Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Looking to Diminish Superdelegates

By Dan Balz
Barack Obama's campaign will call next week for the creation of a new commission to revise the rules for selecting a presidential nominee in 2012 with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The commission also will be urged to redraw the calendar for 2012 to avoid starting the primaries and caucuses so early, and also to look specifically at assuring more uniform rules and standards for those caucuses.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign will ask the national convention delegates in Denver to approve a resolution approving the establishment of a 35-member Democratic Change Commission. The charter would authorize the Democratic National Committee chairman appoint the commission soon after the election and ask them to report back by January 2010.

The proposed changes grow out of discussions between Obama's campaign team, officials at the Democratic National Committee and representatives of Hillary Clinton's former presidential campaign, Plouffe said.

The most important change involves superdelegates -- the elected officials and party leaders who have automatic seats at national conventions and are free to vote for any candidate of their choice.

Their role became hugely controversial during the long nomination battle between Obama and Clinton. Obama supporters feared that the superdelegates could override the results of the primaries and caucuses and potentially hand the nomination to Clinton.

"The number of super delegates has gotten too large in relation to overall delegates," Plouffe said. "We want to give more control back to the voters.... Everyone thinks there ought to be more weight given to the results of the elections."

The commission will be encouraged to consider either reducing the number of superdelegates eligible to attend the national conventions or increasing the number of so-called pledged delegates elected on the basis of the results of caucuses and primaries.

The other significant change is the call to redraw the primary and caucus calendar. The 2008 calendar drew significant criticism both for the early starting dates for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, and also because there were so many states crowded into the first month of what turned out to be a five-month campaign.

As envisioned by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, most contests could not be held before March, except for a handful of states authorized to go earlier -- presumably in February rather than January.

Plouffe also said the commission will be urged to look for ways to avoid the bunching of states on particular days. Almost two dozen states held contests on Super Tuesday last Feb. 5, which party officials hope to avoid in 2012.

The other major area the commission will be asked to examine is the operation of caucuses in states that choose that process rather than a primary. The caucuses drew criticism, particularly from the Clinton campaign, which said they restricted participation and that in some states lacked the necessary infrastructure to insure fairness.

"We agree that we ought to make sure they're funded properly, staffed properly and run smoothly, and even see if people ought to be eligible to vote absentee," Plouffe said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 20, 2008; 1:27 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , Democratic Party , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Taxes and Spending at Issue in Clash of Negative Ads
Next: RNC Announces Convention Speaker Lineup


I think it is rather a premature show of arrogance to try to change the Super Delegate System lest it cause future challenges to say... Barack Obama.

I would like to add that among all the candidates i found that Obama has opinions
most like mine on a majority of issues.
The only problem is: electibility: lack thereof.

So for a little constructive vituperative,
let's Rename his famous book

"The Audacity of Hope"


"The Arrogance of Hope"

or even to

"The Mendacity of Hope"


Posted by: FritzYeCat | August 26, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I Agree with JMH, Aug 21

The democratic Convention lives in a Liberal Bubble,
But America is NOT predominantly Liberal.

If the Dems are to win in 2008, they Must
dump Obama. No other way.

Al Gore ought to be drafted, only he can
truely unite the Democratic Party.

Failing that , Hillary Can Win albeit with
a lot of difficulty.

So Super Delegates Awake !

Else it's Heil McCain in 2009.


Posted by: FritzYeCat | August 26, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

We don't need another stinkin' commission to deal with this issue. Don't taxpayers already pay the Election Assistance Commission (EAC),the Federal Election Commision (FEC), Offices of The Electoral Board and The General Registrar, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Pollworker Institute (PI), Party Affairs and Delegate Selection, Party Leaders and Elected Officials ("PLEOs) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now(ACORN), Citizens Services Inc.(CSI). (Two of Obama's favorites to manipulate) I'm sure there are tons more commissions, boards and orgaizations that are supposed to be keeping our elections fair and honest but that is not happening thanks to the Obama Campaign 08. Now he claims he'll fix it with another commission- Like we peasants are stupid enough to fall for his crap.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 23, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

First, get RID of the caucuses. They really cut out the voters that are working, have family members they have to take care of, or have other issues with hanging around for hours waiting to vote. It really cuts out many many women who are just too busy to take all that time to vote.

Make all states have primaries that have early voting available for a week beforehand, all day long, so people can work voting into their schedule and they don't have to wait in long lines.

Posted by: splashy | August 22, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

I keep reading all the delusional democrats commenting here, who are chiming in they are writing in Hillary... .no doubt unaware the fires are stoked by none other than the enemy at their back door, the GOP-machine!!! Foolish, made into fools by negative, angry hate-vibes.... its GOP vs. DNC... get it?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

If the Super Delegates can do the right thing and nominate Hillary next week, then we won't have to write her in.

Contact your delegates and tell them to support Hillary in Denver. It's the only way we'll get a Dem. elected in Nov.

Posted by: JMH | August 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Why A Barrell of Oil Rose From $24 To $145 Quickly,

Could you please elaborate on this post?


Posted by: Seymour | August 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The dems don't need to change delegate numbers, although starting in Feb is probably a good idea. All they need to do is to make all contests winner take all.

Posted by: Andrew P | August 21, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, even after Obama gets his *ss handed to him in November by McCain, I am afraid the DNC will learn nothing from this election, as they apparently haven't with any of their recent nominees. Perhaps Dean, Pelosi & Co. should stop the (Bill) Clinton hate (jealousy?) long enough to learn somthing from his success. Lets see, what makes him different from the stuffy, aloof, snobby nominees we've been getting for years? I'll give them a hint - he connects emotionally with the voters. As long as the DNC keeps giving us this same kind of nominee, we will keep rejecting them. Get a clue, people.
Oh yeah, Nancy, next time you try marketing a book to appeal to feminism, try not sh*tting on the first viable female candidate for president. We understand that you were "too busy to notice" the misogyny of this election cycle, so I'm sure you won't mind that my daughters are "too busy" to read your book.

Posted by: Susan | August 21, 2008 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Check out the CNN special tonight on Obama. See what a real piece of sh&t he really is. Even his wife is nothing but trash. Very revealing.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse

Sounds great, perhaps someone finally told Barack that he gamed the system, and without that gaming, he lost both popular vote and a fair delegate selection process. His team outperformed but really only managed to win one quarter - won it big, with a little help from the refs - but still needed a Beijing gymnastics type tie-breaker to pull it out.

