Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton or Obama: Who's Got The Best Shot at Beating McCain?

The debate over whether Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama would make the stronger general-election candidate against John McCain is one of the most fascinating questions of campaign 2008.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
Hillary or Barack? Which one is the better bet to beat John McCain this fall. (Reuters file photo)

So intriguing is the question that even Rep. Tom Cole, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has an opinion -- as told to Benjamin Wallace-Wells in a piece on the state of the GOP that ran in the New York Times Magazine over the weekend.

Said Cole:

"I happen to think Hillary Clinton is a stronger candidate in the end. You couldn't raise money against Obama right away like you could with Clinton, that's true, and so maybe by the time you were able to raise money it wouldn't matter. But he's ideologically well to the left of Hillary Clinton, for all his rhetorical gifts, and I also think he's got a national-security deficit. I think she's a plausible commander in chief, and I don't think he is. It may not matter. But those two areas are where we would fight the election, and with McCain, I think we contrast with him very well."

Intrigued by this line of thought, The Fix reached out to a handful of well-regarded Republican strategists -- wondering if they agreed or disagreed with Cole. By and large, the operatives agreed.

Alex Castellanos, one of the lead consultants for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's presidential bid, maintained that Republicans had long underestimated the strengths of the Clintons -- to their own peril.

"I think Republicans who say they would rather run against Hillary are naive," said Castellanos. "Let's not ask to lick that cold, frozen metal bar again."

Alex Vogel, a Republican lobbyist and one-time adviser to former Tennessee senator Bill Frist, sounded a similar note. "While many people are clearly swept up in 'Obamamentum,' at some point he is going to stand at a podium next to Senator McCain -- and McCain has the ability to make him look like a child in terms of depth and experience," said Vogel.

Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster who does considerable work in the South, cited a recent survey conducted for Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R-Tenn.) reelection campaign as evidence that Obama would have a "heav[ier] lift" with undecided general-election voters.

The survey, which was in the field March 5 to March 9 (prior to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy), showed McCain leading Clinton 55 percent to 43 percent and with a wider 53 percent to 36 percent edge over Obama. Forty-eight percent of those tested had a favorable view of Clinton while 47 percent had an unfavorable view; Obama's rating were lower, with 44 percent feeling favorably about him compared with 49 percent who felt unfavorably.

Not all the Republicans The Fix spoke with, however, shared Cole's point of view.

Republican pollster Glen Bolger said Obama is the stronger of the two Democrats due to his ability to win over the always-crucial independent voters.

"Given Clinton's polarized image among Independents, we're better off facing her," Bolger said. "To win this year, any Republican has to do very well with Independents."

Barbara Comstock, a former Romney adviser, echoed Bolger's sentiment. "If she were to win the nomination, she will have done so by winning ugly -- burning the village to save herself," she said. "By demonstrating her knack for divisiveness even within her own party, she will reinforce another existing negative and make it easier to tap into the 'turn the page' Clinton fatigue vein."

So, who's right?

New polling conducted by Gallup reveals that the majority of Democratic and Republican voters believe that Obama is the far stronger candidate against McCain.

Fifty-nine percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said Obama had the better chance of beating McCain in the fall, while just 30 percent picked Clinton.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 64 percent said Clinton would be the easier general election nominee to defeat, while 22 percent named Obama.

"Clearly at this point, the party rank-and-file thinks Obama would present a stronger challenge to McCain in the fall than Clinton would," wrote Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones. "Those attitudes could certainly change over the remainder of the campaign, but it is notable that Obama maintains a wide lead in these perceptions shortly after the Jeremiah Wright controversy knocked his campaign off stride."

It's important to distinguish here between the perception and the reality. The perception at the moment is clearly that Obama is the stronger candidate against McCain. The reality is much less conclusive. It's almost impossible to know what the dynamics of an Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain race would be, much less try to divine which dynamic works better for Democrats hoping to reclaim the White House.

The split decision among Republican strategists about which candidate would be stronger reveals the different ways in which the reality of the general election might play out. (While we're at it, we are sure some of you will see Cole's comments as a bit of reverse psychology to try and get Democrats to pick Clinton as their nominee.)

The truth of the matter is that no one knows the answer. Obama has a message that seems form-fit for an undecided independent voter, but he is also relatively untested in the foreign policy arena in a race that could well come down to a referendum on which candidate Americans trust more to keep them safe. Clinton seems to have cleared the "commander in chief" bar in the eyes of most voters, but many within even that group see her as too divisive and political to appeal to anyone other than Democratic base voters.

