Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Shakeup's Backstory

Here we are on the eve of the "Potomac Primary" and there's upheaval in the Clinton campaign. Our Readers Who Comment are all over the story reporting that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has replaced her campaign manager and longtime aide Patti Solis Doyle with Maggie Williams, her former White House chief of staff.

Our RWC think change is a good thing, a bad thing, a sure predictor that Clinton's presidential hopes are toast, that Sen. Barack Obama has already won it, that the media has an agenda opposing Clinton, and that WaPo has an agenda opposing Obama. This is proven, some assert, by the fact that the Clinton campaign changes received the first paragraph of the main story in today's paper while Obama's victory in the Maine caucuses was relegated to the second paragraph.

Some also see the change in campaign managers as an attempt to appeal to African-American voters; Williams is African-American; Doyle is Hispanic.

All that said, it does seem that a majority of comments at this hour see the Clinton campaign in trouble. Some people find that wonderful; others do not.

petekusnick1 's post is among the most succinct in summarizing the themes RWC are expressing about this story. He wrote, "Two things are working here.
1. People caught on to Hillary
2. People believe we need a change and Obama is their ticket."

cjones210 said, "One thing this proves is that Hillary has the ability to change course when she sees something is not working. If Bush Jr had that same ability we might be out of Iraq by now. This is a show of strength, not weakness..."

MikeJ9116 said the Clintons "...calculated the Latino vote and the white vote would outweigh the black vote... The trouble for them now is that tactic is costing them white votes in droves. The Democrats are just seeing what the Clintons do best which is pit one group against another..."

But camasca said, "Mike J, You couldn't be more wrong. The Clintons are not pitting races against once another..."

thall1 wrote, "Fire the help. Never mind the candidate was flawed and unelectable from the start as long as she had any credible opposition. Firing another minority will not do her any good. It is over for her. The problem is that it may be over for the Democrat Party as well. They created Hillary and now they will pay the price in November."

nosubstituteforvictory said, "Clinton is on the ropes. And on tuesday she will hit the mat. America is the winner!"

And afgooey74 responded, :..That may be. But be wary that they will stop at nothing to win, including challenging the DNC at the Supreme Court to re-instate the delegates from Florida and Michigan. She'll destroy the Democratic party and leave a putrid taste in the mouths of people barely recovering from Bush/Gore 2000."

bourassa1 wrote, "Sorry Hillary fans, but your candidate is just radioactive to voters. Every matchup poll against McCain shows Obama winning and Hillary losing. Every day she loses supporters. And that was happening before she began running out of money. Even her supposed advantage among Hispanics disappeared in some recent contests..."

Caliguy75 said, "Here's the good news folks. The more people get to know Obama the more they like him. His numbers are going up in every demographic: whites, women, blacks, latinos... the Clintons' true colors have come out during this entire process. All of their political stunts are now being called into scrutiny and they will continue to create distractions as much as possible..."

azarm04 said, "Hillary is in trouble now that Edwards has dropped out and has made this campaign a two horse race... Bill/Hillary Clinton are responsible for Al Gore's defeat, for bringing the neocons to power and should do all of us a favor and just go away!"

treetopflyer had a different take in writing, "This looks like an intelligent decision on her part. The job of a campaign manager is to win campaigns, just as it's the job of a coach to win championships... Clinton does bear some responsibility, but the campaign manager is supposed to provide a reality check if the candidate is doing herself harm... What I fear, however, is that we may be in for a real slew of negative attack ads... I hope I'm wrong."

ckqln said, "While I believe both Obama and Hillary are worthy candidates, I also feel that the ability to surround him or herself with the right staff is essential for a chief executive. Clearly it would seem that Obama has the best track record thus far."

macetgc wrote, "I believe that Hillary Clinton needs more than a change in advisors to capture the Democratic nomination. Sorry, to me she just doesn't look trustworthy.
I'm supporting Barack Obama to the fullest!"

vixis made the interesting and somewhat contradictory comment that "I am voting for Obama, reason being is this country is not ready for a woman to take office, especially Hillary Clinton. Secondly, it's time we break the color barrier, we are in new times and need to be diverse when it comes to being President."

Thinker said that "Obama is a pretty boy with no specific plans. He refuses to get down off his "stage" and answer Q&As with Americans. Because he's afraid he won't be able to answer them. He's a preacher - not Presidential. Pied Piper - all flue, no meaningful lyrics..."

joneshn wrote, "Clinton is going to have to accept that changing the wallpaper on her campaign isn't going to remove the stains. Debate after debate, she refuses to answer key concerns of undecided voters... These dodges make her look like a B- student in a freshman PoliSci class and a change in her PR team isn't going to fix it."

Thinker said, "Too many thorny Republicans in this chat area. Ewww. Bye."

And billmosby said, "I just read a sampling of the other posts here. Looks like the Democrats are well on the way to self-destructing yet again. This country could really use two functional parties right about now, instead of the somewhat less than one that we have."

We'll close with several posts on the question of press bias, starting with badger3, who wrote, "...Hillary has received the most negative press coverage in history. Obama has received the most positive press coverage in history. Every photo of the campaign is a picture of Obama with the "yes we can" signs. The media applies a totally unfair different standard to Senator Clinton than to Obama."

lylepink said, "I... have never seen The Media so biased in favor of a candidate as they are for Obama. I have talked with hundreds of people and everyone that is paying attention to this race feels the same way, no matter who they support. This has to be the worst thing to have happened to the news professionals."

zbob99 wrote, "Hey WashPost: The biggest story this morning is Barack Obama sweeping 4 states this weekend by huge margins. We do not care about Ms Clinton rearranging the deck chairs."

All comments on the Clinton story are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  February 11, 2008; 9:30 AM ET
Categories:  Presidential Politics  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Battle for Virginia
Next: Big Brother Is Watching You

Comments

Thanks for the interesting and informative site. That's definitely what I've been looking for.
. A one-stop career management resource job search, resume management, pages of advice from career experts, plus chats and message boards on dozens of topics
[url=http://gaugecreampie.blogspot.com/2008/04/one-stop-career-management-resource-job.html] . A one-stop career management resource job search, resume management, pages of advice from career experts, plus chats and message boards on dozens of topics [/url]

Posted by: Nektarios | April 14, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

WOW, so much stuff here, an excellent resource. Thanks guys!
. Get a free shoutbox for your site! holen sie sich eine kostenlose shoutbox f r ihre homepage! get a free shoutbox for your site! holen sie sich eine kostenlose shoutbox f r ihre
[url=http://beautifulcreampies.blogspot.com/2008/04/get-free-shoutbox-for-your-site-holen.html] . Get a free shoutbox for your site! holen sie sich eine kostenlose shoutbox f r ihre homepage! get a free shoutbox for your site! holen sie sich eine kostenlose shoutbox f r ihre [/url]

Posted by: Constantinos | April 12, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

RE:
Posted at 09:40 AM ET, 03/19/2008
The Shakeup's Backstory
-----------------------

LETTER TO SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
Montreal, February 20, 2008

SENATOR OBAMA ,

The whole world has its eyes on you, on The United States Of America and its people.

Everyone expects you to be democratically elected and see that something happen in America.

In March 1983, one of humanity's most famous spokesmen, Pope John Paul II, came to our country - 'Haîti' - and loudly proclaimed what each and every one of us had been whispering:

'Something must change here.'

Today, more than ever, a lot of people of The United States of America stand up, longing for something and working to make something happen.

And, like in March 9, 1983, beloved Haiti, History - (which from then and now on rests in thy hands) - tells thee: "it is now time to let people speak to thee of love!', let's say today': 'Go thou America ahead and show us thy true countenance in a positive light.' It is up to everyone to play his or her part in order to let thee regain thy mark of excellence !"

With this letter, I am communicating with You, Senator Obama, and with the whole people of The United States of America.

You offer this country what it takes to be a 'Wonderfull Land.' Yes, let us say 'with a great people living together.'

Go thou, America, go ahead, following in the footsteps of one of thy sons who is now becoming one of thy statesmen.

With this in mind, Mr.Obama, to whom else could I entrust this letter sent to his Holiness Pope John Paul II when he set foot on Haitian soil for the first time, as well as its acknowledgment by the Vatican?

That letter to Pope John Paul II is intended to draw attention to the problem posed by anti-Black discrimination and its negative repercussions on the advancement of scientific progress in the West, and more precisely in the realm of Optics.

In the Western world, according to Newton's widely accepted theory, white is considered to be the synthesis of all colors. Actually, the opposite is true. White constitutes the analysis or 'visible' decoding of light or color, whereas black is its synthesis or 'invisible' composition.

In other words, darkness or blackness and, we might add, "Black Holes'"- a scientific misnomer designating invisible stars or 'Black Suns' - are a source of energy and light.

That basic raw material of light energy culminates, in its most radiant form, in the neutralization of all the colors of the spectrum in the form of so-called "white light."

Therefore "absolute blackness", the absorption of all the colors, is a divisible component of light. Needless to say, Newton's theory gives only a partial interpretation of the notion of light, by excluding black. Our contribution aims at demonstrating that the black color is not only an integral part of the color process, but its true synthesis. Light is therefore shown to be a divisible whole comprising an intensity or color scale in which black is the invisible or 'absorbed' form of the energy in question.

Allow me, Senator Obama, in order to support my statement concerning Black Holes and radiation, to pose a question asked by Hubert Reeves, Doctor of nuclear astrophysics and Scientific Consultant to NASA:

What would have become of the Sun, if it were plunged into a high temperature radiance like the one that existed at the beginning of the Universe? [our translation]

Instead of emitting light, it would absorb it and, in the end, it would be completely reabsorbed into the cosmic fluid.

The cosmic fluid is what, due to an "optical mistake", is called "darkness" or the "blackness of space". We are talking about the electromagnetic flux, that immeasurable ocean in which the planets and stars are bathed, like the sea which links all the continents together. Darkness is thus "The Sea of Space."

"What would have happened if, instead of an ordinary star like the "White Sun", a Black Hole or "Black Sun" were injected into that primordial radiation?

"According to Einsteinian Physics, a Black Hole is a place where gravity is so formidably intense that nothing can escape it, not even visible light. Such a hole should suck in and absorb radiation and increase its own mass: E=MC2, always."