For a real numbers analysis of what really happened, take a look a the RCP blog post at the link below:

Perhaps this agreement will motivate his team to express a bit more humility, stop telling people to simply "get over it,” since now it seems that he and his campaign realize that they simply "got over."

I use to be a HUGE Howard dean fan, but he did not recognize the opportunity to bring these campaigns together early on. He should have just declared a tie and made a plan to honor the effort of both candidates and let them go after McCain as a united team. As recently as last week he had been smug in telling Hillary to "do the right thing."

Loved ya Howard, but now ur off my friends list.

Posted by: nonebetterthantheother | August 20, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Obama2008 | August 20, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

"What a joke. If it wasn't for superdelegates, everyone would be saying, "Obama who?"
Posted by: Jack Straw | August 20, 2008 7:12 PM

Probably not everyone.
More likely just folks such as yourself who are apparently ignorant of the fact that, in addition to winning unpledged ("super") delegates, he won the pledged delegates earned through the votes of the American people.

Posted by: SJerseyIndy | August 20, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA house or ...

Forget it he si not going to be our next president. believe me he is a weak man. He is getting free ride, now it is time for everyone to vote for MCCAIN. Look what Russia is doing?

Posted by: prince1 | August 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The 2008 primary was set up by Clinton pal McAuliffe so that Clinton would clinch the nomination Feb 5th. They front-ended the process to capitalize on her brand name and super delegate support. And when it didn't work they didn't have a fallback plan.

Brilliant. Not exactly the crew you want running a country under attack and at war.

Could McCain have beaten Clinton? I don't think so. Obama ran a helluva campaign. And this one is just getting started. Remember, Obama was down 20pts Jan1. Timing is everything. And intelligence matters.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Here's what Terry McAuliffe said to Carl Levin in 2004, as reported in his book.

Expletives were flying. The head of the Democratic National Committee was having it out with Sen. Carl Levin because Michigan wanted to crash the rarefied club of early presidential primary states.

Move your primary too early, Terry McAuliffe warned, and Michigan will lose half its delegates to the Democratic convention.

"The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television," McAuliffe vowed. "I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules."

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

We need a better educational system in this country. So many people have no clue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is stupid to keep our people stupid, and it is sick to keep our people sick. In the 21st century we have a global, knowledge-based economy, and if we don't smarter up China and India are going to eat our lunch.

People. McAuliffe set up the 2008 primary system to benefit Clinton. If you are going to blast the system, at least know what you are blasting. Jeez!

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Oh, gee. Obama gets to look like the good guy after the fact - seriously, what an effin' loser.

Posted by: Faux-bama | August 20, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

What a joke. If it wasn't for superdelegates, everyone would be saying, "Obama who?"

Posted by: Jack Straw | August 20, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

The caucus system is so elitest and unfair...I will never vote dem again until this changes

Hillary write in GA! little o big NO!

Posted by: michael -GA (leaning rep after caucus fracus) | August 20, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

I am in a state where there was cheating with the caucuses on the Obama side.....FORGET about the caucuses and matter what they have matter how MUCH money they have spent......he still cannot carry himself to the White House in a general election....Perhaps this is because EVERYTHING about him is smoke and mirrors, and he REALLY does NOT have ANY experience, or really know what he is doing for that matter. Someone with experience does not need 300 foreign advisors. Someone who actually has experience does not need to rely on the teleprompter ALL the time! With the amount of money being spent, it is like he thinks he can buy the White House.....I think we just finished 8!! years with a guy like know.....the no experience thing, and WHAT can happen to our country. Mr. Obama is also a misogynist.
Write In Hillary 2008 - the true Democratic Party candidate.....

Posted by: librairie | August 20, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

We need Superdelegates to prevent the McGovern kind of thing that's happening now: caucus activists, party bosses like Pelosi and Brazile, and/or press forcing a candidate that the core Dems will not accept in November.

First, no caucuses in any way, shape, or kind.

States that do mail-in get to go first. States with regular polling must wait for good weather.

To prevent the Supers being corrupted and pressured as they were this year, we need some rules like these:

Any Super who accepts donations from a candidate must recuse.

Supers do secret ballot at the convention and not allowed to 'announce' beforehand as Pelosi forced them to this year.

Supers should be allowed to recuse or vote 'present' if they want to.

Supers should have a high percentage of people who are not subject to pressure: ie retired officials not those facing re-election.

Posted by: fsteele | August 20, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Gee, do ya think Mr. Obama has taken over EVERYTHING!!......Daaaaaaaaaaaaaa?! WHO???? is this person?????? This is getting downright absurd and scarry!

NOW that Hillary may actually get a shot of the nomination that was REALLY HER SPOT IN THE FIRST PLACE BY....okay, drum roll.....


Mr. Obama was/is the illegitimate presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party (presumptive being a KEY word here).....NOTHING he can do or say will change the fact that he did not win the historic votes
AND!! THAT! is because he DOES NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE. .......
Making himself look like the messiah in a stadium of 75,000 people does not get this man to the White House.....
WHO???? does this guy actually think he is. Millions upon millions being spent. It is absolutely ludicrous, and people STILL don't KNOW who he is.......the numbers are STILL NOT THERE for him!
If he truly cared for this country and the Democratic party, he would step aside right now.
Enough is enough....I am about laughing about HIS LATEST PROPOSAL.....ohhhhhhh, the we're all a bunch of fools! Don't be fooled!

Write In Hillary 2008 the TRUE LEGITIMATE Democratic candidate! 18+ Million

Posted by: librairie | August 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse


There is an undeniable force that shouldn’t be discounted and should be appreciated.

Hillary Clinton knows her game, and her experience is paying off.

Posted by: PacificGatePost | August 20, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

SD's stop this madness. Put Hillary as President then Webb as Vice.

Posted by: daniel jarvis | August 20, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Not counting Fla and Mich, Obama won the most popular votes. Only if you count Fla and Mich AND assume that not a single person in Mich would have voted for Obama do you get a slender lead for Clinton in popular vote.

And only if you completely disregard and disrespect the caucus states do you pretend to believe that the popular vote in primary states is the true indicator of the rightful candidate.

Posted by: EricF | August 20, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Outside the box:
Interesting scenario, but it would be the dream ticket for the Republicans. Keep out Hillary, put Gore in, who can't win, and neutralize Obama's support by placing him in as second fiddle.

