his deciding factor. The speech showed the leadership qualities Richardson was looking for. I have to agree with Richardson, as he said that, it's time for Clinton to step down, and the Democrats to come together.
Clinton cannot beat Obama's numbers no matter HOW they parse it. That is an undeniable fact. Clinton's campaign knows this very well. As Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the house) said, "This is a delegate race, period. If the super delegates turn over the will of the people, it won't be good for the Democratic Party" When Clinton thought she would have it in the bag, after California. Florida and Michigan did not matter to her then. Just like Clinton dismissed the 11 state streak Obama had, because "NONE OF THOSE SATES COUNT ANYWAY". How "disenfranchised" do those sates feel, by Clinton? What an atrocious thing to say. Clinton goes on to attack Obama this way:
He has not crossed the "Commander in Chief threshold" like John McCain has.
He cannot be trusted to answer the phone at 3am.
His only experience is a speech from 2002.
That he is disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida (even though she agreed to the same rules he did when those states stepped out of line in the primary process).
And, as Bill Clinton intimated , he doesn't love our country, like Hillary and McCain do.
Those are some serious blows against someone in your own party and might seriously hurt his chances of winning the general election. In fact, every day that Senator Clinton stays in the race is another day she spends money damaging Senator Obama. And every dollar she spends is a dollar in John McCain's pocket.
It almost makes you ask - does she want him to lose?
If Obama wins, then Senator Clinton couldn't run again until at least 2016 (unless something goes terribly wrong). At which point, she would be almost as old as John McCain is now. If she's ever going to become president, she has this narrow window.
On the other hand, if Senator Obama sustains serious political wounds going into the general election and winds up losing, then Hillary Clinton is sitting pretty in 2012.
That's how much Clinton cares about the Democratic Party!!
Obama has two former presidential candidates backing him now. They know who has the best chance with the Republicans in Nov.

Just because Obama did not bring up the past with Clinton, do not think the republicans won't.
When the Clintons tax records, Bills' Foundation, and Library funding sources are revealed, it could destroy the party for decades. There is 1/2 BILLION dollars in funding alone to explain! If it were all kosher, it would have been known long ago. There is an ongoing fraud lawsuit in California, which the media has not been reporting as well.
Here is the link to the YouTube video explaining this upcoming fraud trial in California. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_SNCz8YNrE I believe it is April 24th, 2008.

Hillary Clinton cannot be elected under these circumstances.
There will be another time for a woman to run the Whitehouse. It's not this woman, not this time.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

kreuz --

Most of Clinton's supporters post regarding Obamma are fact-based, rather than personality based, which is what Obama's supporters attacks on Clinton tend to be.

Obama's supporters ignore the facts we post, claim they don't exist, and then try to discredit the person posting them.

Its not going to work.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

If I hadn't spend the last four years fly fishing with guys in the Catskills, I would have said Mrs. Clinton was the more electable candidate. But Mrs. Clinton evokes the most visceral negative reaction among these men. They really hate her. So, when I think about her candidacy, this middle-aged white Democratic woman hears their middle-aged white Independent male voices reminding her how much of a target Clinton will be--particularly against McCain.

Posted by: hgoodman | March 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the hope for the future of more than just racial dialog and a renewed faith in our government. He also serves as a potential pillar for the democratic party. He will bring in a whole new generation of voters.

Clinton is unelectable. She will keep the young voters at home while bringing out the GOP faithful to vote for McCain when otherwise they would be far less enthused. She would lose among independents.

Clinton can only win on the coasts and will lose the entire middle of the country. That has been the flaw in democrats to date. They don't inspire or get the vote from mid-American states.

AND, it is likely the Republicans will indict her for campaign fraud as soon as she is nominated. She is culpable for FEC violations in the Peter Paul scandal. Only a Clinton appointed Judge kept it all hush hush to date, but can you imagine the Republicans not using that against her?

Come on people this is ridiculous. It is time for her to bow out.

Posted by: mbshults | March 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

If I hadn't spend the last four years fly fishing with guys in the Catskills, I would have said Mrs. Clinton was the more electable candidate. But Mrs. Clinton evokes the most visceral negative reaction among these men. They really hate her. So, when I think about her candidacy, this middle-aged white Democratic woman hears their middle-aged white Independent male voices reminding her how much of a target Clinton will be--particularly against McCain.

Posted by: hgoodman | March 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Right on, kreuz. whaaaaa, JakeDuh, poor svretard!! His first amendment rights are intact, thank you very much. That right does not protect him from posters questioning his/her wild, unsupported proclamations. He doesn't get to run under the skirt of the 1st amendment to prevent criticism of his increasingly assinine and factually challenged posts. Prime example ...

"Obama supporters have even threatened physical violence if they do not get their way, saying that there will be "riots in the streets" if Obama is not the Democratic candidate."

Frankly, I share kreuz's attitude towards svreader "SVRETARD" poster. He can spin s**t into a dress...I'm not buying it!

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Whatmeregister - Are you actually from the South? Your analysis looks good on paper, but after last week, it won't play out in a general election and not only in the southern states. I think there is a huge "don't ask, don't tell" factor, that, until last week, had been quietly present, but not overtly apparent. Obama was beating the odds because that silent factor was left behind the curtain and many people were drawn to an idea that seemed inclusive of all Americans, regardless of demographic similarities or differences. That changed last week.

Of course, I am referring to the Rev. Wright sermons and Obama's subsequent speech. Almost every media pundit and newspaper editorial staff has been stumbling and fumbling over themselves to praise "The Speech" and get past "the Issue" for several days now. The problem is that many American voters won't just let it go, even though most of those same Americans won't admit it for fear of being perceived a racist or unenlightened, or unintelligent, or evil .... you get my point.

Now that Obama's candidacy has focused on "race", for good or ill, it will become a motivating factor for many voters to look more closely at his other potential downsides. Fear is what put Bush in office for two consecutive terms and it is what will keep Obama out of the White House whether we choose to admit it, or not.

Posted by: hallihunt | March 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

It is quite obvious that Obama will be a much stronger candidate. Hillary Clinton would be a liability. McCain has an even chance of beating her.

Posted by: bcfs | March 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"It's the economy stupid." This is one of Hillary's major issues. She is the only candidate that has focused on core democratic issues from the beginning. The rank and file of the democratic party support Hillary Clinton because she has always been there for us. Obama's rationale for running for President has been his opposition to the war from the beginning (although his position is much murkier than he would like us to believe).
The rank and file of the democratic party know that she is the only candidate that will fight for us.

Posted by: KathyCorey | March 24, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

jovitman:

Assuming your last post was misdirected, I do not have hard evidence of that happening, but I understand that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. are urging exactly that.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

You have every right to post here, however you wish -- just as svreader does -- there has been talk of banning svreader though. Have you had your posts DELETED?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

No one's talking about banning svreader from this site, much less getting a government entity to step in and block his first amendment rights. But until he starts being productive and saying something substantive other than his typical rants bemoaning the decline of the party and impending doom simply because his candidate ran the worst campaign since Walter Mondale (or maybe even her former idol Barry Goldwater), I'm going to continue to throw out the BS flag, that's my right too.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

A lot of people in the Democratic party feel like they are being coerced into nominating Obama him out of fear of retribution if they do not.

