Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Potomac Primary: Survey Says Obama

For the past few days, readers here on the big blog have been weighing in on a number of possible scenarios for Tuesday's Potomac Primary, and the results show that seven in ten of you believe Barack Obama will sweep the Virginia, Maryland and D.C. Democratic primaries. But you are almost evenly split over just how strong his showing will be and whether it will be perceived as powerful enough to propel him toward the nomination or slim enough that he and Hillary Clinton will fight on for many weeks to come.

Only 12 percent of the 500 or so of you who took part in this non-scientific, just-for-fun survey believe Clinton can even eke out a victory in Virginia, the state where she likely has the best chance in this region.

If your collective wisdom is to be believed, Obama has a tough standard to live up to--he must win all of the Washington area contests and win them handily to get much bounce out of this week's work. By the way, our informal survey seems to match the latest actual poll conducted in Virginia, by the Southern Political Report, showing Obama up by 52 percent to 37 percent for Clinton.

On the Republican side, our survey is now mostly moot, but interestingly a whopping 63 percent of you bought the idea--well before yesterday's announcement that Mitt Romney would drop out of the race--that the Potomac Primaries would be swept by John McCain and that Romney would then have to go away. Congrats on your prescience.

More on the primaries throughout the remaining days here on the blog and in the column. Also, please join me Tuesday at noon for Raw Fisher Radio, right here on the big web site, where my guests will be Prince George's State's Attorney Glenn Ivey and Virginia Democratic political consultant Mame Reiley, talking presidential politics in our backyard. And Tuesday evening, I'll be part of a video experiment here on the site, as we present live video results, reporting and analysis throughout the night. Please check it out.

By Marc Fisher |  February 8, 2008; 3:04 PM ET
Previous: Obama and The Power of Pride | Next: HD Radio: If A Tree Falls & No One Hears It....

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



We know for certain that real change does not mean drinking a new flavor of Kool-Aid and calling it champagne, or sustaining another cycle of Clinton and Bush political dynasties. Moreover, the passive-aggressive political attack and smear strategy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband revealed their true integrity and political values. Senator Barack Obama's campaign, ideas, issues and movement affirms that America is overdue and poised for new political paradigm. This is the essence of genuine change.

Thankfully, as an Independent, I am free to be more discerning about the details and substance behind any candidate's platform, plans and principles. On those benchmarks, and as an eyewitness and hands-on political activist, Mr. Obama scores higher than any candidate I've known or voted for in either party in the last 35 years.

Moreover, even as a vice presidential choice, I am genuinely fearful that Mrs. Clinton's political value system, lack of integrity, sense of entitlement and win-at-any-cost personal ambition will enable her to undermine real and effective change in an Obama Administration. The smear and voter suppression tactics in New Hampshire, Nevada and beyond are proof of her values. Also, another family franchise co-presidency (or aristocracy) is a corruption of true democracy.

As such, District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia voters of every political persuasion should think hard and be fully confident about the qualifications and rightful ascendancy of Barack Hussein Obama to President of the United States.

Dennis Moore, Chairperson - dennis@DCIndependents.org
District of Columbia Independents for Citizen Control Party
http://www.DCIndependents.org

Posted by: Dennis Moore DCICC | February 8, 2008 5:53 PM

The poll you site assigned 70% of newly registered voter to Obama but a more focused assessment of this group contains at minimum over half white females, a moiety of the electorate that has in this election cycle faithfully supported Hillary!Generational preference is and will be a factor in this Putuxian-chesapeake primary but the subtlety of the controlling silent majority of mothers grandmothers sisters and daughters 30 or more will most assuredly deliver a majority

Posted by: H.L. Mencken | February 9, 2008 11:20 PM

The poll you site assigned 70% of newly registered voter to Obama but a more focused assessment of this group contains at minimum over half white females, a moiety of the electorate that has in this election cycle faithfully supported Hillary!Generational preference is and will be a factor in this Putuxian-chesapeake primary but the subtlety of the controlling silent majority of mothers grandmothers sisters and daughters 30 or more will most assuredly deliver a majority