What better way to elect McCain! I haven't thought of one yet! Democrats with friends like you don't need enemies.

Posted by: Madman | August 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Superdelegates, wake up. There's still time to win this election. Vote for Hillary in Denver and end this madness.

Posted by: thinkwithyourbrain | August 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Wanna make it fair?

*No more caucuses. They are archaic now, and soliders and other Americans overseas cannot participate, nor can home bound people, or people who must work.

*Shorter primary season. But NOT a one night election.

*Superdelegates are not to accept ANY contributions from the candidates or their backers. Yes, definitely LESS supers, and supers should mainly honor their constituency's votes for a candidate. Their only purpose is to make sure there is not another McGovern, therefore they should SHUT THEIR MOUTHS and not endorse ANYone until the convention, because by then all votes and polls will show who can beat the republican. They need lessons on how to be pragmatic if they are to be supers.

*A ceiling on how much money each candidate can raise. No more than X. This way, no one BUYS the WH via bought supers and media, and sponsors, etc. Never again should there be a primary season based on MONEY, and all the disgusting amounts of money raised. If each candidate has the SAME ceiling, we will see how they budget, we will see a truly even playing field, and we can vote on SUBSTANCE.

*There must be more debates/ forums. Issues MUST be discussed at length, and there should be "conversations" between the candidates, and without a moderator.


Posted by: kat in your hat PUMA | August 20, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse


Only the supers can save the Dems from themselves this year.

He's done a hostile takeover of the DNC and he must be denied before he loses in a year that should have been the Dems'.

But that doesn't mean handing the nomination to Hillary. What's needed is an old-fashioned backroom deal:

Deny Barack a first ballot victory by having a block of delegates vote "present" or for a designated write-in, denying Obama a majority. Then get Obama and Hillary to agree that they have fought to a draw, and pledge their respective delegates to Al Gore.

Gore then names Obama his VP pick to unify the party, and Hillary gets a promised ticket to the Supreme Court and the title of kingmaker of the Dems.

Obama is denied the top slot, the Clintons are vindicated, Al Gore is given another shot to right a wrong, and the delegates rejoice as they nominate the best candidate possible.

So supers: Deny this guy before he usurps your power in addition to hijacking the DNC.

Posted by: Outside the Box | August 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama, NOT qualified, won on "Super" Delegates and caucuses. And now he will lose in November!

- One Man and One Vote.
also do away with this Iowa first nonsense! ALL states should go on the same day! Or use Florida and Pennsylvania. But not Iowa. We are all tired of what Iowa thinks...Obama, Kerry, etc! And change the 1988 DNC JJ rules put into play in 1988. Totally biased and unfair. This all needs to change. Are we not a democracy?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Super delegates and caucuses need to be done away with. States should have primaries only. Caucuses held more weight than primaries. No way should that happen. Take your lazy ass to the polls. One person=one vote.

Posted by: tlatexaspuma | August 20, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I say all primaries on one day 30 days before convention, then comes the conventions, then 4 debates, one a week, then election day.
no superdelegates that choose obama, no crossovers that choose more crap...

Posted by: Dwight | August 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

McCains I.Q. is in the single digits. Oh Yeah! He's a Bush policy Republican follower. That explains it. BTW I agree, we don't need superdelegates.

Posted by: Honesty | August 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

That's what I expected. Superdelegates were the only way to balance the power of the caucuses and BO's gaming of the system - so of course he will want to get rid of them.

Another reason to vote for McCain -- so Obama's faction can't increase their own power in the DNC.

Posted by: fsteele | August 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The 3:47 post is fake. There's someone who does this sort of crap in every crowd. They no doubt then have the lack of sense to sit there and grin to themself.

Posted by: Jack THe Ripper | August 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

To: why is oil $24 -145... after your long, misleading, innaccurate , whining comment. it is quite simple...

Democrats took control of congress and everything you say is based on what these incompentents have done NOTHING.

no wonder our great country is struggling with idiots like you that have the right to vote.. which by the way is not a constitutional right.

Posted by: average guy | August 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

There must be something about watching Russian tanks roll over a border into another country that makes people realize we're not playing American Idol anymore.

UTICA, New York (Reuters)- As Russian tanks rolled into the Republic of Georgia and the presidential candidates met over the weekend in the first joint issues forum of the fall campaign, the latest polling includes drama almost as compelling - Republican John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, the latest Reuters/Zogby telephone survey shows.

McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin.

And McCain not only enjoys a five-point edge in a two-way race against Obama, but also in a four-way contest including liberal independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, the poll reveals. In the four-way contest, McCain wins 44% support, Obama 39%, Barr 3% and Nader 2%.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll is a dramatic reversal from the identical survey taken last month - in the July 9-13 Reuters/Zogby survey, Obama led McCain, 47% to 40%. In the four-way race last month, Obama held a 10-point lead over McCain.

And here's the really troubling part for the polling results if you're Obama campaign:

The poll shows Obama losing voters to McCain in groups where Obama had bigger leads a month ago, such as Democrats, women and younger voters. Obama also lost ground among Catholics and Southerners.

Posted by: angrycrat | August 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Why A Barrell of Oil Rose From $24 To $145 Quickly:

Your aspirations are admirable, but nobody reads 13 page posts.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Dianne72, your words show you are a racist. A truly bigoted person. If you are a Christian, you should know you are going to hell unless you repent your hateful ways.

Why don't you just SHUT UP?

Huh? Why don't you just go spew into your toilet instead of polluting this discussion with your foul, hateful stench?

People like you should be ashamed to use your name when posting racist dung like that.

Posted by: RealCalGal | August 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"One poll today shows John McCain five points ahead of Obama. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, so why does that make me so happy?"

If the poll trend continues through the week, Clinton definitely has a chence. It's not over until the delegates push the buttons.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

In reply to the comment about Obama's half brother in Kenya one should read about Cindy McCain's two half sisters (one from a first marriage of her Dad, the other from a non marital relationship) who got nothing when their common Dad died. This is noted elsewhere in the Washington Post and also in the Huffington Post and was featured on NPR yesterday. Last time I checked she was worth over 100 million although we'll never know the full story because of separate tax filings for their entire marriage.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | August 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Don't count Hillary out!!!!!

Posted by: Art | August 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Don't count Hillary out!!!!!