Obama supporters have even threatened physical violence if they do not get their way, saying that there will be "riots in the streets" if Obama is not the Democratic candidate.

The way people will respond to this kind of blackmail is that they will vote for McCain as protest against that kind of behavior and those kinds of threats.

Just as nobody admits to voting for Bush, lots of people will vote for McCain but say say they voted for Obama, even though they did not.

The end result will be that Democrats will lose, most likely by a landslide.

America will make sure that being blackmailed into running a particular candidate by his supporters will not become a standard practice in the future, and the kind of "thug-like" behavior Obama supporters show by attacking anyone who supports another candidate will not be rewarded by electing that candidate.

Its not about race. Its about not rewarding blackmail and threats of physical violence.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

kruezmissile:

I don't see Republicans in a closed primary election being that motivated to re-register to vote for Senator Clinton as a means to preclude Senator Obama from winning in PA. Is there any evidence of that happening as opposed to in TX where it was an open primary?

I know Senator Obama's campaign is active in its efforts to get Reoublicans and Independents to switch parties so they can vote for Senator Obama. I suspect that will be an uphill battle but who knows?

I believe as I stated before if Nancy Pelosi and the other tp tier Superdelegates wanted to end this race, they could come out and endorse Senator Obama now. The sooner the better. A protracted battle between Senators Clinton and Obama will be quite counter-productive.

Posted by: jovitman | March 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

You can talk about Hillary's "big state" wins all you want to. She was carried there by Democratic women and name-recognition among the ignorant, last minute voter. She will be killed by McCain.

If the Democrat pollsters think Obama has a white male problem, in the gen election it is Hillary who has an enormous problem.

As a white male Democrat I do not want to make a choice between voting for Hillary or McCain or not voting at all.

Bill Richardson made a huge and courageous decision to back Obama and suggest this was the time for Hillary to gracefully drop out of the race.

Hillary Clinton, we need you in the Senate. Not tearing the country apart. You get the halos of a saint if you back out now. You wreck everything for the country if you stay in and fight. Now it's your turn for a shot at "Profiles in Courage".

Posted by: walden1 | March 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is, by far, the stronger candidate. It will be difficult for the Democrats to beat McCain, a stalwart statesman with many fine and commendable qualities. The Democrats much choose wisely. But, there comes a time to face reality. My friends, it's time to face up to the cold, hard facts: Hillary has already lost. Moreover, Obama will be the much stronger candidate, my friends. My friends, the Democrats only have one choice: Barack Hussein Obama.

==
http://lonewacko.com/

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 24, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

But, it's kinda hard to effectively point out "ad hominem" attacks while you resort to same. I am a "serious person around here", and I will fight to the death for svreader's free speech rights, even if I disagree with him / her.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Hillary may have lost Woolsey this morning, more rats leaving the sinking ship...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

JakeD- svreader is not bringing any facts to the table. He's spewing nonsense lines that have been rejected numerous times while callngall Obama supporters deluded cultists who "will be heartbroken." Then, when asked to bring in some actual evidence, he points to some sites that are full of strawmen arguments and loads of false logic. Nothing he has posted is substantive or productive, it just slams Obama and his supporters calling into question all of their character. That is an ad hominem argument, the personal attacks are now coming his way after a month of this BS because all the serious people around here are simply sick of it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

shallam1 and Arjuna9:

Is "writing in St. Obama" the latest talking point over at the St. Obama blog? You do realize that would be the EASIEST way for McCain to win, right? It would actually be karma-like payback for Bill Clinton winning with help from Ross Perot in 1992. Please, keep it up.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

i.e. "get over yourself and the nonsense you spew . . ."

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The problem is in the question. If we were looking for a "stronger" candidate, there may be some indications that Clinton could be the favorite over Obama. However, her "strength" comes from her husband's political affiliations, misrepresentations of herself that have been accepted, and distortions of the truth.
My favorite definition for democracy is "rule by the lowest common denominator". By appealing to the lowest elements in the human psyche, especially fear, power over the people can be gained and then misused. Bush is a primary example. Hillary is very similar, and her presidency would be a disaster, in my opinion.
My vote will be for Obama, even if I have to write it in.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | March 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

jovitman:

Not if all the Independents / Republicans in Pennsylvania re-register (TODAY is the deadline) and vote for her.

kreuz_missile:

From what I have read, the ad hominem attacks are AGAINST svreader -- the only person svreader attacks is Barack HUSSEIN Obama in the context of which one is the Stronger Dem for the General Election -- you know, the whole topic of this thread?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I remember the 90's, and the Clinton who was president then. There was so much he wanted to do for this country, but he faced too much divisiveness and polarization from the lawmakers he had to work with. His main campaign theme, health care - never got off the ground, and the current Clinton running for president has been blamed for that. The name Clinton unfortunately carries a lot of baggage still. Senator Clinton's statements that claim she knows how to fight the Republicans doesn't necessarily mean she will be able to work with them, or get anything accomplished.

Posted by: deavonlea | March 24, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I say make it no holds barred and get all of the baggage out in the open now. Clinton has been dragged through the mud for years. Is Obama afraid of the same kind of treatment? In fact, he has said that he chose going for the presidency over just being governor because he knew that there was a very small window of opportunity before he would have too much public baggage. Sorry but the double standard rule shouldn't apply. Obama's baggage should be on the table the same as Clinton's. Why wait for a surprise ending when the Republicans get hold of them? Better to know up front what can be used against you.

Posted by: dl569 | March 24, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton were to get the nomination it would split the party so badly, there is no way it would recover before the general election. As a white male who lives in NY and voted for Hillary the first time, I can tell you I will never vote for her again. If Obama is not on the ballot I will write him in. Her positions are governed primarily by political calculus rather than her beliefs. As someone who counts Bill Clinton as the only president in my lifetime to fight for the ideals I hold, it amazes me the gall displayed by the Clintons in this race. It appears that if she is not given the nomination, she will raze the whole party assuring that no-one else can win. I know many other Obama supporters who will not support Hillary, but all Hillary supporters I know would be willing to support Obama. I also have some Republican friends who say it would be a very tough choice for them between Obama and McCain, but a no-brainer between Clinton and McCain.

Posted by: shallam1 | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

svreader, get over yourself and the nonsense you spew. If he was so horrible to his constituents, why'd they give him 70% of the vote in the primary? If not counting Michigan and Florida is so bad, why was Hillary adamently against counting them before she realized she needed them to make the race even close?

Hillary Clinton's ignoring most Democrats in this country, saying many states and voters simply don't matter, is completely unacceptable. Her taking donation from indicted foreign business persons, people who bought pardons from her husband, and transferring funds from undisclosed locations possibly related to shady Kazakhstan business transactions are completely unacceptable. An end-run around the 22nd amendment is unacceptable. Voting for a dumb war that has cost 4,000 American lives simply because you want to remian a viable presidential candidate is completely unacceptable. Ignoring the people who comprise the Party of the People is completely unacceptable.

I know who Obama is, his history, what he stands for, and where he wants to take us as a nation. This isn't out of blindness, "love," or lack of education. This is because he is far and away the best person for the job today.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm going out on a limb and predict that Senator Obama is going to win PA and effectively end Senator Clinton's candidacy. I say that because I feel Senator Obama is going to get his groove back and fine tune his economic message to the voters of PA and continue to make the argument that the war Senator Clinton voted to authorize is having a substantially dragging effect on the economy and the morale of the American people.