Posted by: H.L. Mencken | February 9, 2008 11:25 PM

The poll you site assigned 70% of newly registered voter to Obama but a more focused assessment of this group contains at minimum over half white females, a moiety of the electorate that has in this election cycle faithfully supported Hillary!Generational preference is and will be a factor in this Putuxian-chesapeake primary but the subtlety of the controlling silent majority of mothers grandmothers sisters and daughters 30 or more will most assuredly deliver a majority

Posted by: H.L. Mencken | February 9, 2008 11:26 PM

No matter how clever the Clinton camp's rhetoric becomes in regards to claiming their electability, I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good or better of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November. And lastly, people who follow Obama close enough know that he takes an excellent stand on the issues, he is just more selective about when he chooses to discuss them (i.e. on the campaign trail he focuses his efforts on his message of hope and unity and in debates he discusses the specific issues in their entirety.) In my humble opinion, these are few of many reasons why he continues to gain support.

Posted by: paul | February 10, 2008 1:37 AM

I'm tired of the expectations game.

Can't we just let people VOTE instead of letting the media dictate who has won and who will lose, before the votes are even cast?

Posted by: julie | February 10, 2008 1:49 AM

It is remarkable that Obama could put together a highly effective and organized grassroots campaign in such a short time enabling him to be a serious contender against Clinton's establishment ties and name recognition. The strategies he has used - for instance fundraising from individuals instead of PACS - speak to his brilliance and formidable political skills. I respect that he had the confidence in his vision to fundraise that way despite his idea being scoffed at as unviable. It gives individual supporters a sense of ownership and unity behind his campaign. It's proved to be a winning strategy and Barack Obama is showing himself to be a winner....hopefully all the way to the people's White House!

Posted by: Jamie | February 10, 2008 8:26 AM

Is anybody going to look behind Obama's pure (and very well delivered) demagoguery?Like yesterday's speach in Virginia:
"Change, not as a slogan, not as a bumper
sticker, but change we can believe in!"
What on earth is that if not a slogan? Maybe Hillary should go with "Change you can rely on."

Posted by: Ileana Gheorghiu, M.D. | February 10, 2008 9:17 AM

So far, in these primary elections, Barack Obama is winning the POPULAR VOTE against Hillary Clinton by 52.7% to 47.3%.
I come from France. Just like the US, this country played a key role in the upcoming of democratic political systems within the occidental world. There, this kind of score isn't considered a tie, but a large win instead.
Still, the "Democratic" party calls it a tie, and manages to assign Mr. Obama a slightly smaller number of delegates than Mrs. Clinton's, through a complicating system of "Super Delegates" who aren't obliged by the popular vote.
Knowing, on top of this, that his chances of winning against McCain seem greater than hers makes this all tie call look very ackward to me.
I became a US citizen only a little more than a month ago. If Barack Obama is finally chosen by the Democratic Party as their candidate in the presidential general election, I will be very proud to have become an American. In the opposite case, I won't regret of course, but I'll definitely feel that we still have a long way to go until we become a REAL DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: Francois Moutin | February 10, 2008 10:20 AM

So much rhetoric, so much a waste of time. Clearly Obama is the darling of the media and the people. Why are we even wasting all this time, when the inevitable will happen? This is a nation in need of new young blood and messages of hope and of course, CHANGE. We don't even care if it ever gets implemented as long as we see and hear a young message. Let's put him in office already!

Posted by: Katherine Elizabeth | February 10, 2008 1:36 PM

The only thing that could bring the GOP together is Clinton;the mainstream media's myopic focus on the Democratic race might, in other cycles, be frustrating to GOP -- this year,however,the choice of the Democratic nominee might well decide the fate of the entire election.On Thursday, for instance, Rush Limbaugh pledged to raise money for a struggling Hillary campaign:"What if she's not the nominee? We've got to make sure she's the nominee if the Republican Party is to be unified.

Posted by: Hubert | February 10, 2008 1:48 PM

There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

"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.
There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

"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 Hon
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 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."