Posted by: Glen | August 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree with changing that system. I think they should go ahead and change it, and make the rules VERY clear across this nation, and for candidates seeking to run.

Posted by: Obama2008 | August 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Hillary switched their positions.

The thing is, Hillary (and I started out in her corner) started out with The Superdelegates pretty much on her side, and Obama was unknown. Obama was becoming more known and against the odds, he was arguing about popular vote which Hillary argued against saying it is ultimately up to the supers. Obama starts getting supers too, then Hillary started using Obama's earlier argument about popular vote (although the two ended up pretty much split down the middle, with a little more on one side). Obama got a little more than Hillary, and the supers combined. Obama slowed down on his earlier argument, when he started gaining both.

Posted by: Obama2008 | August 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

One poll today shows John McCain five points ahead of Obama. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, so why does that make me so happy? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | August 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious, BO wants to change the exact rules that allowed him to get where he is. Without supers he isn't the nominee, without the horrible run caucus system he isn't the nominee. What won't he change position on???

Posted by: Andrew | August 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so Obama accepts the nomination of the superdelegates, rather than the people and after he's safely ensconced as the party nominee most likely to blow what should have been the "sure thing" election - he wants to make sure that no other incompetents get selected.

Too little, too late, Obama. Stop trying to change election rules only after you're finished benefitting from them.

Posted by: Lynn | August 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Someone posted: If anyone wants to know the real Obama and just how self serving he is...He lets his own brother live in squalor (on ONE DOLLAR A MONTH!) in the slums of Kenya while he earns over a million dollars a year.

Hey, he really does care about baby brother, he's just wants to use taxpayer money to help him out - not his own. :P

Posted by: hmmmm | August 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

United States Constitution - We the people of the United States

Democrat $24 barrel of OIL


OIL was $24 a barrel when Democrats left office

A gallon of gasoline was $1.50 when Democrats left office

GOP Republicans took office to change OIL to $145 a barrel

GOP Republicans took office to change gasoline to $4.50 a gallon

GOP Republican $145 barrel of OIL

A gallon of gasoline is $4.50 under the GOP Republicans

Rising OIL Prices Swell Profits at Exxon and Shell

You do the math and decide if Texas OIL millionaires warrant investigations to protect the American people.


Aren’t there LAWS against defrauding the American People (US Constitution), robbing the US Treasury, and using US Government Offices for private gains?

GOP Republican Wall Street Conspiracy to defraud the American People and steal from the United States Treasury.

GOP Republican abusive power and blind greed run amok to transfer the American economy into the private capitalistic pockets of the super rich who own and run Wall Street.

GOP Republicans are manipulating the market system to make the many (95 percent of American citizens) suffer and serve the superwealthy few (5 percent Wall Street supercapitalists).

GOP Republicans Last Place McCain-McBush III Trillion Dollar War Crisis


No more GOP Republican lies, conspiracies, and grand larcenies.

GOP Republican $155 barrel of OIL speculations
GOP Republican $175 barrel of OIL speculations
GOP Republican $195 barrel of OIL speculations
GOP Republican $215 barrel of OIL speculations
GOP Republican $235 barrel of OIL speculations
GOP Republican $255 barrel of OIL speculations

GOP Republican $4.50 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $5.00 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $5.50 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $6.00 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $6.50 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $7.00 a Gallon Gasoline speculations

When does it stop if ever?

GOP Republican Wall Street Greed Speculation does not work.
GOP Republican Wall Street Greed Speculation is hurting America.
GOP Republican Wall Street Greed Speculation is hurting Our Constitutional Rights.

Stop GOP Republican Wall Street OIL speculations today

GOP REPUBLICAN OIL addiction has become the new crack drug and we better get off soon


Nationalize U.S. OIL For National Defense.
Nationalize U.S. OIL For National Defense.
Nationalize U.S. OIL For National Defense.

Clean nuclear electric energy is the answer. USA partnership with France will produce clean abundant Nuclear Fusion electricity. Eighty percent of French electricity is produce through nuclear energy. USA will learn nuclear production of clean energy.

Over 35 percent of France’s total energy requirement and over 78 percent of French electricity demands are met by nuclear energy. In 1999, France generated 375 billion kWh of electricity from its fifty-eight pressurized water reactors currently in operation. The electrical generation capacity of these plants is 65,702 MWe. France also operates one fast reactor, which generates 250 MWe of energy.

Because of their large operation capacity, the French also export energy, mainly to the rest of Europe, roughly 72.1 TWh per year. This large amount of energy generation allows France to be more energy self-sufficient than most European countries. In fact, France is over 50 percent able to meet its own energy needs, an incredibly large percentage for a modernized, western country. In comparison, Italy is only 18 percent energy self-sufficient. This was one of the goals of the French Nuclear program, to decrease French dependence on foreign energy sources.

The French national energy company, Electricite¢ de France (EDF) runs France’s nuclear power plants. The EDF was created in 1946 to alleviate the energy shortage that occurred just after World War II. In the 1950s the EDF provided France with the energy to modernize itself into an industrial power. However like most energy corporations, the EDF relied heavily on hydrocarbon generation up until the first OIL CRISIS occurred. Then it was decided that the EDF should pursue NUCLEAR ENERGY TO REDUCE FRENCH DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ENERGY.

We the people of the United States.


GOP Republican Get Rich By Selling America And Using Our Public Office For Private Gains Is Treason against the American People. Big OIL inside trading millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice, and McCain will answer for war crimes.

The White House connection to Big OIL goes too far. Now Chevron's OIL tanker named Condoleezza Rice is too much OIL conspiracy in the face of the American people.

The double-hulled OIL giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international OIL tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational OIL firm, named several years ago Rice because she is a Chevron OIL board member and stockholder.

Rice serves on Chevron's OIL board and Bush Administration.

Far too cozy relationship among multinational energy giants, Bush and his key advisers -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Rice.

There's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry, the OIL-and-gas industry.

You wonder why a barrel of OIL rose from $24 to $145 when OIL millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice took over. You wonder why a gallon of gas rose from $1.50 to $4.50 when OIL millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice took over.

Public Integrity raised the issue of the tanker's moniker. Look at the president and his background, the vice president (executive at Halliburton), (Commerce Secretary) Don Evans and his OIL interests . . . and now this."

Rice closeness to a major OIL company. It's not every day that someone has an OIL tanker named after her.