The Superdelegates could end this race now by doing what Governor Richardon did last week and endorse Senator Obama now. House Speaker, Peolosi, former VP Al Gore and Senator's Edwards and Biden, are you listening? Let's end her campaign so we can focus on McCain. Hey, that rhymes!

Posted by: jovitman | March 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

svretard, go get your company's board of directors together, pass a resolution to make me stop, and post it here. Otherwise, cry me a river. You post crap on this board, lies on this board on a daily basis and you are surprised that people, not just me, respond so negatively to you? I think repeating your ridiculous biography that you use to justify your ridiculous assertions is exactly what makes you look ridiculous. Oh, and what you post.

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I can't say who'll be the better general election candidate. But all I'll say is that Hillary Clinton will not be elected president this fall. Why? Because of the African American vote and the youth vote. This two bases are so invested in the Obama candidacy that if Obama is not the nominee nothing in the world will make this two constituency show up in the fall. They'll rather stay home than vote. So to me at this point Hillary Clinton is just fighting a war she as already lost. And I don't think the democratic elders are ready to commit suicide. If the African American vote don't show up, they'll not only loose the whitehouse. You can guarantee that they'll lose both the house and senate too.

Posted by: lumi21us | March 24, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

LABC --

Cut the personal attacks.

They just make you look like foolish.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"After the Wright videos, I have to go with Hillary cause you know the Republican operatives will play them over and over in the Fall if it's Obama v. McCain. "

Again, play them for a week or two and there is intense shock value, play them more than that and your campaign just looks racist. Besides, can McCain really play that card when he'll be shown calling Falwell and Robertson agents of intolerance, followed by them blaming America for 9-11, followed by him begging for their endorsement and a speaking engagement at BJU? I like McCain 2000 a lot better than McCain 2008...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary sucks. She's a thief and a liar. She needs to bail out now so the Democrats have a shot. Hill and Bill stole from the White House when they split town back in '01. The only way they could get out of this "acquisition error" was either to pay up or return the items. Kinda creepy for a presidential candidate.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=121856&page=1

Posted by: lmckinney | March 24, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

svreader - a lot of us are wondering whether you are a paid employee of Hillary camp who's been told sit tight on the WP to annoy us. Please go away. We all have a life and a day job.

Posted by: thisworld | March 24, 2008 12:53 PM
*****************************
There are a number of us who know svretard as a poster who claims to run a company in the silicon valley, who claims to give to liberal causes, who claims to care about blacks in the slums (while making racist comments about people)and claims to have connections in Washington. Of course, he/she makes some of the most incredible ridiculous "NEWS OF THE WORLD" based propaganda and lies ever heard on this board. The credibility of this poster is questionable and laughable as he/she posts like ADD riddled teenager. I expect the next post from svretard/CEO will be "Obama is a booger-head. I read this somewhere"

Now, for the adults: Hillary is a bright, capable woman, who harkens back to the "wonk" period. However, I think that her negatives, which are less about her gender then her being a Clinton will galvanize the GOP base like no other candidate. I would enjoy seeing a match up with Senator Obama and McCain. The right-wing's dirty little secret is that it is afraid of this match-up. Given the way Senator Obama has handled the Wright controversy and showed leadership in this case, they should be worried.

Posted by: LABC | March 24, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

kreuz --

My Brain is fine.

Your brain is clearly clouded by love.

Your personal attacks on me show how scared and desperate you are.

Never fall in love with a politician.

They'll break your heart.

Obama's going to break the hearts of all his supporters.

My reasoning is fine.

Obama's repeated use of Cocaine is not.

Obama lettting the people who voted for him freeze to death in slums in his district is not acceptable.

Obama's relationship with Rezko, who exploited the people who voted for Obama is not acceptable.

Obama's forcing other candidates off the ballot in Chicago is not acceptable.

Obama's blocking the votes of Florida and Michigan is not acceptable.

You can attack me all you want, but its not going to change the fact that Obama has no chance in the national election.

Obama's being outted as fraud he is.

Lots more stuff is coming.

Wait and watch.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Add in Rezko and Obama's negatives will continue to skyrocket. He's unelectable, probably even to the Senate."

Wow, are we talking Hillary Clinton negatives??? Nah, I doubt it can get that bad. Gallup on Friday had Obama back on top and steadily gaining all last week, you still want to stand by those comments?

"I think that alot of Obama's popularity was based on the apparently incorrect assumption that he had less baggage than Hillary. That's pretty clearly not the case,"

One pastor and one corrupt donor versus countelss corrupt donors, donors who bought pardons in the past, numerous legal associates behind bars, her own penchant for lying (see the youtube footage of her under sniper fire in Bosnia...), the Clinton Library fund, and let's not forget the thousand other scandals the VRWC would love to reopen if she's the nomnee. Yup, that baggage is roughly equal...

"reugen- I believe that Barack Obama is himself a baby boomer by the way. The boomers are people born between 1945 and 1965. At 46 years old Barak was born in 1962 or 1961 (not sure when his birthday is)."

Obama is technically a baby boomer, though many would argue that the boomer generaion should be split, it's too long a period for a single generation and those born in the latter half of it are much different generally than those born in the first half (they weren't raised in the post-war period and didn't come of age in the '60s and so weren't part of the Vietnam scene or the political movements that developed on either side in that period). I think it's a ridiculus academic discussion in many ways, but it's out there.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

After the Wright videos, I have to go with Hillary cause you know the Republican operatives will play them over and over in the Fall if it's Obama v. McCain.

Posted by: ScamfortheRich | March 24, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama. Hands down. His election will destroy the current political power structure. They will use every sleazy tool they can think of as they go down in a blaze of frustration and disbelief. Kind of like the Wicked Witch of the West melting. The popping sound you'll hear will be the heads of the right-wing racist's heads exploding all across America.

No Democrat worth the name will vote for more Bush/McCain.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 24, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama does not have a chance in the general election and it is not because of his race. It is because of the audacity of his lies. He is the one who has run a negative campaign and he continues to do so even though most (in the press) seem to think he will get the nomination. If he really felt that way do you think he would be lashing out the way he is right now. He's finished and he's been proven to be a hypocrit. His entire campagn is a fraud and I think the super delgates can see through his smoke screen.

Posted by: TALVES | March 24, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama can have a huge impact with a White-Brown-Black coalition... Here's the analysis of the blogger "showze2"...

If Obama picks a hispanic VP then he is probably certain to win in november?

consider: 30% liberal white vote + 20% hispanic vote + 15% black vote,
that gives Obama 60%-65% of the popular vote.

we could see a liberal democratic landslide in November

that's maybe why Bill Richardson endorsed obama, and that he is a good choice for VP. That's maybe why many uncommited superdelegates will now side with Obama.

______________________________________

However, for the voters, Bill Richardson, and other superdelegates, the Clintons' records in the White House and after the White House speak for themselves...

Under Bill Clinton's presidency, the democrats lost the house, the senat and many other legistlative seats. His presidency was plagued with violations to ethic codes:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Before he left office, he seems to have given favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

Since then, he seems to be in much bigger suspicious money deals ... The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

Bill and Hillary Clinton would be the target of many attacks by the republicans if Hillary is nominated.