Posted by: Analu | February 10, 2008 2:02 PM

A Canadian's Perspective

Much has been said lately about the super delegates and a brokered convention for the Democratic Nominee and the possible twists and turns the process could take. The race to the White House for Democrats could only get ugly if the super delegates make the wrong choice. As Canadians, we wait with bated breath for the presidential nominee stateside. We overwhelmingly believe that the clear choice is Hillary Clinton. She has consistently proven thus far that she can get votes across various cross sections of the country with heavy population - California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee, New York, New Hampshire and, of course, Florida and Michigan which definitely count. And she has outperformed Obama with the women's vote, the Latino vote and the vote for the working class all of which she overwhelmingly commands, and let's not forget that these were the critical votes that propelled George Bush to the threshold of victory in the last election.

In addition, Canadians hope that the super delegates would take into account Hillary's enormous political strength (which has been tested time and time again and of late) and intellect, her experienced bi-partisanship in the Senate, her history as a trailblazer on many fronts, and her legendary commitment to the working class (including women and children of every class) to procure health care and provide proper education for all in the world's most developed country. To this day, these basic amenities of life, these basic human rights are largely considered a real privilege--instead of the responsibility of the government as is the case with Canada, the UK and other notable European democracies.

I am always amazed to hear the many governors backing Obama and the political pundits say that he is the only one who can bring the country together and get the votes of the Independents and Republicans. Unlike Hillary Clinton, so far he hasn't succeeded overwhelmingly in bringing women, Latinos and the working class to his fold - a very large subset of Independents and Republicans.

The super delegates should not use the pretext by saying Hillary Clinton did not win the majority of the states or the popular vote (if it turns out this way) and deny her the nomination. For if they do, they will in fact be saying to the working class, there is no recognition.
If they choose Hillary as the nominee, she will win the presidency by a landslide and put the US back on the map and start to fight for not only the working class but every American.

Jing Hardy
Toronto, Canada

Posted by: Jing Hardy | February 10, 2008 2:33 PM

"As Canadians, we wait with bated breath for the presidential nominee stateside. We overwhelmingly believe that the clear choice is Hillary Clinton."


Jing, You speak for all of Canada do you? Well swell-- only problem is, you don't have a vote!

"She has consistently proven thus far that she can get votes across various cross sections of the country with heavy population - California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee, New York, New Hampshire"

Well, actually Jing, several of those states don't have a heavy population, and as of right now Obama has more states and more delegates, and might even have the popular vote as he heads into the Potomac primaries

"...and, of course, Florida and Michigan which definitely count."

Umm-actually they don't count. The Democratic National Party set rules about when primaries and caucuses could be held well before this election year. As it turned out, Ms. Clinton and her Senate colleagues (some of whom were later election opponents) signed a document before election year agreeing to this. The reason for these rules have to do with state angling for spotlight, and the political currency which is conferred from these early primaries, which can then make states caucuses (and individual requests from politicians) have more political weight behind them. FL and MI ignored the regulations of its party. John Edwards, and Barack Obama adhered to their party's regulations and removed their names and/or refrained from campaigning in those states. Hillary did not. She had no campaigning opponents in FL or Michigan-- even so with NO ONE running against her in Michigan, there was a large upswell of "Undecided" voters who actually trudged through the snow to go vote for "no one" in lieu of Clinton.

"I am always amazed to hear the many governors backing Obama and the political pundits say that he is the only one who can bring the country together and get the votes of the Independents and Republicans. Unlike Hillary Clinton, so far he hasn't succeeded overwhelmingly in bringing women, Latinos and the working class to his fold - a very large subset of Independents and Republicans"

This is false. Hey, listen a lot of these polls are hooey as far as I'm concerned, but if you are going to refer to them, be accurate. An overwhelming majority of polls currently have Obama handicapped as beating McCain by a larger margin than Hillary (who in some polls is projected to lose to McCain). This is due largely to his Independent and moderate Republican crossover appeal. As for the the Latino woman argument. I am a woman living in a majority Latino state, New Mexico (44% of the population-- the ethnic majority) where Hillary failed to "take the state." Even if she wins after the provisional ballots are finished being counted, which is looking less likely, she will have 1 delegate over Obama.


While I always admire that fact that Canadians, and Europeans, and, well, often *anyone* besides us United States Citizens, have more awareness and interest in international politics in general, your comments above do not have the research to support what you say. Thank you for your interest and your comments, but I hope you'll do a bit more reading.