Bush specifically request the Condoleezza Rice tanker be given a name change -- particularly since Chevron does business on six continents and 25 countries, and has been sued for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria.

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charging Chevron aided Nigerian police in attacks on local communities protesting Chevron production activities.

The Rice tanker came up at the White House briefing in connection with the incident in Nigeria.

Chevron OIL giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name.

Naming OIL tankers after members of the OIL board of directors.

Rice's office did not return repeated phone calls, but she told Fox TV that she has no regrets regarding her Chevron OIL ties and huge Wall Street OIL profits. Big OIL has been good to me.

Rice and the White House decisions directly involving Chevron OIL. Condi Rice is dealing with issues that are enormous interest to Chevron OIL. From a public relations standpoint, they're desperately hoping this is one OIL tanker that doesn't run aground. That could be a major problem.

IRISH-AMERICAN BARACK OBAMA OF HARVARD LAW WILL bring back our United States Constitution and Rights of the American people. Who is better to save the country than an Ivy League United States Constitution professor who loves his country more than GOP Republicans love ill gotten Wall Street speculation money.


Stop GOP Republican Last Place McCain from selling our America.

This remarkable unleashing of deep Democratic energies went hand in hand with clever GOP Republican efforts to subvert the will of the American People, whether by overt corruption or covert manipulation. This corruption or manipulation resulted from the widespread market activity that was incompatible with the good of the American Public. American Citizens were well aware that the voices of the People could be offset by powerful GOP Republican market elites bending the system to serve the interests of the few. The economic power of the GOP Republicans was recognized to be the primary source of Wall Street speculators’ corruptions.

Democratic dialogue was motivated by opposition to the market–driven greedy GOP Republicans obsessed with obscene quantity of moneymaking with little regard for the quality of the Public’s Democracy. Democratic love of wisdom was contrasted sharply against the GOP Republicans love of money.

Impeach the defunct GOP Republican Party of Wall Street Super Rich Thieves for milking our country the way wolves milk cows. America deserves intelligent and honest leadership demonstrated by scholars who love America, Americans and Our Freedom. America the Beautiful belongs to All Americans and will no longer be the plaything for Wall Street Super Rich GOP Republicans wolves.

Posted by: Why A Barrell of Oil Rose From $24 To $145 Quickly | August 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I think Portman is McCain's pick- he'll talk about his focus on balancing the budget, and he'll campaign hard in Ohio.

The Clintons had too much dirt on them to win this time around. Because of the Republican hatchet jobs - and her their own doing - Hillary had huge negatives. And Bill couldn't be vetted. Whitewater, Cattle futures, filegate, travelgate, vince foster, gennifer flowers, katherine wilkey, the defense team, monica lewinsky. It was all a bit too much.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Speculation has it that McCain may pick either Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice, or Lieberman. Picking either one will cause McCain to lose the election and so one wonders whether this is part of the usual smoke screen.
However, considering how much of a maverick and a bi-partisan guy McCain is, anything is possible. We know that anything is possible having observed that the consistent Democratic death wish persuaded them to nominate the candidate with the least experience and very questionable judgement.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | August 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The Obamaniac radical lefties just can't check their Marxist-Leninist impulses and urges to create A POLITBURO to diktat each and every move of THE PARTY!

It's gotta be centralized! The states, like the Russian satellites, must bow down to the benevolent "guidance" of the big self-perpetuating committee!

Posted by: DaTourist | August 20, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win, mark my words. He is intelligent and thoughtful.

Hillary's day is done. She, and her supporters, are without dignity. Their sense of entitlement is off-putting.

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win, mark my words. He is intelligent and thoughtful.

Hillary's day is done. She, and her supporters, are without dignity. Their sense of entitlement is off-putting.

Posted by: DaTourist | August 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse


McCain's Presidential future prospects are being sold on at 39c on the dollar.

If you really believe what your writing you should some skin in the game.

But the smart money says the old man is going down.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win, mark my words. He is intelligent and thoughtful.

Hillary's day is done. She, and her supporters, are without dignity. Their sense of entitlement is off-putting.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

If you think the Obamaniacs will step aside gracefully after McCain smashes to victory on November 4, 2008, you've got a big disappointment my dear Clintonites and moderate Democrats.

It aint gonna happen. And the first move to put an Obamaniac stranglehold on the Democrat Party has already begun!

Posted by: DaTourist | August 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, you ppl don't realize that Scott Rasmussen is in the tank for the Republicans, as are realclearpolitics, and, and

These people release data based on small sample sizes and dodgy turnout projections.

The Obama campaign makes tens of thousands of calls every day. They have the best statistics. They know how many young and black voters are going to come out and support them. If Rasmussen says the lead is 2% then it's probably 7%- and this is the calm before the convention and debate storms.

Obama is going to have a 3-1 spending advantage after the conventions. A 3-1 organizational and grassroots advantage, or more. All they have to do is round up every young and black voter. The McCain ppl have to look deeply into white people's eyes and say, are you one of us? one of the greedy kind?

So they can't win on message or on votes. And the vote count fraud thing is a little played out. Obama is winning this thing.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Yes, while the Obamaniacs have got the whip hand on the Democratic mule, they aim to institutionalize AFFIRMATIVE ACTION as the official and politically correct way to nominate future Democrat Presidential candidates!

Losing is reason for the Obamaniacs to defer to Clinton centrists in the future! No sirree bobtail, it sho'ly aint!

Posted by: DaTourist | August 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The real struggle for THE SOUL of the Democratic Party will come after McCain defeats Obama on November 4, 2008, and Obama refuses to join Gore and Kerry on the sidelines.

The Clintons will have to fight the Obamaniac radicals for the right to pick up the marbles and start over again, and the Obamaniacs have got their own weighted formula for leveraging the voting powers of "minorities" in future Dem primaries.

Nope, they don't call it that "word," but it guarantees a "quota of delegates" for blacks and gays.

Posted by: DaTourist | August 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to reduce the role of the superdelegates? How ungrateful. Without the superdelegates he wouldn't be the "presumptive nominee".
The candidate with two years experience in the senate still doesn't have enough committed delegates to beat Clinton. It is only the party bosses; the people in the smoke-filled room; the superdelegates who are putting him over the top.
Interesting that Clinton's name will be placed in nonination. If Obama's inexperience with foreign affairs becomes much more obvious-as with the crisis in Gerogia-there is no telling what the boys in the smoke-filled room will decide.
They may just want to win the election.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | August 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

This Obama dude's ego is exceeded only by his ears :)

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Let states have their primaries in January. However, do not count/announce the results until their officially sanctioned timeslot. So, if everyone wants to vote in January, let them. However, if their votes are not released until May/June, that mitigates the desire to push for an early primary date.