"But after Einstein came Bohr, Heisenberg, and Quantum Physic. From then on, nothing was the same as before.

"The Einsteinian version of the Black Hole is equivalent to a statement that the matter inside the Black Hole is definitely there to stay, in that volume of space. Let us quote Hubert Reeves: "Such an absolute statement is thus contrary to the "Quantum spirit", affirming that nothing is definitely localized in one place. There is always a probability of escape. If the enclosing wall is too high, a tunnel will be dug; if the prisoners are patient, they will escape. One has only to wait. [our translation]"

"According to that principle, Black Holes "evaporate." Matter constantly escapes as radiation. Black Holes "shine!" Their surfaces behave like those of any body heated to a certain temperature and that radiation endlessly feeds that marvelous "Cosmic Fluid" which, wrongly and in bad faith, people keep calling "Darkness."

Nigra sum "sed" formosa. Yes, but should we not say instead, I am black "and" comely? Darkness, which is both source and vehicle of light, does not have to defend itself for being the beautiful and infinitely discreet raw material of the Universe. Darkness is the "Mother of the Universe."

Also, beautiful and discreet art thou, Haiti. Discreet, yes, but never outshone! Just like the Black Virgin who inspires and sheds her love on thee from the hilltop and even beyond Cité Soleil (Sun City).

Our purpose was to offer a more constructive approach aiming at correcting the abusive traditional, so-called scientific, theories of Optics. That is why, we wrote to that authentic witness to the signs of this age, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the prophet of the new era.

Congratulations to You, Sir, and congratulations to the people of The United States Of America, for having made it possible for this day to mark the beginning of a "New Era of Hope !"

Lucien Bonnet

PLease, SEE :
LETTER TO POPE JOHN-PAUL II
in 'BILL A RI AND THERE WAS LIGHT !
http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca
-------------------------------------------------


WESTERN UNIVERSALISM

"Color cannot be understood except in relation to the person who perceives it," physicist Pierre Demers wrote in the Foreword to this book entitled "BILL A RI AND THERE WAS LIGHT !". He clearly confirms the relevance of this essay. First of all, in fact, we thought it would be useful to consider the civilizational (politico-religious) attitude of the West toward the Blacks, before pointing out the deficiencies of present-day science, which is predominantly Western, in its perception of the Black Universe.

The Western political attitude toward the Blacks has for many centuries been determined by the perverse ruler-servant, master-slave, exploiter-exploited relationship. In order to normalize its policy of enslaving Blacks, Judeo-Christian civilization went so far as to use Christianity to legitimize what today we generally call "crimes against humanity", such as the racist slavery peculiar to the West. That situation was facilitated by the fact that the monotheistic religion, which had originally been universalist, soon limited its horizons to the boundaries of the Western world, while the other peoples -- which it thought it had attracted -- seemed to find themselves there in spite of themselves. Some might wonder whether the abandonment by the West of Christian universalism does not explain that inability of Judeo-Christian civilization to adopt a universalist attitude, not only in the political but also in the scientific realm.

As a matter of fact, present-day science, dominated for a few centuries by the West, can hardly claim to be "universal", since it is so deeply affected by the Westerners who perceive it. These people have -- as we all know -- lost any authentically universalist dimension. Did they not, by using and misusing the Bible, attempt to prove the superiority of Western Whites over Blacks and other colored peoples, limiting there too the vast universalist horizons of science to the very boundaries of the West? Everything seems to indicate that science is no longer universal; it is "Western", with all the consequences that implies for humanity and, in particular, for the Black world.

In other words, the Western approach, the Western way of thinking, is far from being scientific, neutral and objective; it is subjective and distorting. Such subjectivity and distortion manifest themselves still more obviously, as we have seen, in the realm of colors, and more specifically when dealing with the concept of "black". One must therefore bring into play the social sciences -- history, sociology, psychology, psychoanalysis, political science, etc. -- to understand that Western handicap. Indeed, as soon as it has to deal with "black", Western reasoning vacillates, making room for the irrational and its array of fantasies.

The author of the Foreword to this book, a physicist, under went a conversion in 1974, where by he would from then on wholly devote himself to the study of colors. He says that he has been attracted more and more strongly by the multidisciplinary and deeply human nature of the study of colors. He states that the "rational comprehension of colors cannot have the necessary depth, unless all the sciences are called upon: chemistry, biology, physiology, physics, and mathematics". He even insists: "Once more the human aspect intervenes. Man is both the creator and the necessary vehicle of all sciences. It is doubly true that there is no rational knowledge of color outside of mankind." He thus admits, as we do, though in a roundabout way, that the present understanding of colors leaves much to be desired. Is it not strongly influenced by the dominant contemporary civilization, polluted so long by prejudices against peoples of color, especially Blacks?

Such a serious Western handicap obviously hinders the forward march of universal science as well as that of all mankind. Both are victims of a racist -- and therefore anti-scientific, selfish and limited -- vision of the world. The case of Haiti, to use an example with which we are very familiar, is a symptom of the non-universalistic attitude of those who rule the world -- the Westerners. Although it may still be possible to scientifically correct the erroneous vision of "blackness" fairly quickly, it is much more difficult to improve human behavior from one day to the next, since mentalities evolve rather slowly. In the meantime, we cannot help being aware that the West keeps dragging around its heavy burden of anti-Black prejudice, and that attitude is detrimental to both the Western and Black worlds.

Has not the West, in its relations with the "peoples of color", always supported rulers who are docile slaves to itself, but tyrants to their own peoples?

Be that as it may, like present-day science, whose universalism is now quite questionable, does not the reality of Western world politics distance itself from universalism to plunge into a quasi-particularism aiming only at the promotion and supremacy of the White world?


It is right to quote the universalist Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, who states that "the visible opens our eyes to the invisible". Science, just like color, cannot be understood outside of the person who perceives it.

Lucien Bonnet

PLease, SEE :
"LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON"
in "BILL A RI AND THERE WAS LIGHT !"
http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca

Posted by: Lucien BONNET | March 19, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 17, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

A very interesting site with top design and contents!

[url=http://anna-nico462b.blogspot.com/] [/url]

Posted by: Christos | March 6, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

It is possible to order the on mail?

[url=http://valentine-gifthr52.blogspot.com/2008/03/dildo-in-pussy-and-cuming-pictures-long.html[url=http://anna-nii5ybk.blogspot.com/2008/03/exploiting-big-tit-pics-free-nude-pics.htmlLatinporn sites. Bonitas desnudas pants down smack bottom naked preteen models bang my wife videos shake your groove thing naked beaver los invasores de nuevo leon bbs loli index a pay sites][/url]

Posted by: Konstandinos | March 6, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Hammm... Nice article... Interesting.

[url=http://betty-bod4tx.blogspot.com/] [/url]

Posted by: Stelios | March 5, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

pu0lt5uybbkj http://www.578391.com/163474.html > w68uayaloebbpv [URL=http://www.1082323.com/173924.html] tg4wa66k2krn6e [/URL] o0pcvdtkcoi0dpfv

Posted by: ltyk4piwks | February 27, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

lvok gcujq zvtdoyu emqj jtklxpg rwsjcvo xcnp http://www.pivnegw.xjvergtf.com

Posted by: xikfnrajm lishnj | February 26, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

polj hrkdlenxf tsqfgw vyboafdrt ediktlno vijm tjmnlg

Posted by: liyp qtomdgscj | February 26, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

sbxfihaqu8m3g http://www.615089.com/1000813.html > 1uc92jzxm6db04wjb [URL=http://www.1001361.com/754768.html] asjswqofenlsw [/URL] zxr4ygfpkm

Posted by: ez90n65yn9 | February 24, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

7dw4cx5gdc [URL=http://www.140849.com/986535.html] l7okwy2zgt5k96 [/URL] ptrpeq9v9n4hd2p9

Posted by: xfrzcj4538 | February 24, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

7dw4cx5gdc http://www.311216.com/528333.html > n4m5t6jcph [URL=http://www.140849.com/986535.html] l7okwy2zgt5k96 [/URL] ptrpeq9v9n4hd2p9

Posted by: xfrzcj4538 | February 24, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

7dw4cx5gdc http://www.311241.com/764726.html ptrpeq9v9n4hd2p9

Posted by: xfrzcj4538 | February 24, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

nu8ullyi1j9 http://www.838810.com/165672.html > cxk7lvtt0 [URL=http://www.818841.com/877827.html] 44b2han9u9d9t5 [/URL] rwx7ur3mcgb4

Posted by: hg960l0tnw | February 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

7xpice9i7742ueke http://www.817274.com/1091210.html > 6asmjl2oa [URL=http://www.612322.com/300542.html] jd82u5c8h8ynqw [/URL] rtdsojsausk

Posted by: slvzwpxm1c | February 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Hello, you did a great work on your site

Posted by: tiffanys | February 22, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

ht44x6e4sv28 http://www.377925.com/995605.html > 2ixejedrv7 [URL=http://www.956795.com/1028962.html] 8y8l6mg9st [/URL] 53ofs3hoa82syw3ph

Posted by: 7hzybjrupe | February 21, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

yacz83czhqe http://www.850791.com/742490.html > 1wdg7fd0aizf7 [URL=http://www.209850.com/130328.html] fvrosnw0cs2 [/URL] kbkcns71u642h

Posted by: ge1xusuhxy | February 20, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Hi, I find this article very useful. It has some nice thoughts.
Continue working in the same way.