Here is a 59-page BRIEF example of the sort of information available for anyone interested in finding out the individual facts about this candidate. There are websites and cross references within it if you care:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

While I agree that Barack is quite liberal, there is absolutely no denying that currently, he has more moderate and conservative support than Senator Clinton does. I personally find much to like in Clinton, and I actually understand why her supporters support her and find no fault with people who have done the research, read widely and fairly, and are civil when they campaign for and endorse their candidate. However, it is interesting to note that the things for which Obama is often criticized, e.g., "being too liberal" and having "too little experience," the government's OWN statistics refute:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

Type in each candidate's last names and look at their voting records, the names and substance of bills drafted and supported, and basic biographical info .

Hillary is considered a "radical liberal" on the senate information website, while Obama is considered to be a bit right of that as a "rank and file" democrat. This designation is based upon their votes.

Although Obama has 11 years of legislative experience (5 more years than Hillary) his critics cry "no fair" only the national legislation counts. O.K., Obama has passed into law in 3 years (with bills that he authored or co-authored) 5 pieces of substantive legislation, while Hillary has passed into law in 6 years time, 6 substantive bills that she has authored or coauthored. He essentially has accomplished the same job in half the time. Although Hillary has about 26 bills that have become law, 20 of them are things like "name post office after Thurgood Marshall" and "Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship."

Here are the substantive legislation each has passed:

Hillary:

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

Here is Obama's:

1. the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
3.The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4.The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
5.The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)

Posted by: Response to a Canadian's Perspective | February 10, 2008 3:42 PM

Another Canadian perspective:

Nice of Jing to say that we "overwhelmingly believe that the clear choice is Hillary Clinton" when that is not exactly true. In an Environics Research survey done between January 9 to 22, fully 56 percent of those surveyed said it didn't matter to them if the next U.S. President was a Republican or a Democrat. 34 percent said they'd like to see a Democratic president while only 5 percent expressed a preference for a Republican in the White House. Also, 81 percent of Canadians surveyed said it mattered somewhat or a great deal to Canada who wins the next election stateside.

What does all of that mean? Well, it says that Canadians are watching your politics with avid interest. Even though there may be an election up here this year, the mechanizations of the presidential primary season holds greater drama than anything our weak, tired political leaders could ever hope to generate. And though most people don't have a preference for who it is, they still think it's important for us who ends up in the Oval Office.

For Canadians like myself (and I can't begin to speak for Jing though Jing seems to have no problem purporting to speak for me), the American image abroad is in tatters specifically because of a pathological inability to look in a mirror and see reality for what it is. Iraqis were never going to greet U.S. forces with flowers and honey -- people have been burning your flag overseas for years. You have been expertly duped by an administration who was floundering and going nowhere on September 10, 2001 but knew how to seize a cynical opportunity when it slapped them in the face. Barack Obama looks to me to be the best hope America has to repair its international reputation.

The Democrats should be given a shot at repairing the tremendous fiscal damage done by the Bushies. Given a balanced budget they managed to "borrow and spend" you into pauper status. So don't listen to the right-wing claptrap warning you not to elect "tax and spend" liberals to power. At least those who would tax American citizens to try and effect societal improvements would use American money to do it. The conservatives have proven beyond doubt that it's far worse to use other people's money to create a crisis -- it's not okay to borrow from Mr. Chong to pay Mr. Wang.

China owns you, America, and George Bush is to blame.

By the way, Jing, I think the U.S. (and Canada by extension) would be better off with an Obama presidency. I'm not alone in my belief. Please don't try to speak for me. And for the record, Hillary loses if she's the nominee. Every Clinton hater in America would relish the opportunity at revenge against them.

Go Obama!

Posted by: Greg | February 10, 2008 4:07 PM

A system in which a small number of individuals has the power to overrule the result of a popular vote is by definition the opposite of a democracy.

If those initiating such a system managed to call themselves "The Democrats" or "The Democratic Party", it would thus be a fraud...

... Ooops! Isn't that precisely what happened back in 1980 when the Democratic Party initiated the system of so-called Super Delegates for their primaries?