Bill Richardson probably took this into consideration when he sided with Obama.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 24, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"

"Would Obama's "history of Cocaine use" be roughly equivalent to your use of your own brain, svretard?"

As in tried for a short period many years ago but so infrequently no one around him seemed to notice or believe it?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 01:40 PM "
-------------------------------------------
Exactly. Nice :)

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Going into this primary, Clinton's baggage was insurmountable. That hasn't changed. In fact, by harping on her "35 years of experience," she has dredged up a lot of unpleasant memories most Democrats had suppressed. She has increased the number of people who would not vote for her in the general election.

Obama started out wowing us with his ability to bring people into the process with unprecedented enthusiasm - and $$$. The Clintons, and more recently die-hard Republicans, have done their best to dent that enthusiasm. They might have shaved off a few fence-sitters, but Obama's base is rock-hard. He's still raking in money from over a million voters, and the "issues" that have resonated with people who were never going to vote for him in the first place have energized his base. Why would educated people or blacks decide that Obama was racist or unpatriotic because of some overplayed sound bites of his pastor? Instead, we're disgusted at the reaction and more dedicated than ever to overcoming such willful ignorance. The Obama campaign has the skill and the numbers to do just that.

When Clinton supporters use their electoral vote arguments, their big-state/small-state arguments, and their red-state/blue-state arguments, they are assuming facts not in evidence. This is a primary. It has its own set of variables, and given those variables, Obama has won certain states and Clinton has won other states. The general election has different variables, and given general election variables (including Obama vs. McCain instead of Obama vs. Clinton), there is no reason to assume that Obama would not be able to win states that Clinton has won in the primary. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to suspect that the Obama campaign, which is winning this contest by doing a great job of dealing with its variables, would also win the general election by doing a great job of dealing with its variables.

Clinton's arguments may sound logical on the surface, but they don't hold up under scrutiny. They might have worked in her college debates when her opponents didn't have time to analyze them. This isn't college, though, and the superdelegates have plenty of time.

Posted by: DoTheMath | March 24, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Would Obama's "history of Cocaine use" be roughly equivalent to your use of your own brain, svretard?"

As in tried for a short period many years ago but so infrequently no one around him seemed to notice or believe it?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Bush/Bush = Bad for America

Clinton/Clinton = Worse for America

That sums it up well. And with McCain too old for the job that leaves Obama as the strongest candidate for the General Election.

Too protect ourselves from family feuds and from terrorism an independent indiviudal would be nice. Aganin, that leaves Obama.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 24, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Y'know, some of the comments on here are REALLY over the top. However, I'll put in my indepedent (although I re-registered as a democrat today to vote in the PA primary) opinion...

Like several previous posters I will not support the continuation of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. I do not believe that Clinton brings anything positive to the table as a presidential candidate and if she is nominated by the democratic party I will vote for McCain.

I will be voting for Obama on April 22nd, and if he is nominated I will almost certainly vote for him in the general election, largely because McCain has strayed far enough toward endorsing the current administration's policies that I don't really want to vote for him despite having tremendous personal admiration for him.

I guess the easiest way to put it is that I have no patience for another 4 or 8 years of Clinton scandals and other nonsense. Plus, there just isn't any way to escape how classless the Clintons are. I still remember the stories of Clinton staffers making a mess of computer keyboards and stuff as they left the White House...just classless stuff from classless people.

Posted by: scott032 | March 24, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Before Rev. Wright I would have said that Obama was more electable. Now its anybodies guess. Pennsylvania is a pretty good bell weather though in this case so wait and see.

I think that alot of Obama's popularity was based on the apparently incorrect assumption that he had less baggage than Hillary. That's pretty clearly not the case, but the question is what kind of baggage is worse?

reugen- I believe that Barack Obama is himself a baby boomer by the way. The boomers are people born between 1945 and 1965. At 46 years old Barak was born in 1962 or 1961 (not sure when his birthday is).

Posted by: boothe | March 24, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I can understand people saying she won important states like Ohio, California, etc. but I can never understand how they go from there to, "In Nov all these states are going to go to McCain". Is there a basis for these assertions that I cannot see, or are you just repeating Clinton talking points?
One more thing, she has NOT won Pennsylvania yet. Let us talk about that after Apr 22

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the strongest,most qualified, most electable candidate the Dems have.

Obama is unelectable. He's unqualified and is an embarrassment to the Dems.

I am a Dem and support Hillary, but if the Dems squander their best chance for victory by nominating Obama, I will vote for McCain. (the 1st time I would be voting Republican).

It's country first, party second. I simply do not like Obama, do not trust Obama and I just can't stomach the idea of a Jeremiah Wright or Obama's new pastor Moss hanging out in the White House.

What kind of man, what kind of father subjects his two part white children to the racist, anti-white, anti-semitic, anti-American, pro-Farakhaan, black supremecy, Nation of Islam supporter who believes that "the U.S. Govt created AIDS to kill black people?". THIS is the man Obama calls his "mentor"? This is appalling.

This calls in to serious question the character and judgment of Barack Obama. It's ugly and most certainly not Presidential, VP or U.S. Senatorial.

Obama's new "pastor" Moss is just as bad as Wright. Check out his hateful Easter sermon on youtube today. Wow.

This is only going to get worse for Obama.
Add in Rezko and Obama's negatives will continue to skyrocket. He's unelectable, probably even to the Senate.

The media can continue to promote Obama 24/7 but it won't elect him. No amount of money will either. It's OVER.

Posted by: TAH1 | March 24, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"

Don't forget Obama's history of Cocaine use.

The Republicans' 527's will make sure America doesn't.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM "
-------------------------------------------

Would Obama's "history of Cocaine use" be roughly equivalent to your use of your own brain, svretard?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 24, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The USVI are mostly black, so Obama will easily win there.

Posted by: bushieisa | March 24, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The USVI are mostly black, so Obama will easily win there.

Posted by: bushieisa | March 24, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is not the choice of the people, but of the press."

Which is why he's lost so many contests....

"1) Michigan - For opposition to do-over primary, michigan voters won't forget and forgive (DNC rule was idiotic and they did not punish the MI party but punished Michigan voters for no fault of theirs). His rants against Automotive companies (and auto workers)"

What about McCain? Remember, your jobs are gone and they're never coming back??

"3) Ohio - his double talk on Nafta - Ohio voters won't forget & forgive"

Calling on the Clinton calendar, hmm, who was double-speaking there?

"4) Pennsylvania - He just does not stand a chance after his lovely Pastor's"

I think he takes it pretty easily with Rendell on the ticket.

"5) 527 republican groups are working to find more about him"

They've been working, as has Bob Novak and the Chicago media who has watched him for 12 years, as has the Clintonistas. The worst they can come up with is out of a 20 year career, his pastor gave one or two controversial sermons that Obama has thoroughly denounced and he's connected to one corrupt donor, compared to the list of corruption associated with the Clintons and McCain (someone say Keating 5?).

"OBAMA REFUSES TO ANSWER ANYTHING HE DOESN'T WANT TO IN ANY CASE - DON'T WE ALREADY KNOW THAT GUY?"