Posted by: Male Enhancement | February 19, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

z8qjeffg1 http://www.779541.com/171183.html > eyxfoo8hxrk1 [URL=http://www.353151.com/826396.html] mfwmgfzm4g6anjlr [/URL] nkpl0hg4lqs4j8b6f

Posted by: 7strteiw1r | February 19, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

kevin devoto writes: This is insightful and helpful. Please bring more of this to our attention. thanks kevin devoto

Posted by: kevin devoto | February 19, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

etfbuzbs4 http://www.430669.com/974808.html > 3p30427vbgde [URL=http://www.336294.com/246214.html] g8e1boow8 [/URL] s90xnki4tz

Posted by: au6ma68jdv | February 16, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

aeyavaxze3p http://www.597738.com/439956.html > icpvyp6haz [URL=http://www.381138.com/233555.html] yhjdb9v27fp9 [/URL] 30njccd5syat

Posted by: f84trfk57l | February 13, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Clinton didn't get rid of Doyle because shes latino. And for all that think they know Obama, you should look at his voting record:
ABORTION
NO SB 230 (1997)
To prohibit partial-birth abortion unless necessary to save the life of a mother and makes performance of the procedure a Class 4 felony for the physician
NO SB 485 (1999)
To give no offer of "good time" for sex offenders sentenced to the County Jail.
*Obama was the only vote against this measure
NO HB 1812 (1999)
To require school boards to install software on public computers accessible to minors to block sexually explicit material.
YES SB 880 (2003)
To allow the purchase of 10 hypodermic needles from a pharmacy without a prescription

Posted by: Janet | February 12, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I have talked to a lot of non democrats who like Obama, I know of a couple of people who have changed their party affiliation to vote for him. There is a growing movement of famous republicans endorsing or considering endoring Obama.

Colin Powell
Susan Eisenhower
Lincoln Chafee
Tricia Mosley


There is talk of a sitting republican senator considering backing Obama. No one in the Senate likes McCain, some think he is dangerous.

We could have dominate every level of government for a generation with all the young people and new democrats.

Obama does surprisingly well among evangelical Christians, an important constituency in swing states and polls much higher then McCain. Hillary gets none of these people.

It is pretty hard to win the Presidency when 47% of the country says they would never vote for Hillary and she has a solid base of 39%, that means your opponent only has to win 4%, not much room for error.

Posted by: Mike | February 12, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

John McCain won't win, with his legendary anger problems and his foot in mouth syndrome his only chance is if he is running against Hillary. Heck he might not even make it to November, would probably be the best case scenerio for Republicans.

Quotes by McCain

They're all Hispanic, ... And I bet you they're illegal.

I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live.

We will be in Iraq for 100 years.

Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war.

I'm not interested in economics.

'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got Greenspan's book'

Notice he didn't say he read the book. He is going to look like an angry, goofy, lost old man, it is going to be sad.

his own party hates him.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

"They should look at the states Obama won with his caucus mini votes (he knew he didn't have a chance in the big states) and then check out the 2000 and 2004 states that the republicans won. Clinton won the states democrats need to win plus Tennessee, Florida and Arkansas"

That is stupid, Democrats are going to win the states Hillary won anyway, and with INDs and Obamacans he will win states she would never be able to. Not only that but he brings new people into the party, making the party the dominate party for decades. If she wins it will be like the last time they will cost us the congress, governors and state houses, people have short memories.

Posted by: frank | February 12, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

how does she have more experience?

He has more time in Government.
more times elected to office.
has sponsered more bills.
Authered more bills.
He has more experiance as an elected official.
Was the only candidate right about the Iraq war.
pushed ethic and lobbying reforms.
Is known for unquestionable ethics.
Designated as the senate point man for ethics.
1st African-American president of the Harvard Law Review
Earned everything he has achieved, didn't get it through marriage.
Sponsered a bill so any American can go online and see how their money is spent.
Fought for veterans benefits and rights.
and sits on the foreign relations, homeland security and Veterans affairs committees to name a few.


Age and being someone's wife isn't experience to be a President.

Posted by: John | February 12, 2008 6:34 AM | Report abuse

Hillary who was the favorite by double digits throughout the country a week before the Iowa caucus, is now trailing Obama in delegate count and number of wins. Regardless of whether she wins the primaries by a few delegates due to superdelegate support or not, she does not have the means to bring in the independents during the general election. If Hillary wins the primary, the independents will side with the republicans as they have traditionally done. The Clinton divide and conquer mantra has just become the Clinton divisive mantra. They have not been able to do the conquer part. Obama on the other hand has shown strength by running a clean campaign with the theme of uniting the country rather than dividing it into latinos, blacks, men, women etc. There in lies the strengths of Obama that will propel him to the white house in November.

Posted by: Jim Pendleton | February 12, 2008 5:56 AM | Report abuse

I am from Hillery's generation, I voted twice for Bill Clinton. If Hillery, Bill and the DNC manage to steal this election from Obama with their back-room, crooked, underhanded deals, she still will not win in November, because that 50% of African-Americans she needs to support her will stay at home including me. If everything is fair and above-board that will be a different, I will support her even though she said she did not need the African-American vote because I want to see a democrate in the White House but only if the nomination is fair and above-board.

Posted by: sunni | February 11, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Reading so many of these comments, it is easy to see why Democrats have been the Minority party. We deserve it. The same logic that claimed in 2000 that there was no difference between Gore and Bush so vote for Nader is now saying we should vote for Obama or McCain, Clinton or McCain, but God forbid, not Obama or Clinton. This is simply moronic. The triumph of emotion over self-interest, the very mirror image of Republicanism. Are there no adults in this country?

Posted by: J. Myers | February 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Snakebaby:

When you say Obama is heading a cult . . .

When you say he thinks he's Jesus . . .

When you say he's just the same old Washington Politician who will turn his back on his promises . . .

Then: I say you are spewing, yes. Maybe if you had offered a fact to support your foul opinion. But even then: are you a Democrat, or are you not? Why are you slandering our potential nominee? Aren't you burning the village in order to save it?

And what makes you so sure I'm for Obama? Because I criticized you? I think I took his supporters to task as well. I don't remember expressing a preference here. Maybe actual balance looks partisan to you.

Posted by: J. Myers | February 11, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Um...Don't count her out yet! Have you noticed that Hillary has won the popular vote? All those little caucuses do not add up to many votes. She is still ahead in fundraising (O beat her handily in January, but she had beat him each month for 6 months prior). 120,165 new donors so far for Hillary in January - they raised $10 million in 4 days. Look at opensecrets.org for facts.

She can lose VA/MD/DC and still win with States in March and April.

O gets African Americans, wealthy, white males, and young people. H gets Hispanics, older people, working class and women. Neithor is making much of a dent in each other's base so it is obvious that she will prevail. Her base is the largest.

I started out for Obama - his speeches and philosophy moved me to tears. Then I started looking at their record and history. Her experience is varied and deep. Love her or hate her - she is the smartest, most accomplished candidate for President in my lifetime.

I am proud to cast my vote tomorrow for a woman that inspires me. Hillary 2008!

Posted by: Rob G | February 11, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Interesting comments. I am a white 49 year old male Republican and a retired military officer. I have always voted Republican. But this year - I had time to do a LOT of research on each candidate on both sides, watched all debates, and am surprised to discover that I feel very strongly that Hillary is the best candidate. My wife and 2 grown kids have also been impressed. We had NO idea just how much she had accomplished. The media really needs to concentrate on substance. So count us as Republicans for Hillary. If she does not get the nomination - we will vote for McCain. EXPERIENCE MATTERS.

Posted by: James Washington | February 11, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

There is a pattern in Hillary's campaign strategy. For the first phase bring all the surrogates to paint a bad picture of Obama's color, faith and name. This included Shaheen, Kerrey, and the many surrogates who were planted among the audience. Then distance from these surrogates. Second phase play good cop/bad cop with hubby Bubba. Use Bubba to paint a picture of Obama's victories are due to race. Third phase use Patty who is a latino to get the latino votes in California. Now there is no use for Patty anymore. Put a black woman at the helm to get to black women voters.

There is also another pattern which is very disturbing. All the people Hilary has helping her out are the same old folks who were associated with her during the Clinton fiasco of the 90s. Now do we think these people will have any new ideas to change this country. I guess not. Hillary's world is the 60s and 90s. She is where she is because of the elderly women voters who are willing to give her a try because she is a woman.

The Clintons have no new ideas or political allys. We will see the same old travelgate, whitewater, and Bubba's skirt chasing hallways in the white house iff the Clintons get back into power. What is more disgusting is that, Madeline Albright will be back going after unknown places like Kosovo to drop off a few bombs. How many people had heard of Kosovo before Madeline Albright was appointed secratary of state because of the tantrums of Hillary to put her friend in power. USA did nothing about Pakistan making their nuclear bomb while Bill Clinton was in power, only becuase Madeline Albright and Hillary were making visits to Kosovo.

Posted by: Nick Canard | February 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

How is Obama going to win without 50% of the Democratic party behind him?

Obama supporters may hate Senator Clinton, but most Americans like her and everyone old enough to remember (which does cut out most Obama supporters!!!) love what life was like under Bill Clinton.

The bottom line is that Clinton supporters will remember every slight, every insult, every bellow the belt kick Obama supporters have given the woman who should be our next President.

If Obama wins the primary, he loses the election.

Its that simple.

Obama supporters should enjoy themselves while they can.

Its going to be a short party.

Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt | February 11, 2008 01:10 PM
--------------------------
Easily! 50 percent of Americans DISLIKE Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama won Louisiana and Maine by very good margins. He won Nebraska, Washington, and The Virgin Islands by a landslide. :)

Posted by: NinaK | February 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

How is Obama going to win without 50% of the Democratic party behind him?

Obama supporters may hate Senator Clinton, but most Americans like her and everyone old enough to remember (which does cut out most Obama supporters!!!) love what life was like under Bill Clinton.

The bottom line is that Clinton supporters will remember every slight, every insult, every bellow the belt kick Obama supporters have given the woman who should be our next President.

If Obama wins the primary, he loses the election.

Its that simple.

Obama supporters should enjoy themselves while they can.

Its going to be a short party.

Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt | February 11, 2008 01:10 PM
--------------------------
Easily! 50 percent of Americans DISLIKE Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama won Louisiana and Maine by very good margins. He won Nebraska, Washington, and The Virgin Islands by a landslide. :)

Posted by: NinaK | February 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Truth:

1) Mr. Obama has chosen the right people to manage and work in his campaigne on day one of his announcement to run for President.

2) Mr. Obama's campaign has been cohesive and steady. No loose cannons!

2) Mr. Obama and his teams have budgeted their campaign funds wisely

3) Mr. Obama has run a clean and effective campaign

4) Mr. Obama speaks to the people and not at the people

5) Mr. Obama IS THE SOURCE AND POWER behind the large crowds showing up to vote and at caucus. This is absolutely phenomenal!

6) Mr. Obama unites, not only Democrats, but Independents and Republications to vote for him.

7) Mr. Obama reaches to all people, regardless of age, race, and gender.