Whatever our Canadian friends think would be good for the US (let's thank them very much for their interest in our presidential election), the only wrong choice the super delegates could make would be to overrule the popular vote, whoever wins it (so far it's Obama, despite all the efforts some are pulling to make it look otherwise).

If the super delegates overruled the popular vote, I, as a US citizen part of the working middle class would feel like my only little share of power, my vote, had been stolen and trampled on by some sort of elite of party officials. It would send to me and, I guess, to a lot of those who care a devastating and discouraging message of disdain.

Posted by: Francois Moutin | February 10, 2008 6:23 PM

Analu -- Thank you for posting some new (to me) and genuinely useful information. Incredible to me that the MSM hasn't reported this, but they seem obsessed with spouting the received wisdom ("Obama a dazzling orator, but light on substance"), rather than critically evaluating it.

Posted by: lydgate | February 10, 2008 7:09 PM

Would John 'Not my Hero' McCain Blow another man to save American Lives

Posted by: John Datrator | February 10, 2008 7:27 PM

McCain and the 'presidential temperament' question
Posted January 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Certain campaign narratives develop for presidential candidates during the primaries, and end up sticking through the general election. Regrettably, the Dems have their hands full with both a competitive primary of their own and a large Republican field, and as such, no one's been laying the groundwork for these narratives when it comes to John McCain.

If Dems are planning to start working on this, I might recommend an obvious one: the senator appears to have temperament issues. Investor's Business Daily, a conservative economic publication, asks this week, "Can McCain Control His Temper?"

John McCain claims his temper is not an issue. "I don't think I would have the support of so many of my colleagues if that were the case." Who are these supportive colleagues?

They certainly do not include Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. Over the weekend, he announced he cannot endorse his colleague for the White House and is endorsing Gov. Mitt Romney instead.

"The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Perhaps Cochran can't appreciate the maverick in McCain. But the same can't be said of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a noted reformer and friend of whistle-blowers. Grassley said in a recent interview that he was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn't speak to him "for a couple of years." McCain got in his face and shouted an obscenity at him. [...]

[I]t seems McCain goes ballistic on anyone who disagrees with him. And he's not just verbally abusive, but physically threatening.

Now, it's worth noting that when George W. Bush's conservative allies launched a smear campaign against McCain in 2000's South Carolina primary, one of the more tasteless attacks argued that McCain, after years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had developed mental problems, and was insufficiently stable. Those smears were obviously offensive and disgusting, and have no place in the discourse.

But this is a different question entirely, and deserves to be considered on its merits. Does John McCain -- a man Newsweek once labeled, "Senator Hothead" -- have a temperament issue? And is it relevant in the campaign?

Investor's Business Daily brought up the Reagan comparison.

We appreciate that McCain, who was dead right about the surge, is willing to stare down "radical Islamic extremists." We want them to fear our commander in chief. It helps if they believe he's got his finger on the button, so to speak, as the Soviets believed with President Reagan.

Difference is, Reagan didn't have an itchy trigger finger. His recently published diaries confirm that he skillfully used firm diplomacy behind the scenes. We're not so sure McCain can control his bellicosity.

The concerns are certainly well grounded. A few weeks ago, Amanda at TP pulled together some of my favorite examples of McCain's infamous temperament, including:

* In a "heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul" last year, McCain screamed at Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), "F**k you!" He added, "This is chickens**t stuff.... You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it." [5/19/07]

* In a discussion over the "fate of Vietnam MIAs," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked McCain, "Are you calling me stupid?" "No," replied McCain, "I'm calling you a f**ing jerk!" [Newsweek, 2/21/00]

* At a GOP meeting in fall 1999, McCain "erupted" at Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and shouted, "Only an a**hole would put together a budget like this." When Domenici expressed his outrage, McCain responded, "I wouldn't call you an a**hole unless you really were an a**hole." [Newsweek, 2/21/00]

These apparently aren't isolated incidents.

"I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues," said former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees. "He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that."

McCain's outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president. A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

"The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush," the former Senate staffer said. "McCain said 'f**k you' and never spoke to him again."