Ummmm, maybe you missed his sit down interview with the Sun Times and Tribune several weeks ago, nothing out of bounds and he agreed to thoroughly answer all questions. Both papers said he set a new standard of candor.

From the Tribune:

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844597,transcript031508.article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

svreader, give up the ad hominem attacks, they're going absolutely nowhere and just make you look really petty.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama has achieved what he has in his life through his own merit. His campaign isn't about winning for his faction but for wanting to do good for all. Hillary Clinton , Mccain's potential running mate, wants power for herself and her friends - NOW!

Senator Obama as nominee benefits the Democrats and our countryon so many levels now and well into the future.

Sixteen years of Boomer administrations has been enough. please let us clean up your mess.

Posted by: reugen | March 24, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

svreader are you sure name is not Sean Hannity? Constant Obama-bashing is right out of the "politics of personal destruction".

I think Obama will make a stronger candidate against McCain. There are just too many contrasts between the two on numerous issues ranging from political policies to personal styles.

Just imagine both McCain and Obama on stage together at a debate. McCain at 71 years old and 5 foot-7 inches tall while Obama is 46 years old and 6 foot-2 inches tall. McCain's monotone and feeble demeanor compared to Obama's baratone and charismatic demeanor. And just think, I haven't even spoken about policy differences!

Come on North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico! Let's rap this nomination up on June 3rd for Obama!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The superdelegates are being asked to choose between Obama, a relatively fresh-face to the Democratic Party and Clinton, a long-term fixture among Party insiders.

Judging from the primary campaign, Obama should be, and probably will be, the party's pick. Apart from the results, every indication is that his campaign has been by far the better organized and managed, and he, as a candidate, has been, by all accounts (even Clinton's) the more inspiring of the two.

If Clinton were any other candidate she would have been pressured to step aside long ago. As it is, that's she continued speaks volumes about insider's regard for (and trepidation towards) the Clintons, and her own formidable perseverance.

The campaign would have ended long ago if Clinton had won Iowa or won decisively Feb 5th. It would have probably have ended too, if Obama had won NH or TX. As it is, the Democrats will likely have to wait till *all* the primaries are held, and then in June the superdelegates will feel compelled to weigh in.

If things remain pretty much as they are now, they'll pick Obama. And he's likely, given his performance in the primary campaign, to be the better general election candidate.

Posted by: mj64 | March 24, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama
The 22nd Amendment:
Between 1981 and 2007, for 18 of 26 long years, one of either Bushes, George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush, has served in the Executive Branch of the United States Government. In that time, we have seen a singular accumulation of power in the executive branch and a singular outbreak of corruption within almost every aspect of our government. These are the fruits of Enron and Carlyle and Halliburton. That is the true Bush legacy.
Never before has the need for a "vital check" against one person and one family's hold on the executive branch been more clear or more urgent. This argument alone should give grave pause to anyone eager to return another, albeit different, family to the White House for four more years.
The last thing our republic needs in 2008 is to see any former President walking the halls of the White House again.
We need a change from all that.
The Presidency and the Democratic Party
But it goes deeper than that. Within the Democratic party, the President is the head of our party. That means something profound here in the netroots, especially when we think of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their opposition to the reform movement headed by Chairman Howard Dean.
In all fifty states, Bill and Hillary Clinton know the top donors and they know the people to talk to "get things done": the insiders, the poohbahs, the wheelers and the dealers. Through eight years in the office of the President, Bill and Hillary Clinton developed a powerful network of elected officials and friends.
If Democrats choose Hillary Clinton as our nominee, especially through back channel lobbying of Super Delegates by former President Bill Clinton, we are, in effect, reinforcing that network and choosing to make the Clinton network of influence the de facto machine within the Democratic party for the next generation as well. If that happens, party reform as conceived within the netroots will die. That's worth thinking about.
Our experience of the GOP version of this kind of concentrated power under President Bush should serve as a cautionary lesson in that regard. Is there any indication that Bill and Hillary Clinton will run the Democratic Party differently than they did in the 1990s? I would argue there is none whatsoever. Their campaign has been the antithesis of the reforms enunciated by Howard Dean and netroots activists. In fact, if anything is clear, Hillary Clinton is just as opposed to the 50 State Strategy and party reform as her husband was and has made that clear in the conduct of her campaign.
Terry McAuliffe is her campaign chair. Mark Penn runs her strategy. Harold Ickes is the Clinton backroom "arm twister." And James Carville is their public enforcer.
Do we want more of this? Is this what the Democratic Party stands for in 2008? Will we have any kind of "vital check" if we hand the Presidency and control of our party back to the hands of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
The answer is clear: no to Hillary.

Posted by: barbiedoll | March 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Strongest Democrat?

I would venture to say that not even their Democratic Contemporaries have been around either of them on any late night sessions to be able to answer that!

However, Personal Hygiene is NOT what I would consider a pressing issue for the choice.

The winner will be contending with Nader after all! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I will never vote for Obama. The last thing we need, after eight years of George W. Bush is another amateur president. I want Clinton because she has Obama's compassion for the non-represented and McCain's toughness with adversaries. For me, it's a no-brainer. You all can do whatever you want, but I'm not going to change my mind. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate I will support in November and if she is not the Democratic nominee, I will skip the general election for the first time in my thirty years of uninterrupted voting career.

Posted by: Faggyliberal | March 24, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Of all the measures of strength put forth by the campaigns recently, I have to say that Evan Bayh's proposal yesterday to look to the electoral college is one of the silliest. This is basically just a new twist on Clinton's "big state" argument that she is more deserving for having won more of the "big" states in terms of population and electoral votes.

But to actually use the electoral college as a measure for choosing a nominee? Insanity!

Texas, for example, is full of electoral votes, but does anyone really think Clinton has that state wrapped up in November? Texas has voted Republican consistently for as long as many people can remember in presidential elections, so why should a primary win there count toward measuring Clinton's "strength"? The same can be said of Obama in Alaska or Idaho. Yeah, he blew out the competition in those states, but he was only pitted against other Democrats, and those states are virtually certain to vote Republican in the fall. Obama might lose by less in those states than Clinton would, and vice versa for Clinton vs. Obama in Texas, but in the winner-takes-all electoral system, losing is still losing.

By the same token, whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama, either one is almost certain to win states like California, New York, and Illinois. Those states are virtually certain to go to the Democratic nominee, whoever that person is.

Democrats since 2000 (and even before that) have criticized the electoral system, but beyond this, arguing that Clinton has "more electoral votes" based on the primaries she has won is an absurd measure. The better measure of strength is to predict who will carry which states against John McCain in November, but there is still a lot of campaigning between now and then, and giving a guess of an Obama electoral map vs. a Clinton electoral map months ahead of time is really more idle conjecture than anything else given how evenly matched candidates the two candidates are in their positives and negatives.

Posted by: blert | March 24, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I happen to think Obama would be the best president. He has the mind to find the right path in a wildly change world and the charisma to rally America and the world to his vision. Far from destroying his candidacy, the Wright fiasco is even more revealing evidence of this. But that has nothing to do with November.

The only thing that matters in November is who can get the most votes. Even in that regard, however, Obama is the best choice. Democrats didn't lose in 2000 and 2004 because we couldn't get Democrats to vote for them. Democrats lost because they couldn't get enough Independents and Republicans to vote for them.