8) Mr. Obama has particularly energized the young people of America to become involved in the political process of a Presidential election. Absolutely awesome!

7) Mr. Obama has a long and impressive record of substantive "accomplishments"; he has authored and co-authored 2,000+ Bills as Senator of Illinois and as a U.S. Senator. All of his bills are subtantive and many have become law. He definitely surpasses his oponent's record of 20 bills as a 6 year U.S. Senator. Her accommplishments consist of naming libraries, courthouse, and postoffices, greeting ball players, speaking at funerals, etc. All fluff and NO substance.

I want the following characteristics in my President:

GOOD CHARACTER
INTEGRITY
HONESTY
GOOD JUDGEMENT
WISDOM
STEADFASTNESS
LEADERSHIP SKILLS
MANAGEMENT SKILLS
STABILITY
COHESIVENESS
SUPERIOR ORATORY SKILLS
DIVERSIVENESS
THE ABILITY TO UNITE

Mr. Obama has exhibited these unwavering characteristics throughout his campaign.

I believe how a candidate runs his/her campaign is the litmus test as to how well he/she will govern. I believe Mr. Obama has passed the litmus test and that is why America is uniting behind and around him.


YES, WE CAN!!! YES WE WILL!!!


Posted by: NinaK | February 11, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama's Negatives Will Rise; Hillary's Are Already Factored In. Sen. Obama himself has been saying that even after a year, voters in places like Texas and Florida don't really know him that well. So how much do independent voters know about Barack Obama, his voting record and his past positions? Even less than Democrats know. For example, he recently told voters in Idaho that he favors the Second Amendment - but he didn't mention that, in the past, he supported a complete ban on all handguns. If he were the nominee, the Republican attack machine would have immediately rolled out his full record - and his independent Idaho support would have evaporated. So far, the Republicans have been laying low. Sen. Obama has never faced a credible Republican opponent or the Republican attack machine, so voters are taking a chance that his current poll numbers will hold up after the Republicans get going. With Hillary, the GOP has already tried just about every attack and has failed. Those attacks are already factored in her ratings, where she remains competitive against Sen. McCain. But when it comes to Sen. Obama this is a big unknown, and the likelihood is that his negatives will rise.

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

fzdybel: it would be silly of you to 100% trust those poll numbers, also do you know how these polls are conducted? Who have participated? Are those people's opinions reflect what would really happen in the general election?

Aloof: well done!

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Please do not vote for Obama for the following reasons.

1.He cannot take a firm stand on any issues.He will become another Bush if elected to office
2. He is weak in Foreign Affairs. He need to learn how to be diplomatic
3. He is arrogant towards Clinton, you will see his arrogance if he wins Nomination.
he snubbed Clinton. if Hillary did the same thing, the media would have made it a big issue
4.Youth like Obama because due to his drugs
5. Youth doesn't foresee future.They voted for him seeing his Rock Concert
6. Obama cannot win blue collar votes which will be very crucial in Nov
7. He still has ties with Muslim Countries
8. He became Christian to become American President, but not for Jesus Christ.
9.He hates Jews, he is pro Palestine
10.He is gaining white votes based on his Gender and black votes because of his Race.

Please don't fall into his trap.
He is not God to Change our Lives, and say Yes We Can. By Aloof|Feb 11, 2008 01:49 PM
------------------------------------------
ALOOF, THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO VOTE FOR MR. OBAMA:

"Senator Clinton has based her campaign on an erroneous claim to greater legislative and administrative experience. Former President Clinton talks up her role in his administration on the campaign trail but pointedly refuses to release any documents that would provide greater details on her actual activities there. It is broadly understood that Hillary spearheaded the response team that staved off Republican attacks and spun the many scandals of the Clinton years. As to her Senate record, no one in the press has had the diligence to lay out her record for the public to assess.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.
__________________________________________

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits. I challenge Clinton supporters to name a single legislative accomplishment that demonstrates her superior experience."Posted by: Mark | February 4, 2008 9:39 PM
------------------------
As eveyone can see, Mr. Obama's legislative experience is much greater than Hillarys. He has been very busy authoring and co-authoring substantive legislation for REAL CHANGE! Not only has he authored and co-authored these bills, many became the law.

Meanwhile, Hillary has been naming libraries, postoffices, and courthouses, etc, all of her "legistion" bespeaks of fluff and NO SUBSTANCE.

WE WANT AND NEED A DOER AS OUR LEADER!!
WE WANT AND NEED A PERSON OF GOOD CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, HONESTY, WISDOM, STABILITY, GOOD JUDGEMENT, LEADERSHIP SKILLS, AND SUPERIOR ORATORY SKILLS TO COMMUNITE WITH CONGRESS AND FOREIGN LEADERS. WE WANT A PERSON WHO HAS A KEEN KNOWLEDGE OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND WHO BELIEVES IN A "GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE". WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO TELLS US THE TRUTH!!

THIS IS WHY WE WANT AND NEED MR. OBAMA AS OUR PRESIDENT. THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT THE NOW AND THE FUTURE!!

MICHELLE IS A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, GRACIOUS, GRACEFUL, AND A LOVEY LADY WILL MAKE A WONDERFUL FIRST LADY. I'LL BE PROUD TO HAVE HER AS OUR FIRST LADY!


Posted by: NinaK | February 11, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama wins the nomination, Democrats lose the election."

You wish, jive Clinton turkey. Obama out-polls Hillary against McCain. Read it and weep.

Posted by: fzdybel | February 11, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm also curious why, either on TV or newspapers or internet, I've never seen Obama's middle name gets mentioned anywhere, while they often (if not always) mention Clinton's middle name? As such Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. You can find such format everywhere, that makes me wonder...Any ideas?

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Who do they think they are?

Edwards -- ending poverty in america
McCain -- no white flag in Iraq
Clinton -- univeral health care
Huckabee -- abolish IRS
Obama -- still fill-in-the-blank

American can not afford fill-in-the-blank candidate in the white house.

Posted by: Benson |
------------------

Benson, I'm happy to FILL IN THE BLANKS FOR YOU, AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO FEEL MR. OBAMA HAS NO SUBSTANCE: HERE IS INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM HILLARY'S AND MR. OBAMA'S SENATE RECORDS. THE LINK IS EVEN PROVIDED FOR YOU TO ACCESS THE SENATE RECORDS YOURSELVES.

"Senator Clinton has based her campaign on an erroneous claim to greater legislative and administrative experience. Former President Clinton talks up her role in his administration on the campaign trail but pointedly refuses to release any documents that would provide greater details on her actual activities there. It is broadly understood that Hillary spearheaded the response team that staved off Republican attacks and spun the many scandals of the Clinton years. As to her Senate record, no one in the press has had the diligence to lay out her record for the public to assess.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.
___________________

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits. I challenge Clinton supporters to name a single legislative accomplishment that demonstrates her superior experience.Posted by: Mark | February 4, 2008 9:39 PM

As you can see, Mr. Obama's senate record is awesomely substantial. He has been working hard to make real changes while Hillary has been busy naming libraries, courthouses, postoffices, etc., all accomplishments which do NOT have SUBSTANCE.

Posted by: NinaK | February 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt:

"Obama supporters do the opposite of what they preach, just like Obama himself."

The NY Times, whose editorial board endorsed Clinton, several days ago also wrote that SHE is the one who began the divisive rhetoric. The point I'm making is that Clinton supporters are like the bully who picks on someone, the picked-upon person turns around and wallops them, then the bully goes crying that the person they were picking on hit them. This goes to what I like about Obama: he's not antagonizing anyone, but if you attack him, he will kick your butt. The Clintons disparage, insult, cast aspersions, insert innuendoes, then look around like victims when it not only doesn't work, but turns out to have negative repercussions. I've seen them both up close. Obama's real. Hillary's fake.

Posted by: ed | February 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Jake:

How many debates are enough? I'm sorry I've only seen two. There are lots of questions out there unanswered. It's not like every time they can only talk about health care, attitude towards Iraq war this kind of general questions. If you ever watch Clinton's "national town hall" a while ago, people threw in so many specific questions and Hillary had to answer them all. That's just like having a debate. Yes, she wants to have more debates probably mostly because she's an underdog at this point and she really wants to have opportunities to show her strength in a free way. Except for Obama himself, I'm sure lots of people would prefer to see them together on stage. I have tons of questions I want to ask too. So having debates is absolutely necessary, if not once a week (it may be too much in my view). Are you confident on behalf of Obama that he would be able to take on all kinds of questions? Let's not talk about possible upcoming debates, just the past debates, I believe Obama should've done much better if he really knows everything in depth. If he gives "urh..Ummm" that kind that only indicates that he's not comfortable getting in the details, or how could it happen to a person who gives inspirational kind of speeches without a glitch?

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's campaign said that she fired her campaign manager, P. Solis-Doyle, because she failed to tell the candidate that she had money troubles.

Does anyone believe this?

And if it is true, then what does it say about HRC's ability to manage the federal budget?

Posted by: CTM | February 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"7. He still has ties with Muslim Countries
8. He became Christian to become American President, but not for Jesus Christ.
9. He hates Jews, he is pro Palestine"


Those sound like they are from the Legend on the Neocon's infamous Roadmap to Peace.


I'm disappointed that Mrs. Solis Doyle had to be fired. I was looking forwarding to seeing how the Republicans were going to attack Clinton through her, because her father was an illegal immigrant. I was also looking forward to the Clinton defense, because I'm sure they've had one ready since immigration became an issue.

Lastly, the Hillary Rally in Richmond on Saturday where President Clinton spoke, was attended mostly by women over 40. When is that group going to realize that the reason so many women under 30 are supporting Obama over Clinton is because "You won!" Your daughters and granddaughters are not facing the same problems you faced in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Title IX and Affirmitive Action worked. Maybe not perfectly, but young women obviously are not still hung-up on the issues of the past. Obama's line saying the nation should not "build a bridge back to the 20th century." couldn't be more correct here. Ladies when you support Sen. Clinton simply because she is a woman, you're looking in the rear view mirror.

Posted by: DC | February 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Snakebaby: Does Obama feel comfortable in debates? You or I do not know the answer. What we do know is that there have been too many debates so far and there has already been a one on one debate. All that will happen in future debates is the same issues will be regurgitated. And Obama can argue the issues, but apparently some Clinton supporters think she automatically wins debates just by showing up. She would never have asked for a debate a week if things were going her way. Kudos to him for not caving in and that being said he gave her two. Can you honestly ask for more?