Keep in mind, we're talking about McCain dropping F-bombs on Republicans.

Given all of this, is it so unreasonable to at least consider the question of McCain's temperament before he's the GOP presidential nominee?

Posted by: John Datrator | February 10, 2008 7:29 PM

"Difficulty need not foreshadow despair or defeat. Rather achievement can be all the more satisfying because of obstacles surmounted"
Super Tuesday was a day filled with triumph and despair. We saw the status quo maintained and at other times barriers broken down. The media may have initially portrayed that head to head clash on February 5th as a draw, but America knows otherwise. Super Tuesday was an Obama win, albeit a somewhat indecisive one. The pundits are trying to say that neither candidate was driven out of the race. No one was knocked out so they say it was a tie, but that's not the definition of a tie. A tie is when neither candidate gains or loses any ground. Anyone watching American politics for even the last three months knows that Obama has gained tremendous momentum in a short period of time. Senator Obama won 20 states as opposed to Senator Clinton's 11. While the numbers were shifting, now that the dust has settled it appears that Obama will also win the delegate count 910 to 882. The race to the nomination is really all about the delegates. Despite all of the lowering of expectations that went on before the biggest vote in this race to date, Barrack defied any reason to think that the prohibitive front-runner since 2004 Hillary Clinton was the democratic juggernaut that she claimed to be. As Sen. Obama said on that Tuesday night in response to the comment that the Clinton Campaign was built to deliver that knockout blow on Super Tuesday, "Our time has come." Only a few weeks prior to Super Tuesday Hillary Clinton's Campaign was gloating about having the race wrapped up by now, but voters from all demographics have rewritten the political script of America. As for the latino question, has anyone spent time letting them know that obama is the son of an immigrant? Has anyone let them know that he does in fact have their interests at heart? most likely no, and that is obamas fault. On the other hand you cant blame the man he has had months to challenge what took the clintons decades to build. No matter what your stance is it is hard to overlook the tremendous amount of momentum obama is building in such a short time.

Several factors shaped the Super Tuesday contest into a race favorable to Senator Obama. First, one must acknowledge the remarkable momentum that Barrack Obama was riding coming into February with. In the last three weeks he has closed a 15 point gap between himself and Senator Clinton in the polls. Another factor helpful for Obama was his continued success in caucus states, something that will potentially play to his favor in the next couple months. Beyond the state and delegate victories there was other excellent news in the results for the Obama Campaign. Most remarkable was his ability win in the American heartland, notably in the red state of Kansas (74-26). Those wins fixed with Obama's striking victories in overwhelmingly white Idaho (80-17) and swing-state Minnesota (67-32), go a long to towards stating that Obama has shattered the assumption that his campaign was reminiscent of a Jesse Jackson picture that the Clinton Campaign had tried to interleave him into after South Carolina. In this way Barrack Obama has proved himself viable by being successful in every corner of the nation including states where Democrats will have to compete with Republicans in November. In fact obama is two states away from literaly connecting from coast to coast. from virgina to washington and everything in between. Going forward, the biggest factor in the race might turn out to be the financial one. It has been widely reported that the Obama campaign raised an unprecedented 32 million dollars in January and is on pace to match or even exceed that in February. Meanwhile the recent political media cycle has been dominated by the news that Hillary Clinton has put 5 million of her own money into her campaign, even as much of the campaign staff forgoes pay. on top of that she has replaced her campaign coordinator. No matter which way it is spun that cannot be good news. This may reflect the harsh reality that much of the Clinton campaign funding has come from corporate lobbyists who are now at their legal limit; as opposed to the Obama campaign's funding that has been raised in relatively small dollar amounts from ordinary people, who the campaign can go back to for more and more donations. Now that is building from the bottom up. It will be hard for the Clinton campaign to swallow that a man that was unknown one year ago is now running stride for stride with the biggest political machine in America and is just waiting for it to fall flat on it's face.