In this regard, only Obama has consistently attracted Independent and Republican voters. And he has done it in spectacular fashion.

Posted by: bfulton | March 24, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"From CNN --

Detroit mayor facing felony charges"

From Chicago --

Just wait till everyone who supports OBama sees the charges he's going to face.

Don't say we didn't warn you!!!!


Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

People who are pushing Obama's candidacy even though he has not won a sigle Democratic stronghold except his home state keep saying "any Democrat will win those". Dumb, dumb, dumb. True enough about Massachusetts and perhaps California, but not in New Jersey (which almost swung to Bush in 2004) or New York (Clinton's state, where there is a LOT of resentment as to how the Democratic bigwigs like Dean and Pelosi have stacked the deck for Obama, which as a whole is not all that liberal in the first place, and where McCain is very popular). Not Florida. Not Pennsylvania. Certainly not Ohio. These states are at least as likely to go to McCain as Obama, and probably more-so. Perhaps Obama has a Masschusetts/California/Illinois/D.C. strategy for the general election, and expects the other states to fall into the ocean before the election. That's his only path to victory against McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 24, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we all just pick a third candidate?

Why not Al Gore?

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA, now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal, now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement, now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Hillary Clinton is indeed a LIAR, and she should give back most of her delegates she won in Ohio for telling that lie to the voters there on NAFTA!

If Hillary had told the truth on NAFTA BEFORE the Ohio primary, she would have lost Ohio

Posted by: mha31353 | March 24, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse


Obama ALWAYS has his hand in his pocket. That is a classic sign of someone who is lying or has hiding something. Watch him take it right back out now that it's been said.


Here is a link to the best article in print today:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/24/dem_remorse/

WHAT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO IS PREMATURE ELECTULATION

THE RESULT OF HOWARD DEAN AND HIS "RULES COMMITTEE" FRONT END LOADING THIS PROCESS

THUS AMERICANS HAD NO TIME TO INTERVIEW THIS VERY FLAWED CANDIDATE

OBAMA REFUSES TO ANSWER ANYTHING HE DOESN'T WANT TO IN ANY CASE - DON'T WE ALREADY KNOW THAT GUY?

YEP - HE'S LEAVING. DON'T NEED ANOTHER ONE.

A LIE A WEEK - EXCUSE A DAY

OBAMA IS THE PUPPET OF THE DC BOYS CLUB

Posted by: Thinker | March 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Nope. Do you work for the Obama campaign?

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

svreader - a lot of us are wondering whether you are a paid employee of Hillary camp who's been told sit tight on the WP to annoy us. Please go away. We all have a life and a day job.

Posted by: thisworld | March 24, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

The energy that a candidate that chooses a man who says "God damm America" as his spirtual advisor will bring out from the GOP base will be astounding.

Obama is going to lead to Democrats defeat.

Republicans are looking forward to a candidate they can crush, and Obama's that candidate.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

States Barack can not win in November

1) Michigan - For opposition to do-over primary, michigan voters won't forget and forgive (DNC rule was idiotic and they did not punish the MI party but punished Michigan voters for no fault of theirs). His rants against Automotive companies (and auto workers)
2) Florida - same reasons as above
3) Ohio - his double talk on Nafta - Ohio voters won't forget & forgive
4) Pennsylvania - He just does not stand a chance after his lovely Pastor's
5) 527 republican groups are working to find more about him

6) Bad Blood - every time they attack (what do you expect from him - he threw his own WHITE grandmother under the bus) Bill Clinton, they are forgetting that He is still very popular with Democratic Core group (Barack can take Blacks from the core group but others in the core group won't forget the attacks and slights against Clinton)
7) Democratric Voter Fatigue - it has been long drawn out process and fatigue in conjunction with Buyer remorse will keep millions of Democratic voters in the comfort of their homes in November

Posted by: lotus_med | March 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama no doubt. He has shown true courage under fire with that landmark speech last Tuesday. Cannot imagine Hillary doing same.

Posted by: thisworld | March 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

On Novakula's Thread, it was Logan6 who pointed out our Country(As we know it)'s worst Nightmare. While McCain has been playing stupid games about his VP Selection, the Dim Candidates are using it to secure their Nomination.

The aspect of an Obama/Richardson Ticket is too scary to want to think about, but a scenario that should be addressed like a terrorist threat!

CLASS WARFARE! World Labor Party assumption of this Country! :-(

Worst part, even with the Billary Moderates, McCain is facing such an unprecedented NEGATIVE Inheritance of Party Control, that the Anti-Christ could win-if he was a Hispanic Black, and a Dimocrat Socialist!

It is a Numbers thing. Too many Immigrants have been allowed in that are opportunistic and not necessarily LOYAL to our "Capitalistic Democracy". Too many Blacks are too high on the Idea of having one of their own-no matter who, in the Presidency. Then, too many naive and Gullible stupid people actually believe the empty rhetoric Socialism espouses-BUT, NEVER Delivers!

John McCain needs to get Mitt Romney on Board, and begin getting Economic Policies that will offer any sort of Hope in place for the disenfranchised Middle Class-


QUICK!

Hint-Bushie, Bernanke and Paulson sold us all out to Financial Criminals for $200,000,000,000!
THAT, could, and SHOULD have been 20 MILLION Low Interest, Mid Term, Capital Venturing $10,000 Loans to save Businesses or pay off Credit Cards!

The US Middle Class is CASH STRAPPED! WE WANT some Foreclosed Homes WE can afford to buy! WE cannot get them any other way now-Our Credit Scores are destroyed! :-(

Next Hints I have to Charge for! -BUT, I am cheap! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

VPI --

I hope you're better at engineering than you are at judging people.

Barry Obama is crooked as a horseshoe.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is currently stronger in states that are already Democratic strongholds like New York, Massachusetts, and California, and marginally stronger in such traditional rustbelt battlegrounds as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. But Obama would comfortably win the Democratic strongholds and is highly competitive in head-to-head matchups in the rustbelt battlegrounds. The decisive difference is that match-up polling and primary results suggest Obama could put Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina into play; Clinton is very weak in all these potentially crucial mid-sized states where Democrats have not been competitive the last several election cycles. And Clinton continues to show weakness in another key battleground region, the Upper Midwest consisting of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. Clinton is also very weak at the moment in the Pacific Northwest, though it's harder to believe these states wouldn't end up in the Democratic column. In short, Clinton is dependent on a much narrower electoral map than Obama, who has the capacity to expand the Democratic electorate by bringing in young people, exciting record black turnout, and winning over large numbers of independents and moderate Republicans who are simply beyond Clinton's reach. All of that makes Obama at this point the stronger candidate.

Posted by: bradk1 | March 24, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

This contest will be ultimately between two camps in America now. In a playground terminology, it will be between one camp which contains individuals like Hannity and the like(you all know who I mean) on one hand and the other camp which is made up of individuals who fight bigotry, strive against oppression in all forms (including Fox News), are educated and thus enlightened. The end result will confirm to us which one of these two camps is in the majority in America and will be an unforgiving barometer of America as the oldest democracy and a civilised nation. The actions will definitely speak louder than their shallow words to the world then.