Posted by: Jake | February 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bobby morgan:

"everyone should remember that hillary is the wife of the man who said i am sorry that the USA dropped the bomb and saved an untold number of american lives even tho you struck the first blow."

The U.S. struck the first blow by invading Japan under Matthew Perry, forcing the Japanese to open their ports to American trade. It was "gunboat diplomacy," American style. Britain, France, Spain, and the Netherlands had also invaded Asia, to extract its wealth, wrest away the land, enslave or exterminate the natives, and establish colonies. The U.S. was trying to catch up.

Posted by: ed | February 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Ronnie Ruff DC:

Thank you! You pointed out the "attitude", that's fair enough. So I'd confirm that the "change" and "new directions" are still the words in his speeches with his attitude and such people tend to give him a chance, correct? That's fair enough, I have no problem with Obama supporters saying that. Although I have to emphysize that words are just words, tones are just tones, raised voice is just raised voice, some people are quite good at giving that kind of speeches while others aren't. Obama might be able to do what he says in the future, but there's definitely no guarantee here - the ability of giving this kind of speeches doesn't qualify one as a good candidate (though it can be a plus), especially throw in the fact that Obama has problems debating specific issues and he's been refusing to have any debates with Clinton. If he's so good at inspirational speeches, why isn't he comfortable with public debates? One possible reason is he might have problems getting into details! I'd be happy to see him 8 years down the road. I have the full confidence that he'd be a great president in another 8 years! I'd be happy to vote for him by then.

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

It looks like you got some vote fraud hankypanky, and selling of votes going on in the democratic caucuses. Obama seems to be doing disproportionately well in the caucuses where it is easier to commit vote fraud, and sell votes. Obama has not been doing as well in the non caucus primary's where you can't cheat the vote as easily.

I smell a pole cat. I smell the Karl Rove vote fraud machine at work. This looks like past presidential elections where most voters leaving the poles said they voted for the other guy. But Bush still won. No wonder Obama thinks the republicans have some good ideas. Apparently a lot of republicans are voting for Obama in the democratic caucuses.

The insurance companies, and medical industry that have been ripping you off, and killing you are determined to keep you, the American people from having good universal health care. So it seems they are supporting Obama. Along with the republican vote fraud machine.

This looks like a great story for a team of aggressive investigative reporters. Or maybe some good documentary film makers like Michael Moore, or Oliver Stone.

If I were the Clinton's, I would focus like a laser bean on what has been going on in the democratic caucuses. No wonder the Republicans like Obama so much. Looks like he's their man in the democratic caucuses.

I'm absolutely convinced now that Hillary Clinton is your best choice for good universal health care coverage. And HR 676 (Medicare For All). "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

They really think you are all stupid, inattentive cash cows... It may be time to bring back Bad Bill.

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

To those who say Obama can't win without Hillary supporters...are you going to vote for McCain. Cut off your head to spite your body? I was in a small town caucus, but everyone there seemed to think that Dems need to win no matter what. It seems that a few (definitely not a majority) of Clinton supporters have been with her ever since she announced her candicacy in 2001. It makes you angry that someone has challenged her. Do yourself a favor and talk to other supporters. They do not all feel the same way as you.

Posted by: Jake | February 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

J. Myers:

You made some points here which at the same time unveiled the fact that in general Obama supporters tend to bash the other candidate with often far more negative feelings compare to Hillary's supporters. But you said I "spew a gut-full of ugly rancor", what did you mean? Am I not telling the facts? Also was it ugly of the previous comment I put in here? You are welcome to disagree, but putting it this way only shows you that you are not seeing and feeling what others seeing and feeling with your eyes pretty much blind folded, and you refuse to admit what is out there. No candidates are perfect, they are just as greedy (including Clinton), they run president for themselves, they do and say anything to get elected (Obama is definitely not excluded from this). In a word, be realistic and fair, no matter how much you like your candidate, painting him as like Jesus or some sort of hero is simply too funny and beyond one's imagination. In the end, let's all wait for Jesus to come along with his father!!!!

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

So,the stop the b---- movement gets votes by white guys for Obama; Obama gets the nomination; McCain gets white guys votes in the final and the Republicans win! It's still likely that "good ole" boys won't vote for a black guy!!!!!

Posted by: Larry | February 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"Tony has it right. Democrats are nothing but groupies who love feeling good so they continually pick losers. They should look at the states Obama won with his caucus mini votes (he knew he didn't have a chance in the big states) and then check out the 2000 and 2004 states that the republicans won. Clinton won the states democrats need to win plus Tennessee, Florida and Arkansas. If Obama wins the nomination he and his soaring oratory will be toast."

Look at the Republican numbers in the primaries and then that of the Democrats... Not good news for our Red friends

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Snake Baby:

The change Obama offers is in attitude. Hillary only talks of battling Republicans. This is the mindset of the 90s. Americans want a different attidude of listening and working through differences for the good of the public.

Posted by: Ronnie Ruff DC | February 11, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The fat lady is getting warmed up- it's almost over for Billary!!!
OBAMA 08!!!!!

Posted by: hsg | February 11, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Snakebaby, it doesn't count if you say one nice thing about a candidate and then spew a gut-full of ugly rancor the next moment. Your message just expresses the pure sour grapes of a nervous partisan. Instead, try expressing where Hillary is a superior candidate, and you might actually convince someone. If Obama is so obviously weak, this should be an easy matter.

Ditto in reverse for you Obama supporters. I'm especially disappointed when you pick up on and repeat the ugliest tid-bits of the Republican rumor mill. This is not the sort of "Change" that should inspire an undecided voter.

If your goal is to change minds, you must approach the other with respect. If your goal is to spew vindictive, please take it to a private partisan site where you won't be damaging your candidate in a public forum.

Posted by: J. Myers | February 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm not saying Obama isn't a good man. He is great, young and ambitious, much to admire especially by young people. But...

Why do people make such a big deal when a change like this happened to Clinton campaign? What would people react IF similar change happened to Obama's? I have to agree that media has been opposed to Clintons unfairly. Media can talk for hours in various shows should Bill says anything negative or attacking, or even a small gesture, but no one seems to bother mentioning when Obama does the same! Because of this I'm voting for Clinton! Also can anyone tell me in specifics what "change" or "new directions" that O has been saying all along? Does the ability of delivering rhetoric speeches which even resulted in more and more cult-like feelings qualify the person as the best candidate for president? Is that person truly for real when everyone around including himself painted him as like Jesus? When you say O has good ideas and plans, are you saying that Clinton doesn't have them? The list can go on and on...Please be fair, be square, be realistic, and most importantly: calm down and think with your brain other than just scream "yeh, yeh, yes we can..., we are the change, you are the Jesus, bring us to the new direction..." that kind! I'll bet you on this: if Obama gets elected as the president, he'd be the same old Washington politician carrying only his traditional health care, military plans etc. as his so called "change" and "new directions"!

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"....does the Obama team really think that they will take the nomination away from someone who has won primaries in states commanding over 215 electoral votes, if they have only won primaries in states commanding roughly a third that number?"

Will the Superdelegates, when push comes to shove, vote for Obama because of wins in states that are likely to go red anyway?

Ohio, Texas, and Penn are states that Obama must win one of, decisevely, to take the nomination away from Clinton.

The media is enjoying the show and getting everyone excited, but the Media are not focusing onthe numbers and being honest about Hillary's real chances of winning this thing.

Posted by: HillaryMan | February 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Who do they think they are?

Edwards -- ending poverty in america
McCain -- no white flag in Iraq
Clinton -- univeral health care
Huckabee -- abolish IRS
Obama -- still fill-in-the-blank

American can not afford fill-in-the-blank candidate in the white house.

Posted by: Benson | February 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Based on the success of his campaign and having outlasted Hillary, Obama has shown a great ability to plan against an opponent who is strong and well-entrenched. Hillary unfortunately has not planned for a "worst case scenario", the what ifs. Granted Hillary was the "expected" nominee before Obama became a serious contender, this campaign gives a foreshadowing of what Obama can do to McCain. Hillary thinks like McCain or Bush in a manner of speaking. Too much confidence on their positions blinds them to the strengths of their rivals. As in war, know your enemies.

Posted by: M. Stratas | February 11, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters don't understand.

You can't win without 50% of Democrats.

Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt | February 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

How will Obama win? ..19 Million democratic votes to date, 12 Million republican votes to date in the primary elections. This record turnout is almost entirely due to the message of Obama and the lameness of the last 8 years of republican leadership, and has nothing to due with Clinton politics or inspiration.

Posted by: Chris Wadlington | February 11, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Democrats have two excellent candidates. Both are very close to each other on policy issues and far superior to any possible Republican candidate. Each is trying very hard not to paint the other as inferior or bad. Each will support the other in a general election. The commenters who are slinging mud here and promising to take their vote and go home if they lose should go home now and spare us any more of their juvenile and ill-considered reflections.

What we need to do is argue the candidates' relative strengths, not denigrate one to make the other seem better. Our country dearly needs an end to such zero-sum games. These discussions are not going to convince Independents that Democrats are any more likely than Republicans to move the country beyond the destructive partisanship of the last many years. Each person who submits comments in this negative vein is explicitly denying one of the primary promises that his or her own candidate is making to the American people in the election: an end to such petty rancor. So just stop it.

On the actual topic: clearly Hillary needs to adjust her campaign. She is far from beaten but her organization must be refined and strengthened if she is to achieve the sort of substantial margin of victory that will avoid a difficult battle at the convention. That she is making adjustments now is merely an indication of solid common sense.

Posted by: J. Myers | February 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Chief Two Dogs, you are so right.. I desperately need medicine man (where can I find him?)....hurry.... but PLEASE no Obama / Hillary / McCain or what's his name right now.

Posted by: Washington DC | February 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The real issue about HRC's shakeup of the campaign was the revelation that she had no idea after New Hampshire that her campaign was running out of money! What does that say about her judgment on Day 1? Perhaps campaigns should not be so much about money. However, they are, and her failure to establish an effective internet operation and her failure to keep track of her campaigns finances do not speak well of her ability to govern. Plus she is the only person who can unite Republicans (fairly or unfairly--but if you tout your so-called experience in the White House you have to take the bad with the good). She is a smart woman, far better than any Republican, but she does not have vision, cannot unite the country and most importatnly, will have a hard time defeating McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters do the opposite of what they preach, just like Obama himself.