Posted by: The.Answer.Is | August 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"I can't wait until Senator Clinton gets the nomination next week"

YEA!!!! Obama for VP.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows a difference of only 1% nationally. McCain is now leading in toss-up states like Florida and Ohio. This is supposed to be a Democratic year.
As an independent, I am always amazed by (a)how the Democrats manage to lose presidential elections and (b) how they manage to convince themselves that the candidate thet THEY really want is the canididate that the nation will prefer.
Obama is THE most far left member of the US Senate-that's why Democrats picked him as their nominee and that's also why he will have a hard time winning.
Hillary clinton spent years in the senate moving to the center because she is smart enough to know that extreme candidates like McGovern never win. Bill Clinton won two elections because was a Democratic moderate.
You often get what you ask for and if the rapidly changing polls are any guide, the Democrats are about to prove, once again, that self-indulgence is a mistake.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | August 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the paid Obama bloggers are out in droves. I can't wait until Senator Clinton gets the nomination next week and I never have to read other of your cut and pasted posts again.

Posted by: AnonymousBuster | August 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

There must be a fairer way to have people vote. To have primaries on the same day; and a repersentaive for every so many thousand persons voting for a person on the ballot on each party for the party conv. I say all primaries on the same day and east vote say 9am to ?? and west coast start early, as not to be swayed by the east coast votes. And the same time frame for the Nov. voting.

Posted by: Eddie | August 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Oh, ho!

It looks like the Obamaniacs are looking past their 2008 defeat by McCain to contend with Hillary in 2012!

Obamaniacs have tasted power, the way certain Transylvanians have tasted blood! They can't help it when the moon comes out!

Posted by: DaTourist | August 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

If anyone wants to know the real Obama and just how self serving he is then read this article: He lets his own brother live in squalor (on ONE DOLLAR A MONTH!) in the slums of Kenya while he earns over a million dollars a year. Where the heck is his humanity for his own flesh and blood? Just how can he help the masses when he doesn't have the compassion to help his own brother? Obama is a phony plain and simple. I can't see how anybody could vote for this selfish a person. I'm ashamed for this country for having this hypocritical person as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: obiewan | August 20, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse


You are missing a couple of key points:

1. The changes are for 2012

2. Hillary had the lead in SDs early, a big one. Obama overcame that. If the only delegates were pledged delegates based on the primaries then Obama still won.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

OMG, it looks like a convention of cretinous right-wing racist bloggers, like Diane72, all frothing at the mouth and spewing their hate, have all converged on this article. Need a reason to vote for Obama? Just take a look at the quality and tone of the Republican nastys who excrete their nasty smears here.

Posted by: oaklynne | August 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous said:

Wow... the facts really did get to you there Cowboy

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"Your still an idiot though."

Looks like facts got in your way there Cowboy.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to reduce the role of the superdelegates? How ungrateful. Without the superdelegates he wouldn't be the "presumptive nominee".
The candidate with two years experience in the senate still doesn't have enough committed delegates to beat Clinton. It is only the party bosses; the people in the smoke-filled room; the superdelegates who are putting him over.
Interesting that Clinton's name will be placed in nonination. If Obama's inexperience with foreign affairs becomes much more obvious-as with the crisis in Gerogia-there is no telling what the boys in the smoke-filled room will decide.
They may just want to win the election.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | August 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

This is what a wonderful man McCain is.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse


you realize that that was a hoax right? oh you dont keep up with the news, you just run around in the dark seedy halls of the republican smear sites, well at least your consistent with the group you hang with


Posted by: Dianne72 a simple moron | August 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Jack the Ripper,

Or should I say local "dittohead." Obama's documentary follows McBush's. In it we will see how much of a hot head McBush is. Also, I wonder if they'll talk about McBush cheating on his first wife with a million dollar beer heiress who refuses to acknowledge she has siblings.

Also, I wonder if they'll talk about McBush graduating at almost the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy? I wonder if they'll discuss McBush going under investigation by the ethics committee?

My guess is they won't.

Your still an idiot though. Just like a dittohead to spew nothing, no policy debate, nothing, about your opponent.


Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Picture it, Trinity Church 2006. Michelle Shiniqua Obama is speaking from the pulpit. Her prominent nostrils are flared, her exagerated features furrowed, and a scowl across her face. She is ranting against "whitey" and how they keep "raising the bar". All the while punching the air with a fist-bump. This my friends is what we will see in October when they release her "whitey-gate" tapes on YouTube.

Posted by: Dianne72 | August 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Careful what you wish for, guys. You may need those superdelegates next time around.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Putin is WAY better than the Messiah. Putin at least has a brain, and a GOOD one. Putin also has a spine, who doesn't like to be pushed around by Bush.

If you look at this Columbia College-Harvard Law educated useless (or useful??? to Nancy Pelosi's kind) idiot, he said Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were the worst kind that Washington DC cannot afford anymore, gave Hillary the finger 3x in NC and then agreed to her demand of a roll call in Denver.

He refused to permit doctors to save aborted-but-born-alive babies, but then said "it's above my pay grade" when asked when a life begins. What a piece of work.

Posted by: Brent | August 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Check out the CNN special tonight on Mccain."

The Obama special proved Obama's early on association with shady characters and drugs. It was basic training for his Chicago tenure where he graduated with honors, plus adding an anti-American pal. The man is scum.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Already trying to take advantage of his situation. The super delegates were going to vote for Hillary instead of him even though he was ahead. So now he is going to use his nominee status to change the rules that have been around for a long time. Wonder who changes he will make if he becomes President. Scary.

Posted by: Fightertom34 | August 20, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Dan. Amazing you can write this without pointing out that Obama is the current nominee because the superdelegates put him over the top. Axe the supers and axe the caucuses.

Posted by: The Pragmatist | August 20, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"reducing the power of superdelegates"- how about eliminating them?

"uniform rules and standards for those caucuses"- How about eliminating them also? Or does Obama fears that he or some marginal candidate like him would not stand a chance if caucuses are eliminted?