The debate rages on...

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 1, 2008; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How Not To Announce For Senate
Next: Democrats To Embed Bloggers at Convention

Comments

When you think of John McCain's fitness for POTUS, his "military experience" is probably the overwhelming thought that comes to the fore. Is this one of those cases of a good thing that could prove to be "too much of a good thing?"

No doubt Mr. McCain is steeped in the tradition and heritage of a military family, and the totality of his experience outside the government, including his education, is made up of military service. The United States is the most militaristic society by far among the western democracies and as such the imperative, in my view, is to strengthen the civilian control of (and primacy over) the military. [In other democracies, you will hardly ever hear the head of state described as the "commander-in-chief," in sharp contrast to our practice of emphasizing that role for our president.]

Whatever happened to peace as a desirable ideal?. [after rmgrmg]

Posted by: hollywoodog | April 2, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Are you a (EPITHETING EPITHET HERE)?!

You actually polled people invested in the defeat of the Democratic nominee for their opinions?

When you know quite well that the Republican Party is trying to extend the race and will take square aim at the Dem frontrunner?

Are you completely (THOUGHT-PROVOKING EPITHET HERE)?

Posted by: rippermccord | April 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Btw, Jac13 just read your leictman post.. great points all...

Posted by: sgoewey | April 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I think that the Presidential primary and the election in general is very appealing to young voters. Obama has brought a platform that is relatable to young people and speaks to them with hope. All the candidates talk about issues that are affecting our future and this will be a great election year...one that the young people will influence heavily. It all starts with information and opinion-www.yourthreecents.com

Posted by: tegan5684 | April 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

leichtman ... I'm glad you feel such passion (politically correctness?) that you cannot forgive a black man his anger, his words, his beliefs... a man who lived in the time of lynching, separate toliets, separate eatting facilities for black WWII soldiers while german POWs could eat w/ the whites...

Not every fight needs to be fought...so you're willing to confront my pastor? A passionate, intelligent, believing christian (raised jewish) who preaches much which I agree w/ from bible and some biggies that i disagree with--i.e., that Jews must accept Jesus to get to heaven...personally, I believe it is up to God who gets to heaven, I love that the new testament tells us jesus made it easy for us christians , but how narrow the door? I believe a merciful god is going to let in good jews, muslims, christians alike...and I don't believe homosexuality is a sin either (though my pastor does, and ascribes to the " love the sinner/hate the sin") but i stay in my church because I love the bible, love ppl who (shockingly) love the bible, even when we interpert it differently and think much that it says is beyond our understanding or got lost in the translation and will not be known til we get to the other side ...but calling a passionate enthusiasm for my candidate, "rabid"...putting others down for their viewpoints ...implying that there's a litmus test for patriotism and wright and therefore obama (and his wife, while I'm at it) somehow fail the good american test, while bush,cheney, limbaugh (draft dodgers all) pass that I'm patriotic and you're not test is... oh, never mind.

Posted by: sgoewey | April 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

svreader, if I find a candidate who plays fast and lose with the truth and gets into legal troubles throughout his (or her) career -- and another who tends to make harder, less expedient choices -- those factors weigh into my judgment as far as character goes.

I am not of the federal city, but I've seen it at close enough range for enough years to understand pretty well how these candidates stack up -- and have friends who have worked either directly or at one remove with each of the major candidates. Obama might be too eager to please sometimes, but he doesn't generally pander.

His reasoning in 2002 before the Iraq War was absolutely on the mark. In 2002 I remember when opponents of the Iraq War were ridiculed and shouted down -- Obama wasn't in nearly as high a profile position so I dock him half credit for political courage, but I give him an A+ for his ability to prioritize and anticipate likely outcomes. What he says about energy independence in particular is an absolutely vital point. If the U.S. had made that a focus in 2002 rather than committing $1 trillion plus to a military occupation in the Middle East we would be in a much stronger strategic position now -- with a lot more leverage against potential adversaries (especially the non-state actors like Al Qaeda).

What's left is a much more challenging field to work with.

In 2002 when Obama said the Iraq war invasion will be quick, but the occupation will be long and costly, and produce negative effects isn't splitting the difference down the middle. It's a pretty accurate read of the situation. He's not falling for self-financing reconstruction costs or a $50 billion tab -- as the other major presidential candidates did.

In some respects Obama's approach is much closer to Bill's than Hillary's is -- without as much dysfunction. He's got a sharp mind, a quick learning curve, and his priorities are ahead of the curve in some areas.