Republicans will tear him to pieces.

Be careful of what you ask for. You just might get it!!!

If Obama wins the nomination, Democrats lose the election.

Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt | February 11, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama would be foolish to let them neutralize him the way they did Gore. If he loses fair and square, so be it. He'll be back.

BTW Svreader, I see your Paul Krugman and raise you a Maureen Dowd, a Frank Rich and an E.J.Dionne.
That's not even counting the Jeff Jacoby and Bill Kristol I've got up my sleeve.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | February 11, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

A Clinton/Obama ticket ? Wake up, Clintonistas. It kills Obama's strengths, and 2/3 of the electorate (GOPs and indies) will vote for McCain.

An Obama/Clinton ticket ? Same.

A Clinton/Whoever ticket: still get the GOPs and indies going for McCain.

Look: this is politics: votes count : perceptions count: and the perception of 2/3s of the public is that they do not want Hilary or Bill near the WhiteHouse.

Obama, on the other hand, will capture the indies, and won't give the GOP the powerful organizing tool of a Hilary candidacy.

Obama, w/ the right running mate (Jim Webb's the obvious choice to me: makes it okay for military folks and white males and Reagan Democrats and other Republicans and independents to vote for Obama) will win in a landslide. Hilary would lose in same.

Try to take the blinders off and see the practical route.

-- stan


Posted by: Stanley Krute | February 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

That's funny - have we not forgotten that polls are OFTEN WRONG????? Many have complained that the Clintons ahve used polls too frequently, but now many of those same people are dismissing her because of polls. Ironic how she's da__ed if she does and da__ed if she doesn't. And the press as well as anyone who doesn't want her as a candidate, simply pick and choose the instances that support their own position. True news reporting is dead - another truely sad day for America. Persuasion is the name of the game now ----

Posted by: whsmhrth | February 11, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Washington DC, you should seek out the medicine man. You seem to have lost your way many moons ago. Both medicine man and Obama will help with your sickness.

Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | February 11, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

It was clear two months ago, that the time will come Obama is infirst place of the nommination. Against the whole establishment and main parts of all the lobby groups. As long as HRC was in lead, all commentators were gentle in writing nice stories abaout Obama, because, she was first.
Now step by step the task for the Krugmann's and Cohen's orchestrate with Lobby and Arms Industry will try harder, they now have to realize, thatthe Clinton boat is sinking. Now they will count more superdelegates, which did not vote so far, they will count at the end Michigan and Florida, they will do whatsoever is legally possible to avoide, Hillary and Billy are loosing the game.
I bed, that couple can not go along with it,they have lost the race. Then will are going to see the real face, the real character and the dirty thinking of a dynasty. I hope, it will take more time up to the bitter end of the clintons. They damage themseles at the time beimg.


Posted by: John | February 11, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Please do not vote for Obama for the following reasons.

1.He cannot take a firm stand on any issues.He will become another Bush if elected to office
2. He is weak in Foreign Affairs. He need to learn how to be diplomatic
3. He is arrogant towards Clinton, you will see his arrogance if he wins Nomination.
he snubbed Clinton. if Hillary did the same thing, the media would have made it a big issue
4.Youth like Obama because due to his drugs
5. Youth doesn't foresee future.They voted for him seeing his Rock Concert
6. Obama cannot win blue collar votes which will be very crucial in Nov
7. He still has ties with Muslim Countries
8. He became Christian to become American President, but not for Jesus Christ.
9.He hates Jews, he is pro Palestine
10.He is gaining white votes based on his Gender and black votes because of his Race.

Please don't fall into his trap.
He is not God to Change our Lives, and say Yes We Can.

Posted by: Aloof | February 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I am a life long dem, but for the first time I understand what Republicans were complaining about in the 90s. Both Hillary and Bill are ruthless, I just never saw it before this campaign. They convinced all Democrats that the "right wing conspiracy" was after them. The truth is they made bad decisions (Travel Gate, Monica, holding healthcare meetings in private, etc. etc. etc. All of that drama was self inflicted and avoidable.)

They have no sense of imagination, a complete sense of entitlement, and can't imagine winning in any way that does not involve personal destruction. I am so sick of this. Obama offers Dems a path to stay true to liberal principles without compromising on character or values.

Any candidate that can beat the Clinton's can beat the Republicans. If Obama can beat Clinton, he can beat Karl Rove and other R strategists. To me they are the same person on different sides of the ideological divide.

Posted by: things that make you go hmmm. | February 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

It was clear two months ago, that the time will come Obama is infirst place of the nommination. Against the whole establishment and main parts of all the lobby groups. As long as HRC was in lead, all commentators were gentle in writing nice stories abaout Obama, because, she was first.
Now step by step the task for the Krugmann's and Cohen's orchestrate with Lobby and Arms Industry will try harder, they now have to realize, thatthe Clinton boat is sinking. Now they will count more superdelegates, which did not vote so far, they will count at the end Michigan and Florida, they will do whatsoever is legally possible to avoide, Hillary and Billy are loosing the game.
I bed, that couple can not go along with it,they have lost the race. Then will are going to see the real face, the real character and the dirty thinking of a dynasty. I hope, it will take more time up to the bitter end of the clintons. They damage themseles at the time beimg.


Posted by: John | February 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Please do not vote for Obama for the following reasons.

1.He cannot take a firm stand on any issues.He will become another Bush if elected to office
2. He is weak in Foreign Affairs. He need to learn how to be diplomatic
3. He is arrogant towards Clinton, you will see his arrogance if he wins Nomination.
he snubbed Clinton. if Hillary did the same thing, the media would have made it a big issue
4.Youth like Obama because due to his drugs
5. Youth doesn't foresee future.They voted for him seeing his Rock Concert
6. Obama cannot win blue collar votes which will be very crucial in Nov
7. He still has ties with Muslim Countries
8. He became Christian to become American President, but not for Jesus Christ.
9.He hates Jews, he is pro Palestine
10.He is gaining white votes based on his Gender and black votes because if his Race.

Please don't fall into his trap.
He is not God to Change our Lives, and say Yes We Can.

Posted by: Aloof | February 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Sorry folks but I arrived at a fairly sad place a few elections back. It's gotten so bad now that when I hear all these ambitious politicians yapping away about how they've finally figured out how to provide jobs for all, end hunger, stop wars , bring everybody together, defeat nature .... yadda....yadda ...yadda it almost make me sick.

It's not that I am completely without hope and a pessimist to the 10th power...it's just that at every election I seem to hear the same old rhetoric. And it always turns out that no one can live up to those grand campaign promises. Yet when the cycle repeats itself a forever gullible public falls for it all again. I really believe lots of folks actually know better deep down but they do it for the excitement like going to the super bowl or something.

IMHO anyone who wants to be president these days doen't necessarily need realistic concrete answers to difficult problems but rather;

(1) The ability to raise large sums of money in order to pay top notch public relations firms and the like
(2) a look and sound that's appealing to the masses
(3) good timing / a fortunate fate
(4) healthy dose of plain old good luck when it comes to an extremely fickle 'public opinion variable'


I honestly feel that, no matter who are next president is, not much is going to really change before another election cycle comes around and stalls any progress towards solving some of these long term problems we are faced with and that can't be fixed in say an 8 year time frame with years 4 and 8 severly limited.

Posted by: Washington DC | February 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm much more interested in why stories like "Conflicting Assessments of War in Afghanistan" get buried day after day in favor of boxcar headlines about the soap opera -- er, I mean the primaries.

Posted by: Mobedda | February 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

BewareOfNixonLand, do not worry my son. Mr. Obama has the souls of the bear, fox and owl in him. Most importantly, he has the Irish spirit, which will see him through this perilous trip to the other side.

Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | February 11, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

If we Democrats aren't careful, we're going to lose this election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion

Posted by: BewareOfNixonLand | February 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Today is a good day to die. I've been holding on for years just for this moment. To see Hillary Clinton go down in flames makes my heart soar like an eagle! I will die a happy man.

Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | February 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama says, VET THIS! Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Posted by: ELECTED! | February 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I think what is underneath the anger of many anti-Clinton pro-Obama Americans is a residue of troubling questions and scandals - perhaps vetted - but largely unanswered from the old Clinton administration. Enough residue that - regardless of the truth factor - there are many with old vendettas waiting to pounce if they make it to the Whitehouse again. We are weary of these battles... I will not vote for her.

Posted by: L Jeanne | February 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's jump shots were stuffed, REJECTED!

Posted by: ELECTED! | February 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

svreader...just when I thought you were beyond hope..it seems you are seeing reality a little bit...good post :)

Posted by: maddogjts | February 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins, she'll pick Obama as VP and it will be a very close working relationship, similar to the one Bill Clinton and Al Gore had. Hillary is a great manager and mentor.

If Obama wins, he will do nothing to show the clinton part of the party that he respects them and is willing to earn their support.

If Hillary wins, Democrats win the election.

If Obama wins, Democrats lose the election.

Its that simple. Obama doesn't play well with others. Hillary does. Like most things Obama says, he actually does the opposite!!!

Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt | February 11, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Bill also shook up his campaign a little in 1992, sometimes you have to make adjustments as time goes on, this is would good leaders do-- they make adjustments to better serve th mission. I don't know why this is front page news.

By reading the Post you would think Hillary has one foot in the grave. Even after the weekend sweep she is only 60 delegates behind, yet she is ahead in the national popular vote by over 500,000 votes.

The nearly 4 million votes cast in Californian are a million more than the all the votes cast in North Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Kansas Idaho, Alabama,, Misouri, Georgia, Louisana, Alaska, and Delaware combined. States that Obama won. And the states Hillary has one thus far have more electoral votes than the states Obama has won.

Reporters keep touting the number of states as if it means something. Delegates are awarded proportionally by population. That's why Alaska only has 11 delegates up for grabs and California has 440. Only 405 people showed up to vote in Alaska and 17,000 in Idaho, which will go red in the general election even if Elmer Fudd is the GOP nominee.