Wake up and recognize BHO for who he is- an emperor without clothes

Posted by: urc | August 20, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Tubbs Jones dead 2 hours ago ... were is the Post article??

Posted by: Bill Monroe | August 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama, Nobama. . . .

Posted by: ABORT-OBAMA | August 20, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, 'cos Obama's wife is actually a decent person. Nothing but scum, thats what she is, just like her husband.

Posted by: Obama = Putin | August 20, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Mccain profile of a mad man

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.

Erik Jacobs for The New York Times
John McCain said he had consulted Henry A. Kissinger on foreign policy before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now, as Mr. McCain prepares to accept the Republican presidential nomination, his response to the attacks of Sept. 11 opens a window onto how he might approach the gravest responsibilities of a potential commander in chief. Like many, he immediately recalibrated his assessment of the unseen risks to America’s security. But he also began to suggest that he saw a new “opportunity” to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq.

“Just as Sept. 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand our freedom,” Mr. McCain told a NATO conference in Munich in early 2002, urging the Europeans to join what he portrayed as an all but certain assault on Saddam Hussein. “A better world is already emerging from the rubble.”

To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.

His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.

“He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. “Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.”

Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same. He drew on principles he learned growing up in a military family and on conclusions he formed as a prisoner in North Vietnam. He also returned to a conviction about “the common identity” of dangerous autocracies as far-flung as Serbia and North Korea that he had developed consulting with hawkish foreign policy thinkers to help sharpen the themes of his 2000 presidential campaign.

While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi’s opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. McCain’s supporters note that he became an early critic of the administration’s execution of the occupation, and they credit him with pushing the troop “surge” that helped bring stability. Mr. McCain, though, stands by his support for the war and expresses no regrets about his advocacy.

In written answers to questions, he blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the peril it posed.

The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Formative Years

Mr. McCain has been debating questions about the use of military force far longer than most. He grew up in a family that had sent a son to every American war since 1776, and international relations were a staple of the McCain family dinner table. Mr. McCain grew up listening to his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., deliver lectures on “The Four Ocean Navy and the Soviet Threat,” closing with a slide of an image he considered the ultimate factor in the balance of power: a soldier marching through a rice paddy with a rifle at his shoulder.

“To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops,” recalled Joe McCain, Senator McCain’s younger brother.

Vietnam, for Senator McCain, reinforced those lessons. He has often said he blamed the Johnson administration’s pause in bombing for prolonging the war, and he credited President Richard M. Nixon’s renewed attacks with securing his release from a North Vietnamese prison. He has made the principle that the exercise of military power sets the bargaining table for international relations a consistent theme of his career ever since, and in his 2002 memoir he wrote that one of his lifelong convictions was “the imperative that American power never retreat in response to an inferior adversary’s provocation.”

But Mr. McCain also took away from Vietnam a second, restraining lesson: the necessity for broad domestic support for any military action. For years he opposed a string of interventions — in Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, and, for a time, the Balkans — on the grounds that the public would balk at the loss of life without clear national interests. “The Vietnam thing,” he recently said.

In the late 1990s, however, while he was beginning to consider his 2000 presidential race, he started rebalancing his view of the needs to project American strength and to sustain public support. The 1995 massacre of 5,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica under NATO’s watch struck at his conscience, he has said, and in addition to America’s strategic national interests — in that case, the future and credibility of NATO — Mr. McCain began to speak more expansively about America’s moral obligations as the only remaining superpower.

His aides say he later described the American air strikes in Bosnia in 1996 and in Kosovo in 1999 as a parable of political leadership: Mr. McCain, Senator Bob Dole and others had rallied Congressional support for the strikes despite widespread public opposition, then watched approval soar after the intervention helped to bring peace.

“Americans elect their leaders to make these kinds of judgments,” Mr. McCain said in the e-mail message.

It was during the Balkan wars that Mr. McCain and his advisers read a 1997 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page by William Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard — both now Op-Ed page columnists at The New York Times — promoting the idea of “national greatness” conservatism, defined by a more activist agenda at home and a more muscular role in the world.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘eureka’ moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they have already done a lot of the work,” said John Weaver, a former McCain political adviser. “And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get.”

Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry A. Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)

One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others. But Mr. McCain’s advisers and aides say his “rogue state” speeches stopped short of the most sweeping international agenda put forth by Mr. Kristol, Mr. Kagan and their allies. Mr. McCain explicitly disavowed direct military action merely to advance American values, foreswearing any “global crusade” of interventions in favor of relying on covert and financial support for internal opposition groups.

As an example, he could point to his 1998 sponsorship of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which sought to direct nearly $100 million to Iraqis who hoped to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The bill, signed by President Bill Clinton, also endorsed the ouster of Mr. Hussein.

Mr. McCain said then that he doubted the United States could muster the political will to use ground troops to remove the Iraqi dictator any time soon. “It was much easier when Saddam Hussein was occupying Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia,” the senator told Fox News in November 1998. “We’d have to convince the American people that it’s worth again the sacrifice of American lives, because that would also be part of the price.”

Hard Calls

Mr. McCain spent the afternoon of Sept. 11 in a young aide’s studio apartment near the Capitol. There was no cable television, nothing but water in the kitchen, and the hallway reminded him of an old boxing gym. Evacuated from his office but stranded by traffic, he could not resist imagining himself at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “There are not enough Secret Service agents in the world to keep me away from Washington and New York at a time like this,” Mr. McCain told an adviser.

Over the next days and weeks, however, Mr. McCain became almost as visible as he would have been as president. Broadcasters rushed to him as a patriotic icon and reassuring voice, and for weeks he was ubiquitous on the morning news programs, Sunday talk shows, cable news networks, and even late-night comedy shows.

In the spotlight, he pushed rogue state rollback one step further, arguing that the United States should go on the offensive as a warning to any other country that might condone such an attack. “These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure. “We’re going to have to prove to them that we are very serious, and the price that they will pay will not only be for punishment but also deterrence.”

Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin L. Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.

Even during the heat of the war in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain kept an eye on Iraq. To Jay Leno in mid-September, Mr. McCain said he believed “some other countries” had assisted Osama bin Laden, going on to suggest Iraq, Syria and Iran as potential suspects. In October 2001, when an Op-Ed page column in The New York Times speculated that Iraq, Russia or some other country might bear responsibility for that month’s anthrax mailings, Mr. McCain interrupted a question about Afghanistan from David Letterman on that night’s “Late Show.” “The second phase is Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, adding, “Some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.” (The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it came from a federal government laboratory in Maryland.) By October, United States and foreign intelligence agencies had said publicly that they doubted any cooperation between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda, noting Al Qaeda’s opposition to such secular nationalists. American intelligence officials soon declared that Mr. Hussein had not supported international terrorism for nearly a decade.