Posted by: joshua | February 10, 2008 9:24 PM

This is the greatest thread I've read in a long while. Interesting- and quirky.First of all, Canadian guy Greg, I couldn't agree more. Even about the truly embarassing stuff that we bought into 8 years ago (though it should be noted that the "majority" of us didn't). Thanks for taking an interest (and actaually thanks to Jing too). John D thanks for sharing the McCain piece-- I am an Obama supporter, but is it wrong that this article made me actually like McCain? Heehee. I'll be voting for the Democrats come November but you gotta hand it to a politician that has the balls to say to another senator

"Are you calling me stupid?" "No," replied McCain, "I'm calling you a f**ing jerk!"

Ha ha. Fantastic.

Posted by: Canadians are engaging! f/k/a Response to a Canadian's Perspective | February 11, 2008 1:12 AM

I thought you could only give 2300 hundred to the campaign ,Why is it Warren Buffett
and other people of the same name can give more?

Posted by: maggie | February 11, 2008 9:10 AM

comments regading the distinction between bills authored by Clinton, vs. bills sponsored by Obama is misleading and inaccurate, according to the cited source.
I am an Obama supporter, but reject sophistry and misrepresentation as means of promoting one's choice.

Posted by: zman | February 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Hey Everyone! Look at Analu's comment posted shortly after this article where she lists all the accomplishments of Hillary and Obama..................it's amazing and gives you some insight into who is really the serious candidate and who would be best for American!

LOOK AT HER LIST, PLEASE.

Posted by: eg | February 11, 2008 1:49 PM

As another Canadian who watches our neighbours to the south quite regularly (because we are, collectively, in this together), I have tried to follow this election as best possible. I wish our neighbours to the south all the best; I know things haven't been as good as we would like them to be, but hopefully next year we can get our friendship back to where it needs to be.

From here, my fear is that with a Hillary Clinton presidency you would have the Republicans united against her which would inhibit anything getting done, while Obama would come in without 8 years of baggage, and be a symbol of how America has come of age, and a young man to boot (think to when Pope John Paul II was elected, he brought a vigor and charisma to the church that had been not seen previously).

It is sad to see how your Presidents age during their time; both GW Bush and Clinton seem to have aged 20 years during their time in office.

Posted by: Gordon | February 12, 2008 2:09 PM

hzuk tdzpilhko jmdha qlatude omwh pjdif iuslcwvp

Posted by: zathxf fvipnq | March 1, 2008 7:48 PM

oudagnrby hfkqbuwl fblytirdg hawge hvjaedbp zkqvmifl xyck http://www.dmgwio.znjdlgc.com

Posted by: akcgni cskvdqtr | March 1, 2008 7:49 PM

hzuk tdzpilhko jmdha qlatude omwh pjdif iuslcwvp

Posted by: zathxf fvipnq | March 1, 2008 7:49 PM

Useful site. Thank you!
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?tid=1430 buy fatblast extreme online

Posted by: buy fatblast extreme online | March 31, 2008 1:20 AM

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://rusports.testsbox.ru/ russian sex

Posted by: russian sex | April 3, 2008 6:11 PM

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://mp3qo.com/q6/mike-oldfield---the-phaeacian-games-boxed.html mike oldfield - the phaeacian games boxed

Posted by: mike oldfield - the phaeacian games boxed | April 4, 2008 12:39 PM

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://mp3qo.com/q5/los-terribles-del-norte---aviso-del-cielo.html los terribles del norte - aviso del cielo

Posted by: los terribles del norte - aviso del cielo | April 5, 2008 2:48 PM

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://mp3qo.com/q5/los-terribles-del-norte---aviso-del-cielo.html los terribles del norte - aviso del cielo

Posted by: los terribles del norte - aviso del cielo | April 5, 2008 2:48 PM

nypdijrm fdut mxvrdw fjwralmqg ayhvxd epns ukzfmq

Posted by: jhsn cnqkvu | April 6, 2008 6:26 PM

vbjaropg ufkw itcglwbn lyap kphrc rpvbgxujw orskieuap http://www.fkbjqedo.qrmednb.com

Posted by: rlhyszvqb sjpdwlf | April 6, 2008 6:28 PM

vbjaropg ufkw itcglwbn lyap kphrc rpvbgxujw orskieuap http://www.fkbjqedo.qrmednb.com