If the voters are wise, they will not let this opportunity pass them by. (And no I am not affiliated with the campaign, but I have given time and money to the effort -- not something that I do every presidential election cycle).

Posted by: JPRS | April 2, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

shouldn't the question be "who has a better chance of beating Obama? Clinton or McCain?

Posted by: tigason | April 2, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mjno | April 2, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Please please tell me that in this day and age is would be reduced to "who could raise the most money quickly"??? What has come of us? Time to take a calculated risk and get away from the old damn Washington establishment. It has done us no good at all. It's about integrity, trust, vision, leadership, passion, truths, money management skills (duh), being able to ignite a fire under the masses, a past based on the good works and not lies. A background that believes in LISTENING rather than dictating. Not to mention:
Getting a good report card re: WORKING AND PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS!!!! I rest my case!

Posted by: itsmillertime | April 2, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Please please tell me that in this day and age is would be reduced to "who could raise the most money quickly"??? What has come of us? Time to take a calculated risk and get away from the old damn Washington establishment. It has done us no good at all. It's about integrity, trust, vision, leadership, passion, truths, money management skills (duh), being able to ignite a fire under the masses, a past based on the good works and not lies. A background that believes in LISTENING rather than dictating. Not to mention:
Getting a good report card re: WORKING AND PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS!!!! I rest my case!

Posted by: itsmillertime | April 1, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

the young men are without experience?how about John kennedy ?44 years old when was elected as president.how is Bill clinton?46 he made it.now is the Barack Obama,right?Oh,the elder Bush is older,but he could not secure his incumbent with his rich experiences.
come on ,Obama 08'

Posted by: yjx6655 | April 1, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

When the votes are all counted, Barry Obama will LOSE, PERIOD.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

This is a CONTEST. Obama is WINNING based on the rules set by the party. PERIOD.

Posted by: democraticvoter | April 1, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Between the press and his supporters, Barry's gotten more BJ's than Bill could ever have dreamed of.

Don't bend over for Barry.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is as disgusting as Monica's dress.

Posted by: democraticvoter | April 1, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

JPRS --

Obama always plays both sides against the middle.

He also made a speach supporting the war, just in case, saying "he's not sure what he would have done"

The guy isn't worth the idealistic supporters he collects.

He's using them just like he's used everyone else in his career.

To Barry, people aren't human beings, they're means to an end.

He's done it his whole career.

He's as bad a guy as Bush.

He isn't worth your support.

He doesn't care one bit about you.

He just likes to be worshiped.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

(Whine, and I should know, being the world's bestest number one expert on what a poophead Obama is. I can even show you my "Number One Expert on Stinky Obama" bumper sticker, and I ONLY made two, one for me and one for lylepink, so all you stinky Obama-heads can just sulk. Whine!)

Posted by: sv.reader | April 1, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

This is a CONTEST. Obama is WINNING based on the rules set by the party. PERIOD.

Posted by: democraticvoter | April 1, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama didn't have a teleprompter when he made the following statement:

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Instead we have a war which has cost thousands of Americans their lives; which will result in a cost of $1.5 to $2 trillion; and which has only tied the U.S.'s hands in fighting against Al Qaeda -- a war which has compromised our security and which is unsustainable.

And yet, 6 years later we still have people lauding the "experience" of someone like McCain who can't tell the difference between Shiite and Sunni and who remains ignorant of the very real divides that exist within the Middle East -- not just between Israel and Palestine -- but between Arab nations -- and even within Arab nations.

At the end of the day we are paying the price for ignorant foreign policy based on sound-bytes. The cost is being dumped almost exclusively on younger generations and future generations while a president cuts taxes for the wealthy during a time of war (a first in our history) -- while also borrowing $1.2 trillion from China.

This election will be an excellent benchmark for where this nation stands -- and whether it is willing to engage in strong AND smart foreign policy -- or whether we will just continue to have more of the same from politicians who either are too weak-kneed, or too ignorant to make the kind of foreign policy choices that actually advance U.S. interests and increase our security.

At least with Obama and McCain we will have a clear contrast between a leader who has anticipated crises -- and another who has simply transplanted Cold War thinking towards the post-Cold War era.

Posted by: JPRS | April 1, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Whine, I am going to hold my breath and pout until Hillary is elected. So there! Whine, intellect is overrated. A nice perm and pantsuit will save America. ESPECIALLY at three in the morning. Whine.

Posted by: sv.reader | April 1, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

pinepine --

No he's not. His "image" is.

The real Barry Obama is a cold, calculating politician who only cares about himself, money and power.

He uses people.

Look at what he does, not what he says.