But when the Czech government said that before the attacks, one of the 9/11 hijackers had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official, Mr. McCain seized the report as something close to a smoking gun. “The evidence is very clear,” he said three days later, in an Oct. 29 television interview. (Intelligence agencies quickly cast doubt on the meeting.)

Frustrated by the dearth of American intelligence about Iraq, Mr. McCain’s aides say, he had long sought to learn as much as he could from Iraqi opposition figures in exile, including Mr. Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Over the years, Mr. McCain often urged support for the group, saying it had “significant support, in my view, inside Iraq.”

After Sept. 11, Mr. Chalabi’s group said an Iraqi emissary had once met with Osama bin Laden, and brought forward two Iraqi defectors who described terrorist training camps and biological weapons efforts. At times, Mr. McCain seemed to echo their accusations, citing the “two defectors” in a television interview and attesting to “credible reports of involvement between Iraqi administration officials, Iraqi officials and the terrorists.”

Growing Impatient

But United States intelligence officials had doubts about Mr. Chalabi at the time and have since discredited his group. In 2006, Mr. McCain acknowledged to The New Republic that he had been “too enamored with the I.N.C.” In his e-mail message, though, he said he never relied on the group for information about Iraq’s weapons program.

At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”

Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”

Finally, as American troops massed in the Persian Gulf in early 2003, Mr. McCain grew impatient, his aides say, concerned that the White House was failing to act as the hot desert summer neared. Waiting, he warned in a speech in Washington, risked squandering the public and international support aroused by Sept. 11. “Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” Mr. McCain asked.

In retrospect, some of Mr. McCain’s critics now accuse him of looking for a pretext to justify the war. “McCain was hell-bent for leather: ‘Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, we have got to teach him, let’s send a message to the other people in the Middle East,’ ” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

But Mr. McCain, in his e-mail message, said the reason he had supported the war was the evolving threat from Mr. Hussein.

“I believe voters elect their leaders based on their experience and judgment — their ability to make hard calls, for instance, on matters of war and peace,” he wrote. “It’s important to get them right.”

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Check out the CNN special tonight on Mccain. See what a real piece of sh&t he really is. Even his wife is nothing but trash. Very revealing.


Things were going Obama's way too long, and he's starting to unravel. Had his questionable background been known before the first 11 primaries, Clinton would have won. Now he lives with his baggage and must deal with McCain, who will not be as polite as Clinton was. He's on a downhill slide, just as he deserves to be.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 2:06 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

A bitter biting bittern
Bit a better brother bittern,
And the bitter better bittern
Bit the bitter biter back.
And the bitter bittern, bitten,
By the better bitten bittern,
Said: "I'm a bitter biter bit, alack!"

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Following is the list of keynote speakers and topics at the upcoming Democratic Convention:

Marion Barry --- Drug Abuse

Rep. Denny Kucinich --- How to garner 1 % of the vote in every primary entered

Sen. Chrissy Dodd --- Obtaining Countrywide loans

Sen. Chucky Schumer --- How to initiate a run on a bank

Jesse Jackson ---- Marital fidelity and Castration

John Edwards ---- Ambulance Chasing and Spousal support in time of need

Sen. Theodore Kennedy --- Driver education and How to stop a pending autopsy

James McGreevey ---- Gay rights

Mayor Ray Nagin --- Emergency evacuation preparations

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick – Email etiquette in the workplace

Al Sharpton ---- Race relations

Sen. Evan Bayh --- How to ignore the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party and support the war in Iraq

Al Gore --- Snow Removal

Louis Farrakhan --- Muslims in America and Muslim in the White House

Posted by: gary | August 20, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

if the superdelegates had not "selected" NO-bama ... he wouldn't be the nominee!!

Posted by: Jackson | August 20, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse


Things were going Obama's way too long, and he's starting to unravel. Had his questionable background been known before the first 11 primaries, Clinton would have won. Now he lives with his baggage and must deal with McCain, who will not be as polite as Clinton was. He's on a downhill slide, just as he deserves to be.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | August 20, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Goddam, back to the JakeD drama again.

Posted by: Racist Obama and his Wu-Tang Clan | August 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Iowa and New Hampshire provide a good venue for the early primaries. Give Iowa the opening caucus the third week of February, New Hamshire's primary the first Tuesday in March (historically Town Meeting Day) and start with four or five regional primaries that would rotate every four (4) years two weeks later with three weeks in between them.

Will anything happen? It had better as most of us were exhausted by the time June came around. It's too long and too expensive.

Posted by: Tired Voter | August 20, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse


He was "right" with John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- signing the partial-birth abortion ban too -- I will have to check if he did anything else on those days too.

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse


For all I know, you are posting as the fake JakeD too. Chill out (if you're so cold already).

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Even broken clocks are right twice a day ; )


I wish that was truth with Republican Bush. Has he ever been right twice the same day? LOL - how about twice ever?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse


I'm stone cold, Steve Austin stone cold. You dont wanna mess with me.

Posted by: Tim | August 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Tim, you got a peoblem with me? You want a piece of me boy-toy?

You ain't got nuthin' on me - NUTHIN'!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, stop posting BS bro.

Posted by: Tim | August 20, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

That was the fake JakeD at 1:49 PM.

P.S. to Tim: no.

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Tim | August 20, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Get rid of the caucuses - if people are to lazy to go vote, they are even more lazy to attend a 2-3 hr meeting during a weekday. 8====D~

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Why did the headline change from "Obama AND CLINTON"?

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The last group decided to DQ delegates from states that broke the rules. Hilary's own Campaign Manager was vocal about the need to be firm....until it hurt his candidate. Rules?

Posted by: thebob.bob | August 20, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Get rid of superdelegates. And caucuses. And "walking around" money.

And the time/dates for each state to have their primaries should be chosen by a random, lottery drawing.

The primaries should not be front heavy, so as to advantage candidates who are already well knows.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

No superdelegates!! They are only there to override our votes! Just about a non-democratic as you can get. Feeble idea to begin with!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

This is actually a good idea. Even broken clocks are right twice a day ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 20, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company