Posted by: thisworld | March 24, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The energy that a Clinton candidacy would bring to the GOP electorate would swamp any doubts that conservatives and independants currently hold about John McCain. As a result, McCain would be able to marshall an impressive coalition of traditional Republicans, blue collar misogynists, wary independants, and pissed off Democrats to beat Clinton handily in November.

In contrast, an Obama candidacy would give the Democrats an incandescant, emotionally and intellectually stimulating leader who would mobilize a vast horde of new voters to his campaign. The dollars, effort, commitment, and votes of the Obama followers would propel not only the presidential nominee but candidates all the way down the ticket to victory in the fall. The Democrats could pick up important new senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial seats across the country with Obama heading up the ticket.

It is completely mystifying to me what the super delegates are hesitating about. Do they really want to lose again by selecting Clinton?

Posted by: dee5 | March 24, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

100 years of war, that aught to do it.

Go republicans and anybody else that want 4 more years of this bush!t

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 24, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama, 100%.

Half the country hates Clinton. A clear majority of the country has a favorable view of Obama.

Obama = positive campaigning, Clinton = negative. Right now, of the three remaining candidates, Clinton is the only one who wants to and enjoys going negative and getting as dirty as possible in politics.

Clinton's dirty campaign is not only harming the Democratic Party right now but it will harm the quality of the presidency we get in November, should she achieve the near-impossible feat of taking the nomination. This is because she will force McCain to go negative, which will then drag the entire country down into yet another wallowing pit of despair through the entire election cycle. If Clinton wins, it will be only because she destroyed the best reason for pride and hope in America (Obama) and because she smeared the last honest Republican to death (McCain) with her negativity and hatred of all-things GOP.

Obama is a new face for a new era in politics and in America. Clinton and McCain are the same old rusty, grinding machines that need to be sent to the junk yard with Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, George Allen, Rick Santorum and the rest of the post-90s casualties of the now-defunct partisan nuclear war.

It's time to move on. I'm bored with old politics. We've got dozens of new senators and representatives, with dozens more taking seat this November. Lets give them a new face and a new reason to believe we can actually move this country forward into a bright future.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget Obama's history of Cocaine use.

The Republicans' 527's will make sure America doesn't.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

In the context of the past 16 years, many Americans are voting for honesty and integrity with the desire to elect a President that has a sincere respect for the "will of the people". People, especially in the Washington metropolitan area, are voting for a change from the politically predictable past two administrations (dynasties). One was blue, one was red but the impression they both gave their constituents was that their own priorities and those of their parties are of more importance than those of the people that elected them. I believe that this is the motivation behind many republicans, democrats and independents who support Obama. However, if Obama does not get the nomination, many of these same people, democrats included, intend to vote for McCain. Yes he is more conservative, but he has integrity and he represents a change from the past. There is also a belief that once in the White House, McCain may return to his more centrist roots, especially with a democratic congress. It really will be either Obama or McCain as the next president, people are not going to put another "political dynasty" back into the White House for an eight year continuation of what we have experienced over the past 16 years.

Posted by: VPIgrad | March 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I admire your persistance WP, in trying to keep some interest going in the nomination process during the next month until the PA vote. The answer doesn't change though: she's done, and outside of the Hillabots, I think most people would agree.

Posted by: barnardj1 | March 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not the choice of the people, but of the press. "The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee -- and that has an impact every day (Wash Post 3/24)." Unfortunately, someone spilled the beans a little too soon, leaking the Wright story to the average day viewer before Obama bagged the nomination, and now voters are starting to make their own assessment. "More than half of Democrats and nearly two-thirds of Republicans would be less likely to support Sen. Barack Obama for president after viewing video clips of his longtime friend and pastor espousing a radical black power worldview." Obama's boat is sinking, so Richardson steps in and asks Clinton to drop out. Why would she when she's up double-digits in Pennsylvania and has the potential to blow Obama out of the water now that a bit of his past is finally exposed? Maybe, just maybe, the media will then start to look at other bits and pieces of Obama's past. Just today we learn that he tried to take credit for a federal bill he didn't work on. It is a ploy he used to great effect in the Illinois Senate with the help of Emil Jones who handed him the sponsorship of virtually everything that any other Democrat worked on. Fortunately, Dodd had the good judgment to push Obama back. I guess Obama wants Dodd and others (those that have graciously endorsed him) to play the same game that he and Emil Jones played in the Illinois Senate. The Republicans are going to make mince-meat of this come November. They are already harping about Obama's thin resume. When you stack Obama's experience up with McCain's and then inundate voters with images of Wright damning America, who do you think is going to win? The only chance Democrats have, counter to what the media thinks, is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: howdy999 | March 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's in deep trouble with voters for misleading them and the biggest stories about his failures in Chicago haven't even hit the national press yet.

We Democrats sure have a way of picking losers.

Its a shame for the country.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's negatives in the Rasmussen poll were at 55% this weekend. Obama's negatives have gone up to about 51% from a period when they were in the low 40s.

From the perspective of long-term growth Obama has been the obvious choice for a couple months now -- both in terms of his ability to motivate young voters and to bring independents into the party. Not many candidates though can survive for months on end when facing a two-front war. Obama and his team have done about as well as could be imagined under those circumstances -- very good, but not great.

Clinton had the institutional advantages, the name ID, and the money and squandered them. Even with those advantages her profile was always best suited for a party contest and not the general election where scrutiny of the Clinton past (and present) won't be dismissed by throwing out charges that this is Ken Starr on the hunt all over again.

I think we are witnessing a missed opportunity by the party leadership here.

The consolation is that there are some gains that can be made in congress regardless of what happens with the presidential race.

Posted by: JPRS | March 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Just go by negatives.
Obama: Wright, Rezko.
Clinton: Peter Paul, Norman Hsu, filegate, travelgate, whitewater, Bill's debacles, tax returns, white house papers, libray donors, pardongate...on and on and on.

These haven't been brought up yet but the republicans will have a field day with them!!!! You will have swiftboating like you ain't never seen the likes of!!!!!!

Posted by: SueB2 | March 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Nothing will turn out the Republican base for McCain better than the opportunity to cast an anti-Clinton vote, which not only harms Dems at the Presidential level, but down ticket as well. With Clinton, you've got donors who are more corrupt than Rezko who donated more money and got far more in return, and you don't need to worry about a pastor with a history, you've got herself and her immediate family. Wright may make news now, but if it's the only dirt anyone can find to trash bama with, it just starts looking racist after more than a month or so. Obama has already showed he is willing to compete in all 50 states, will hold all the major blue states, and will force McCain to play defense in so many places that a good chunk of purple states (Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia, Colorado, etc) wil all fall our way as well. No question who will be the better candidate in the fall, just look at whose been the better candidate thus far, there's no comparison.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 24, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I have to ask... who is playing the race card now? While I agree that 'whatmeregister' paints a wonderful and positive picture of participation, I am concerned that the gains in the deep south will cost the democratic party in key battleground states such as oh and pa.... where experience and concerns about the economy seem to be more important than race.

Posted by: tdloendo | March 24, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

It's like answering the following question:

Which NFL was the best in the 2007 season?
New York Gians the winner of the super bowl.