He's cold as ice and fake as Bush.

He's a really bad guy.

What's worse, he's incompetent.

He doesn't like doing the job.

He just like the hero-worship of running.

People who trusted him froze because of his vanity and his total lack of interest in anyone but himself.

I'll NEVER forgive him for that.

Thats why I post.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Thanks for the knowledge about sponsored bills. Lugar's batting average is pretty darn good -- quality over quantity, I guess.

That case with the WI kid reminds me of Morse v. Frederick, where the Supremes pretty much stamped their imprimatur on 1st Amendment limitations for student speech.

Posted by: mnteng | April 1, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

I guess the point is that HRC served well should not necessarily suggest BHO be an "empty suit". Furthermore, BHO is more impressive in all respects.

Posted by: pinepine | April 1, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Thaimex --

You better look at the Washington Post article about Obama taking credit for bills he never worked on, even going so far as to talk about 7am meetings he never attended.

The wheels are coming off the Barry Obama BS express.

There will be a few hard-core cultists, true members of the kool-aid drinking "cult of Obama" who will refuse to read anything that shows what a total jerk Obama really is, but the rest of America is waking up.

Chicago Barry Obama ain't no saint.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Just ask the people who froze in his slums.

The ones that are still alive, that is...

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse


Hillary Clinton can SO beat John McCain. She is brilliant, infromed can talk on her feet and has real policies. Obama stumbles all over himself when he doesn't have his teleprompter. He says the same things over and over - like he's been programmed. He is a baby - no ideas of his own. Xerox, teleprompter fed, goofy looking - no history of doing ANYTHING. No "change", no "unifying", no reaching across the aisles. Sat in that rabid church for TWENTY YEARS and never made one effort to speak out or walk out. He's a pretender. Hoodwinker.

Obamabots - remember how you couldn't believe all those people who voted for a do nothing like Bush?

Get a mirror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjvlqJTWB4&NR=1


The Bill Richardson article is a piece of work. He should had saved his breath. No one cares.

Posted by: Thinker | April 1, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

That email has been debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

Posted by: ontheblvd | April 1, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

This is an April Fools' joke, right? I can't be the only voter who remembers the tape of McCain rubbing his hands and cackling when he was offered a bribe.

Though the Clinton campaign has shown great skill at shooting in the foot, both of them should wipe the floor with the poor old fella.

And svreader, you obviously know as little about legislation as the author of the Newsweek item you cite. These days, all significant legislation has two or three principal sponsors; that piece only looks at items with one sponsor, which are incredibly heavy on post-office namings. It is worth nobody's time, and I'm sorry I wasted a few seconds on it.

Posted by: thaimex | April 1, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Notice how pinepine posted the debunked email that the newsweek article talks about.

Obama supporters are gettng desperate.

They know he will be CRUSHED in Penn.

They can't handle the truth.

Neither can he.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

As you can see from Newsweek article, Obama supporters lie through their teeth to try to get him elected.

Its not going to happen.

Like Obama, they have no ideas of their own, they just steal other people's ideas and put their names on them.

The person who created the id sv.reader shows how desperate they are to confuse people.

It shows how afraid they are of the truth.

The truth will be the end of Barry Obama.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy!!!

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Whine whine whine. Hillary! Whine whine, whine whine. Whine whine scared of people who don't look like me. Whine not scared of Woody Allen. Whine OR Hillary. Whine safe, familiar, whine no more exciting than am I. Whine, you can not trust someone I would not see whining alongside me at the temple. How do I whine know? Whine because I am whine so much whine whine whine SMARTER than all of you whine. Stamp foot, pout, whine, whine, WHINE!

Posted by: sv.reader | April 1, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I hope this piece might help shed some light:

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.

-- Posted by Bill on NYT's comment board

Posted by: pinepine | April 1, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse


WARNING: Below you will find the
clueless drivle of an ignorant
Hillarite. Billary is the source
of many of this country's woes.

Quote from Ablert Einstien:
'You can not fix a problem by using
the source of the problem.'
-------------------------------
The American people don't even know who the real Obama is. He is so full of contradictions. The Pastor alone would ensure his defeat in November. Combine that with his inexperience, his long term relationships with Rezco and Ayers and it's a landslide for McCain.

The Dems need to go with someone that we already know and who has the experience and leadership ability to IMPLEMENT the solutions to our problems. We need leadership and action, not speeches.