So I wish the Post would quit playing up these little wins as ground breaking.

There is still along way to go until August-- Seven months, and half the delegates needed are still up for grabs.

While Obama scavanges the small game, Hillary will pass Obama in the bigger states of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

This thing will see-saw back and forth up until the convention, and I hope the super delegates will consider the popular vote as well as the pledged delegate count in making their decision.

I would hate to see a Florida 2000 again where the nominee wins without the popular vote.

I will vote for either candidate in the primary, but the treatment of Hillary in the press could cause all those who voted for Hillary to switch to McCain should she lose the nomination.

As women earn 78% on the male dollar, they also only get 78% of the press coverage when running for office, even when they're ahead.

The awful press coverage of Hillary just may inspire women, the largest voting block in America to go for McCain in the general should Obama win the primary. Women might be just that angry, my wife is livid.

-------------------------------------------

The Democratic Party will self destruct at the convention this August if rules are not established long before the super delegates arrive in Denver. If a nominee is not chosen cleanly and without controversy, he or she will be handicapped as the icon of racial and/or gender division going into the general election.

The legitimacy of the nominee will be questioned for years to come and the democratic party will be fractured for a long time. It could very well cost Democrats the election in November.

Supporters of the loser could very well toss their vote to the moderate McCain, who won't work to overturn Roe v. Wade and who has battled earmarks and pork barrel spending throughout his career.

The Super Delegate Transparency Project was recently established to bring accountability to the super delegates in how they cast their votes at the convention. The website is the super delegate watchdog-- designed to shame any super delegate who votes against the majority in their district.

The SDTP has already exposed some loyalties that are counterintuitive to the will of voters. Some super delegates are starting to pledge votes to candidates that did not win a majority vote in the primaries.

Some examples:

In California's District 1, Obama beat New York Senator Hillary Clinton by 16,951 votes (51,308 - 34,357), yet District 1 Super Delegate Maxine Waters pledged her vote to Clinton. This means 19,952 votes for Obama were essentially tossed out to give Clinton the win. This has angered many African Americans who overwhelmingly supported Obama in
District 1.

In California's District 39, Clinton won by 26,653 votes (47,516 - 20,863), yet Super delegate Linda Sanchez has pledged her vote to Illinois Senator Barack Obama. This means 26,654 votes for Clinton were essentially rejected by Sanchez. This has angered many of her Latino constituents who overwhelmingly supported Clinton by a 2.3 to 1 margin. This also means that a vote for Clinton was only worth .56 of a vote in Sanchez's district-- you are only worth a little over half a person there. Does the Voting Rights Act come into play here?

The most famous examples so far are Senator John Kerry and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. They've endorsed and publicly stumped for Obama in their home state, but will cast their super delegate votes for Obama at the convention. The two Senators could care less that Massachusetts overwhelmingly favored Clinton on Super Tuesday. So Obama is hypocrite to cry foul about the unfairness of super delegates if he has not asked John or ed to withdraw their super delegate votes.

Should the DNC actually allow super delegates to go unchecked in a tight election? Shouldn't there be some checks and balances that insure every vote is counted as a whole vote?

In addition to super delegates assigned at the district level, there are DNC appointed super delegates that include party insiders and DNC employees, including DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

How can they be impartial if they are not bound to a voting district? How would they justify the legitimacy of their super delegate vote?

Then there is the issue of the pledged delegate count versus the popular vote. Lets say candidate "A" shows up in Denver leading by 100,000 in the national popular vote, but 3 delegates behind candidate "B" in pledged delegates (pledged delegates must vote according to the primary outcomes). What rules will be in play then? Do we want the nominating process to look like the general election in 2000?

Bush's presidency has been plagued by illegitimacy because he won the election without winning the popular vote, he fell short more than 500,000 votes.

The issue of Florida and Michigan must also be settled, but how? Clinton does well in primaries and Obama does better in caucuses, but Obama also has done well in primaries. So now you need a third way of collecting votes.

One possibility would be to send every registered voter in Florida and Michigan an absentee ballot-- to be returned at least 60 days before the convention to be counted.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean needs to step up to the plate now and establish super delegate voting guidelines for the convention. Failure to do so will be yet another sign to the American people that our party is as inept in choosing a nominee-- as it is in running both houses of Congress.

No matter what the fix, the leadership of the DNC has to set the rules now. Last minute fixes will surely create suspicion, bitterness, and division within in the party for decades.

The failure of Dean to set things straight now will also tell us how lucky we were not to get him as President. Leadership requires stepping in on early signs of trouble, not sitting on the fence until it's too late.

It will be abhorrent if votes from Florida are ignored AGAIN in another election cycle.

It has been rumored that Dean likes Obama and doesn't want to open Michigan and Florida where Hillary would do well.

Mr. Dean?

Posted by: HillaryMan | February 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm convinced that Barack Obama is the best choice because of his vision and the ability to articulate it [such a pleasant change from the extant], as well as his ability to reach out to Independents and moderate Republicans; fast approaching my 7th decade and having survived "Canoe U.", the Cuban Crisis, Nam, et al, I sincerely believe it is time for a changing of the guard ... enough "Establishment", more than enough of rebubbacans [and I was one for 'til '74], way too much of the amerikan taliban being in charge of America's agenda ... let's give youth and vision a chance. I would have loved to be able to vote for a fellow alumnus; however, I just can't get the picture of "The Embrace" at the 2004 rebubbacan convention out of my mind, nor his obsequious pilgrimage to "liberty university" out of my craw ... far more accurate his statements about the "religious right" in 2000. None of this is meant to disparage Hillary Clinton, I think she'd make a good President. However, she's
-rightly or wrongly- a polarizing individual and has more to overcome with the electorate tha Obama. If it comes down to that FAIRLY and Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will support her ... but my FIRST CHOICE is Barack Obama.

However, having seen the lengths this misadministration has gone to to perpetuate itself and its agenda, I am not above believing that come August or September there will be an attempt by geo. dubya shrub and chaney to create a national security situation intended to enhance the credentials of John McCain ala "Wag the Dog"!

Posted by: USNA Ancient | February 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I believe Mr. Obama could even give Bill Clinton the job as Mayor of Simpleton, i.e., DC!

Posted by: ELECTED! | February 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Just a reminder to all of you who think that Hillary's campaign is dead. Don't dance on her grave just yet. Just last summer McCain's political obituary was being written. He was broke, had fired much of his staff or they had quit, ya da ya da ya da. He is now going to be the nominee of the Republican party.

Posted by: Gloria | February 11, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's problem is that she can't fire her opponent.

Posted by: bocasuds | February 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

OK, Clinton can have HUD, how about that. I feel very generous today.

Posted by: ELECTED! | February 11, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Duh! Watch what happens to the black vote in democratic party once the Clintons steal the election from Obama. The majority may not vote for McCain, but they sure as hell will not vote for Hillary, which equals a win for McCain.

Posted by: Homer | February 11, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

With McCain as the Rep nominee, you can forget it. Democrats want change, one way or another. Huckabee is a different story, perhaps.

Personally though, give me Ron Paul!

Posted by: davidmwe | February 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Watch what happens in Florida. Hillary is going to fight for the delgates even though she signed a pledge not to do that very thing. But with the Clinton's we no how much a pledge is worth. I hope all you die hard Hill Fans will see what 52% of Americans have known for years. Can you say supreme court again?

Posted by: Mark in Florida | February 11, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Cry baby cry!

Your pleas for joining the Obama ticket are REJECTED!

Posted by: ELECTED | February 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

How is Obama going to win without 50% of the Democratic party behind him?

Obama supporters may hate Senator Clinton, but most Americans like her and everyone old enough to remember (which does cut out most Obama supporters!!!) love what life was like under Bill Clinton.

The bottom line is that Clinton supporters will remember every slight, every insult, every bellow the belt kick Obama supporters have given the woman who should be our next President.

If Obama wins the primary, he loses the election.

Its that simple.

Obama supporters should enjoy themselves while they can.

Its going to be a short party.

Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt | February 11, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

McCain? He has close to no chance against Obama or Clinton for that matter:

Obama vs. McCain- The Internet Indicators:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

Posted by: davidmwe | February 11, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton supporters don't hold together and show up, she might lose. No doubt about that.

If she loses, I will wait for the Republican tearing down of Obama to begin. Not because I dislike Obama. But if he doesn't lose presidency it will be a victory for Hate shown by the Media and Obama supporters. I say it plainly: every torpedo Republicans send Obama's way will be celebrated by me. I will mark it with a posting here. It will be my healing. It will make me feel once more - there is justice in this universe after all. FOX will be my cable channel. Wall Street Journal my newspaper.

You may win this round, O'supporters. But I will see you in the next one.

Posted by: SubstanceOverStyle | February 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I still don't understand why no one is concerned about how having dynastic rule degrades our democracy as a whole.

This is a much bigger issue than the qualities of one candidate or the other. Frankly the idea of one family accumulating and utilizing so much power scares me.

Giving any person the power of the presidency is a bit scary, but to consolidate the power in ruling families is against the democratic tradition dating back to Washington refusing to accept the role of king.

The Clintons are fine, probably a little weird, dysfunctional and attached to power, but no worse than everyone else who shares those traits.

The American people have an opportunity to stop this degradation of our democracy; we must put an end to dynastic rule at the presidential level. If we don't do it now I guarantee we are 8 years away from Jeb running and there is nothing that says that Chelsea won't find her way into the family business over the next 16 years. The power, interests and dynamics will only become more entrenched over time.

Say no to entrenched powers, turnover is our only protection against consolidation of power and the corruption that accompanies it (and even that doesn't seem to work so well).

cheers

Posted by: Adam Dreyfuss | February 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Maggie Williams is yet another step back into the 90's for the Clinton campaign. I recall she was also the focus of an investigation at that time. What more proof do we need that Hillary, as President, would be a replay of the past. Democrats (and the superdelegates) should recall that they lost both the House and the Senate under the Clintons.

Posted by: sffantasy | February 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win without clinton supporters.

Its that simple.

If the Carlyle group calls in a terrorist strike to protect the Defense industry, or even if Bush and Homeland security just cook up a false flag threat, its hello president mccain.

We Democrats can't afford to get hysterical with false euporia.

We need Clinton/Obama.

Obama without Clinton is like life without Oxygen!!!