The nominee with the most delegates. If Clinton was winning and Obama had no chance of catching up, he would be expected to drop out.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 24, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

It is not necessarily her fault, but Hillary Clinton is one of the most divisive individuals in the country today, and despite her smarts and her leadership ability, I believe that she simply will not be able to beat McCain and will cost the Democrats the election if nominated. George Bush has turned off more Republicans than anyone since Nixon, and maybe even more than Nixon, and the Democrats are in their best position ever to take over the White House. But there are countless Republicans who will cross over for anyone ... EXCEPT Hillary. I don't necessarily think the characterizations of her are fair or accurate, but they are a huge part of the political landscape that even Democrats who like her must take into consideration when selecting a nominee. There is simply a huge swath of people in the middle who for whatever reason, will not vote for her. The second reason I believe Obama would be the stronger nominee is that every single primary has demonstrated a desire for "change" in the American public, and putting the Clintons back in the White House will not be seen as the way to accomplish that goal. The Democrats have to make the upcoming election about the failings of 8 years of Republican leadership, and that message will be lost if we put ourselves in the position of enduring yet another referendum on the Clinton administration.

Posted by: fmjk | March 24, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama would have been the stronger candidate two weeks ago, but his candidacy has been irreparably harmed by the Rev Wright, his "typical white person" comment and Michele Obama's "proud" remark. With many voters, he now lacks credibility.

Let's also not forget that the Rev Wright fiasco buried the story of how Obama had actually greatly underplayed to what extent he was involved with Tony Rezko. This is yet another skeleton waiting to come out of the closet.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 24, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

While I think this article highlights the thinking among many, it seems that the superdelegates are afraid to go against the Clintons or ruffle the feathers of those who haven't voted yet.

To use a NCAA March Madness analogy, Sen. Clinton's campaign is using a reverse 4-corners offense (a stall tactic to run out the clock). Instead of milking the clock while holding onto a lead, they're milking the clock in hopes that something dramatic effects the person with the lead. It appears that they're trying to keep the superdelegates in a holding pattern long enough for something to come out that causes unending damage to Sen. Obama's candidacy.

While the Sen. Clinton's insistence of competing to the end annoys me, I can understand her position. She was the front-runner and presumed nominee for a full year before the primary contests. Once the acutal battle started, she saw that slipping away and no is trying anything possible to get that back. I am actually more annoyed with the superdelegates. Their endorsement of Obama would move the needle so far towards him that Sen. Clinton would have no choice but to accept the circumstances. Additionally, this would not undermine their voters going to the polls, it would just mean they (SDs) have stated their preference.

Each week this process treks along, is one less week that the media spends focusing on John McCain. Though he tried to minimalize his gaffes last week, they are not minimal. However, because the drama on the Dem side is so much fun to cover, they have largely ignored what McCain has been doing. He has too macro a view of everything (Sunni, Shia, whatever) and that is not something the US can afford after 8 years of a president who took a similar approach.

Posted by: dtsb | March 24, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I've posted this twice before in the last couple months. My apologies for reposting, but it does directly address the question posed here.

If you think strategically instead of (or as well as) emotionally about this election, here are a few numbers to consider:

Alabama's African American population: 26.3%

Georgia's: 29.9%

Louisiana's: 31.7%

Mississippi's: 37.1%

North Carolina's: 21.7%

South Carolina's: 29.0%

Coincidentally, of these six Southern states where blacks make up more than 20 percent of the total population, five have Republican senators up for re-election this fall: Jeff Sessions (AL), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Thad Cochran (MS), Elizabeth Dole (NC) and Lindsay Graham (SC). Mary Landrieu (LA) is the lone Democratic senator up for re-election in these 20+ percent black Deep South states.

If you look at the larger picture for a moment, you can see that we're presented with a very unique situation: Five Senate seats that under normal circumstances would be considered very safe for the GOP incumbent could be put in play if Sen. Obama becomes the Democratic nominee this fall. Obama, after all, has demonstrated an obvious ability to electrify African American voters and get them to turn out in disproportionately high numbers.

If the astounding African American Democratic turnout in South Carolina is any indication, an Obama candidacy in the general election could well present a real threat to entrenched GOP Deep-South senators. Even if the Republicans were able to successfully defend all five of these seats, it would come at the cost of using precious resources that would otherwise be poured into other hotly contested races throughout the country. Howard Dean's 50-state strategy paid off in '06 even without presidential coattails to ride. With Obama actively campaigning throughout the South, firing up the black vote, we'd at least have the possibility of picking up a few seats in the Senate, and likely the House as well.

Just for grins and giggles, here's the breakdown of Republican and Democratic House members within those six 20-percent-plus black-populace states:

Alabama: 5 GOP, 2 Dem

Georgia: 7 GOP, 6 Dem

Louisiana: 5 GOP, 2 Dem

Mississippi: 2 GOP, 2 Dem

N. Carolina: 6 GOP, 13 Dem

S. Carolina: 4 GOP, 2 Dem

As you can see, of these six states, the GOP holds a majority of House seats in nearly all of them. However, if Obama runs and motivates a large number of African American voters to go to the polls, it's pretty obvious to me that some of these GOP seats would shift from safe to competitive, and at least a couple of them would switch hands. Again, the strain on GOP coffers from having to defend so many seats assumed to be uncontestable would mean fewer resources available to pour into other races throughout the country. An Obama candidacy will put the Republicans at a significant financial disadvantage, based on the scenario I've just laid out. Strategically, if you're a Democrat and want to defend and expand your Congressional majorities in the House and Senate, voting for Obama would seem to be the only logical move.

Now switch all this around and think of what happens in those same six states if Sen. Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate. African Americans who rightly or wrongly believe the Clintons played the race card to defeat Obama decide to stay at home (again), the GOP breathes a sigh of relief that it won't have as many competitive contests and can lavish greater spending on fewer races, Southern Republicans become energized at the prospect of being able to vote against their Public Enemy Number One and turn out in droves, and the Democrats go down to defeat and very likely lose their 1-seat majority in the Senate, and perhaps the House as well.

Like I said, the Democrats selecting Obama as the nominee should be a no-brainer. It's the only guaranteed winning move if you want to stay the majority party as well as win the White House in November.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 24, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I finally agree with davidmwe (although not your web-based reasoning) that it doesn't matter SEVEN MONTHS before the general election. A lot will happen between now and then.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's new argument about having won states with more electoral votes is a bit desperate. Check out what the 2004 electoral map would've looked like if only this were true:

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/2004-electoral-mapunder-new-clinton.html

Posted by: MAB4 | March 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Many say Obama, but really I am not too sure it matters, especially when you look at statistics like these;

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
a Web Comparison:

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

Posted by: davidmwe | March 24, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

A Democrat who said she believed Obama would be stronger offered this caveat about his candidacy. "The one area where Obama needs to get stronger because McCain is so weak is on the economy," she wrote. "HRC's strongest card in her current campaign is that she has credibility on the economy (in many ways she is benefiting­ like Bush did in 2000 on her last name to give her credibility here). Obama needs to get a clear and simple economic message and then use it against McCain in the general election."
_____

That line about Sen. Clinton benefiting like Bush did in 2000 on her last name to give her credibility on the economy says it all. She's giving a speech today at UPenn on the economy, and you can be sure that the Obama campaign will respond later today before the news goes to press.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 24, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company