Posted by: rlhyszvqb sjpdwlf | April 6, 2008 6:30 PM

Useful site. Thank you.
http://mp3qo.com/q5/le-firm---catching-up-with-something-gone.html le firm - catching up with something gone

Posted by: le firm - catching up with something gone | April 7, 2008 6:34 AM

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://mp3qo.com/q5/los-pasteles-verdes---tu-eres-mi-destino.html los pasteles verdes - tu eres mi destino

Posted by: los pasteles verdes - tu eres mi destino | April 7, 2008 5:55 PM

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://mp3qo.com/q5/kanye-west-feat--jamie-foxx---golddigger.html kanye west feat. jamie foxx - golddigger

Posted by: kanye west feat. jamie foxx - golddigger | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM

Hello its a very nice site!
forex trading robot

Posted by: Kaden iomtx | April 10, 2008 3:08 AM

Hello its a very nice site!
forex trading robot

Posted by: Kaden iomtx | April 10, 2008 3:08 AM

Hello its a very nice site!
forex trading robot

Posted by: Kaden iomtx | April 10, 2008 3:08 AM

Posted by: cheapest generic ultram | May 10, 2008 5:49 PM

Posted by: cheapest generic ultram | May 10, 2008 5:50 PM

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 6:18 AM

pamu notbya jtabfdh ulrxw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4693 optimum propecia dosage

Posted by: optimum propecia dosage | May 11, 2008 3:32 PM

pamu notbya jtabfdh ulrxw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4693 optimum propecia dosage

Posted by: optimum propecia dosage | May 11, 2008 3:32 PM

wmvgr cmkrhwe yeal
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4908 effects propecia side testimonials

Posted by: effects propecia side testimonials | May 11, 2008 7:53 PM

wmvgr cmkrhwe yeal
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4908 effects propecia side testimonials

Posted by: effects propecia side testimonials | May 11, 2008 7:53 PM

Posted by: the invention of prozac | August 16, 2008 8:27 AM

budfwsl yazqf
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/pseudotumor-cerebri-antidepressants.html pseudotumor cerebri antidepressants

Posted by: pseudotumor cerebri antidepressants | August 16, 2008 2:30 PM

xumsoy cdfleo hgpzkd spfnq
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/safest-way-to-stop-lexapro.html safest way to stop lexapro

Posted by: safest way to stop lexapro | August 16, 2008 8:18 PM

ouqipfk dzwfg
http://internal.digitalzones.com/side-effects-of-prozac-seroquel.html side effects of prozac seroquel

Posted by: side effects of prozac seroquel | August 17, 2008 12:11 AM

wminge zlst
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/class-action-celexa-and-melasma.html class action celexa and melasma

Posted by: class action celexa and melasma | August 17, 2008 9:45 AM

Posted by: geeting off lexapro | August 17, 2008 3:23 PM

Posted by: geeting off lexapro | August 17, 2008 3:23 PM

bcdzs bkejxri erxgzvb delogu
http://loangov.envy.nu/going-off-lexapro.html going off lexapro

Posted by: going off lexapro | August 17, 2008 8:25 PM

ximptq bxhacp tkfdvrx nlpbsey
http://loangov.envy.nu/lexapro-sweat.html lexapro sweat

Posted by: lexapro sweat | August 17, 2008 9:33 PM

scuml yafs klnxa
http://loangov.envy.nu/lexapro-versus-prozac.html lexapro versus prozac

Posted by: lexapro versus prozac | August 17, 2008 9:59 PM

wsmzpf cgqbyw
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/switching-from-paxil-to-wellbutrin.html switching from paxil to wellbutrin

Posted by: switching from paxil to wellbutrin | August 18, 2008 6:21 AM

Posted by: remeron withdral | August 21, 2008 1:00 AM

pyxjngm bkyxoia
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/dangerous-zyban.html dangerous zyban

Posted by: dangerous zyban | August 21, 2008 2:13 AM

fjopd sguvqli tmgvf
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/depression-lexapro-side-effects.html depression lexapro side effects

Posted by: depression lexapro side effects | August 21, 2008 3:28 AM

yvlje sozyqd rivadnl
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-medication-free.html lexapro medication free

Posted by: lexapro medication free | August 21, 2008 5:09 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company