Posted by: ObamaSupportersDon'tGetIt | February 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm having trouble parsing Tony's comments. He seems to be criticizing the party for rejecting the 'edgier', more dynamic candidates for pedestrian losers, then goes on to castigate Obama supporters for supporting a candidate with precisely those dynamic qualities.

He criticizes the party for bypassing Bradley (tedious on his best day) for Gore, who was a 'snore' though undoubtedly competent. He implicitly criticizes WJC by pointing out that he won only because of Perot, yet as between WJC and Tsongas, Willy was the far sexier choice (unfortunately, he overdid that quality) who won against a sitting president who was himself rather pedestrian.

To the extent Dean resembles anyone in the 2008 race, it was first Edwards and then Obama. Instead, the party opted for the much duller Kerry.

And he seems to have Dukakis and Mondale conflated; Hart was neck and neck with the colorless but competent Mondale till the end, when he was done in with chicanery. Of course, the pallid Mondale went on to lose to Reagan. And Hart's '88 candidacy was aborted early with the Monkey Business fiasco, rather than final primary rejection by the Demo voters. (I'm not counting his late re-entry into the race, an apocryphal gesture.). In any event, he was far sexier than Dukakis (God help us), the technocrat who also lost resoundingly.

So the score is 3 losing technocrats (Gore, Mondale, Dukakis) and 1 winning matinee idol (WJC). If Tony's post establishes anything, it's that the party courts disaster when it selects technocrats (Mondale, Dukakis) over those with far greater panache and broad voter appeal, and does better when it nominates someone who captures the public imagination. But despite her vaunted zero sum attitude towards governing, if Clinton resembles anyone, it's Mondale or Tsongas - deeply embedded in policy with none of the intangibles that electrify a campaign and attract the broad support necessary to implement substantial progress. Politics is about excitement and energy as well as policies, and the party has consistently overestimated the public's appetite for a diet of policies alone.

Posted by: zoot | February 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Clinton: "We're going to need a bigger boat."
Clinton Aid: "We are already dead!"

Posted by: In Honor of Roy Scheider | February 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision. Sooo tired of Clinton spin and the notion that Obama has no platform. We live in the info age, go to his website to find his position, but for those who want to become educated here are a few facts.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits.

Posted by: Chris Wadlington | February 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

regg --

Read Paul Krugman's article. Obama supporters like you will lead to his loss, and Democrats, sooner or later.

You don't do your candidate any favors.

United we win, divided we fall.

Posted by: svreader | February 11, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

SVreader --
We've got a bigger, badder woodchipper this time -- based not on personal slurs but on truthfully documenting seven years of disastrous government and their candidate's own words ("more wars," "hundred years" in Iraq, and untold more things this weak, divisive, and erratic candidate will say as he tries to tightrope between skeptical right-wingers and independents, and as he's exposed to 24/7 campaign intensity against and energetic and aggressive campaign). We will have more money, and more energy, and the enormous, passionate, and growing quasi-movement Obama is building will be an asset that Democrats haven't had in any recent election. Be not afraid.

Posted by: Subliminability | February 11, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

To all the Clinton supporters proposing a Clinton/Obama ticket, give it a rest. It makes you sound delusional.

Posted by: Regg | February 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

To Tony:
You're right, the public is easy to fool. They picked a hopeful Kennedy over a dour Nixon. A Johnson who wanted to end poverty and racism over the sky is falling Goldwater. Nixon "a president for a change", over Hubert "more of the same" Humphrey. Smiling Jimmy over Gearld Ford. Morning in America with Reagan over Carter and then Mondale. Bush's thousand points of light over Dukakis, enough said. The man from Hope over a tired Bush and an old Dole. Say what you want about Bush, but the man did have a much sunnier outlook than Gore and Kerry. If this election ends up being about what is wrong (the democrat) versus what we can do (McCain) then McCain will win.

To Bobby Morgan:
Everyone should remember that Japan had spent the better part of the Summer trying to surrender and that Truman's response was to drop atomic bombs on two civilian population centers rather than on less populated militarily held islands. He increased the message of horror not saved lives.

Posted by: Richard in WI | February 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Tony you are an idiot.

Posted by: amcross | February 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I'm surprised Hilary's supporters on this site seem so defeatist. If she wins she'll beat McCain and be a good Prez, but if Obama wins the whole world will jump for joy! Both are winners America can be proud of, first woman or first African-American. Go Dems!!

Posted by: carter | February 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters act like he's got the world on a string. He doesn't, and we need both Obama and Clinton supporters energized if we're going to win this election.

The only question we should be asking ourselves is Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton?

Our strongest ticket is Clinton/Obama.

Its also most likely the ONLY way to win.

If Democrats are polling at 50/50 when the Republicans haven't even warmed up the "woodchipper", its a very bad sign.

Posted by: svreader | February 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

It is sad to see that those supporting Obama cannot see that his stump speeches are nothing but a 'feel' good speeches without substance. He is going to need more than that when he gets to the general elections. If Obama becomes the party's nominee then say hello to President McCain.

Posted by: SJ, Damascus, MD | February 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Hey Tony, Condi did a pretty good job when she was at the NSC, didn't she. She didn't get one prediction or forecast right. Everything she predicted, the opposite actually happened. Are we going to see Dick Cheney back as a cabinent member? How about the fairest of all prognosticators, Paul Wolfowitz?

As for Hillary, all the Republicans need to do is show her talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and the game is over. Americans don't need to relive the politics of the Clinton years.

Posted by: Tim | February 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

It is a very exciting and hopeful sign to see people coming out in droves to vote in the Democratic primaries and it is Obama that is creating this excitement, not Hillary and her "experience" nor John McCain and his "experience." If you went along with Bush and voted for his war over and over and over again, I call that baggage, not experience and no matter who you put in there as campaign manager, nothing is going to change it.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

One cynical way of reading the timing of Solis' departure is that HRC campaign waited until after the California primary to do this because it was fond of using her status as campaign manager as a selling point to Hispanic voters. But then again, maybe not ... it's not like the Clintons have ever done anything that would inspire cynicism, right?

Posted by: Greg S. | February 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The media has given Hillary a pass on the experience claim. What experience? She has 2 more years in elective office than Obama and was married to the president. Hillary was perceived as inauthentic, smug and calculating before the primaries even started, don't blame the media for that.

At the end of the day, their policies are similar and the defining difference is that Clinton has accepted record amounts of money from special interests and lobbyist, which Obama has not.

Lastly, candidates rarely talk policy because it would make the average American's head explode - i.e. Ron Paul and the value of the dollar discussion.

Posted by: Ivory | February 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The real story is not that HRC has screwed up; she's done well, debated well, no major gaffes; and beat a bunch of credible contenders with impressive resumes -- Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd. The story is that Obama is an extraordinarily strong candidate who's overwhelmed a candidate who, in ordinary years, would have won the nomination easily. The closer people are to conventional DC thinking of the last 15 years of deadlocked politics and focusing on tactics, the harder it is for them to understand what's going on. Obama will thrash McCain.

Posted by: Subliminability | February 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

For those who simplistically assert that Clinton fired the help, you might want to read what Doyle herself had to say about how long she was expecting to serve as campaign manager. I thought I'd just throw that in even though it probably sounds as though I'm not an Obama supporter (ie., I'm not trashing the Clintons).
And a note to Tony (10:15 AM): right on !

Posted by: rbe1 | February 11, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Ditto to Tony!

Posted by: RQL | February 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

It's about winning. HC has to do what she needs to do - like everyone else!
Women will always be second-class citizens because there will always be men who will keep it that way. And there will always be women who accept that and will not allow any other woman to change that. These women hate Hillary because they cannot be Hillary. These women love Obama - young, sexy, handsome, and with all that sweet talk! (And how many women ended up in bad marriages because of this?) Men with that innate superiority complex for Obama! Women with that innate inferiority complex (even if subconscious) for Obama! What does the constitution say about the separation of church and state again? Has Obama's campaign become a rock concert or a church or both? Joel Osteen should be in this contest!

Posted by: RQL | February 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

To challenge the status quo..has been verboten till now...One candidate underestimates the other...The American voter sees a glimmer of HOPE, 11 months ago. The enthusiasum for change becomes uncontrollable. After so many years of pragmatic stoic leadership, there is a breath of fresh air.
No one sees the value of returning to the past of devisiveness but the fear is still there--roiling the stomachs of all.
We, are barriaged daily with the old fears--dragged back to the days of hiding from the horrendesness of the last two Presidents.
All this fingerpointing and lying and code slime will do nothing but divide us further... I am for HOPE and FRESH AIR.

Posted by: bink1 | February 11, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

everyone should remember that hillary is the wife of the man who said i am sorry that the USA dropped the bomb and saved an untold number of american lives even tho you struck the first blow.

Posted by: bobby morgan | February 11, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Tony has it right. Democrats are nothing but groupies who love feeling good so they continually pick losers. They should look at the states Obama won with his caucus mini votes (he knew he didn't have a chance in the big states) and then check out the 2000 and 2004 states that the republicans won. Clinton won the states democrats need to win plus Tennessee, Florida and Arkansas. If Obama wins the nomination he and his soaring oratory will be toast.

Posted by: Jim in Vermont | February 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

And yes -- the coverage of Hillary is way biased. If Shuster had said that Obama was "pimping" his wife, the world would have come to an end. But some are even questioning whether Hillary was even upset by the comments. This is pathetic, but it isn't the first time. They did the same thing with Howard Dean. The problem really isn't the media; it is the gullible public.

Posted by: Tony | February 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Well, the Democrats really know how to pick candidates! Say hello to President McCain!!! The Republicans scared people away from H. Dean. He was too "edgy." But of course, he was the only one who couldn't be accused of "flip-flopping" on the war. We rejected Bradley; I'm a fan of "paying your dues," but Gore was a snore, and that's how he was attacked. Clinton only won his first term because of Ross Perot. And we know about Dukakis over Gary Hart....The Dems love to pick LOSERS. They excite us. We often trash people who seem like the natural candidate. I cannot wait for this to backfire. Clinton is the only one who will fight the Republicans. They will not be "electrified" into silence by Obama. They will say "terrorists don't need hope." They will select Rice as VP candidate. They will clobber the Dems yet again.

Posted by: tony | February 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company