Posted by: theman_in_black | April 1, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Neither one of the candidates can win against McCain. The reason is because this race has gone on too long and the democratic party has been exposed. All of them are such idiots and what is really scary is that they are our leaders. We talk about all of them like they are the real deal and which one is better and tested. Look who is the front runner. Excuse me, but Obama is a joke. Just an opportunist that has let all this go to his head. He is not a leader. He just wants people to elect him. His voters haven't even been voting on the initiatives because they don't care about local politics that affect them much more. They are just voting on an idea. Hillary just wants to win. The Clinton's are winners so they probably have a better chance but it would be slim. The superdelegates are just trying to win as many seats in the congress and the senate as possible. They are looking at what seats are available in which states and what each candidate can bring to that cause. McCain is the real leader that cares about this country. Maybe it's because he actually fought for her. In the mean time, we all just get more divided just like in every election year. I think maybe we like it that way.

Posted by: ontheblvd | April 1, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and McCain are the same candidate. The only chance that the US voter has is in Obama.

Obama will destroy McCain because John McCain is a vile liar. Hillary is a repulsive liar, as well.


The voters want their Democracy back from the special interests.

OBAMA '08

Posted by: theman_in_black | April 1, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"Gee, isn't this the same argument that Hillary Clinton has tried to make, and failed? It was all, "He's untested, he's too inexperienced, he won't be able to stand up to scrutiny." And yet it turns out that Obama is doing just fine, thank you. For an untested, inexperienced, unscrutinized candidate he seems to have won more of the popular vote, more delegates, and more states.

Gee."
______________________

Hillary has failed in this argument so far because her audience isn't receptive to it. The Dem primary audience is the audience that views the "war on terror" as a "bumper-sticker slogan" and terrorism a by=product of US foreign policy, not that of a devoted enemy who cannot be placated until we surrender our support for allies and our presence in the Middle East, which prevents the extremists from any hope of a wholesale takeover of the region as they aspire to. The Republicans and most independents who also get a say in the election; have a very different view from that by and large, and foreign policy credentials and stance will play far more prominently against, though it may not be enough this year, Obama than Clinton and against either democrat against McCain. Like I said, none of that may be enough this year, but those are facts.

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | April 1, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

mjno, I would also add that Bill Clinton, JFK, and Teddy Roosevelt were all younger when they assumed the presidency than Obama will be in Jan. 20, 2009.

Obama is at an age where his memory doesn't mis-remember events like dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, netting a Noble Peace Prize for negotiation peace along the Kosovo-Macedonia border, or in North Ireland. His isn't mis-remembering non-existent roles in the Family Medical Leave Act or in passing the first S-CHIP bills. He isn't taking credit that does not properly belong to him -- a common denominator found amongst all second rate managers. He also isn't burning through cash and stiffing small business owners across the U.S. in his pursuit of the presidency.

Many supporters may have little patience for the Clinton's sleaziness and rank hypocrisy -- but through the morass Obama has kept a pretty-level head and has managed a large campaign in a manner superior to that of more politically experienced candidates like Clinton and McClinton.

Posted by: JPRS | April 1, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

joep1, #10 is a strange claim -- why did every other candidate except for Clinton and Kucinich remove their ballots from the Michigan primary list? (Kucinich I understand attempted too but filed the wrong paper work)

By keeping her name on the Michigan ballot Clinton was effectively competing in a primary in violation of a written pledge not too.

We can quibble over the meaning of "is" and "compete" -- the bottom line is that Clinton violated the terms of the agreement (in the discussion about the Michigan - Florida controversy a couple weeks ago Clinton even said the other candidates made the choice not to "compete" in the Michigan primary by removing their names from the ballot).

Violating pledges. Violating previous statements about honoring the DNC rules -- classic Clinton.

Rank hypocrisy, and sleazy cheating thy name is indeed Clinton.

Posted by: JPRS | April 1, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

It is dangerous to think that because OBAMA is 10 or 13 years younger, he is a better choice for President. Well, hell, I am younger. Voting based on age is as narrow minded as race.

Posted by: mjno | April 1, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

From Earl Ofari Hutchinson
March 30, 2008

Here are ten troubling questions for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. There are others equally troubling but these are the starters. The questions were sent directly to him at his national campaign headquarters Friday, March 28. The questions are not campaign rhetoric, gossip, and partisan allegations. They are fully documented, and totally a matter of public record. If Obama won´t answer them, then the challenge is for his supporters to answer them point by point. This doesn´t mean hurling the usual cheap shot, brainless, personal invectives, name calling, personal insults, or character assassination. This is no substitute for factual answers.

1. You stated that you were not in the Senate in October 2002 when President Bush rammed through Congress the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But you also stated that "perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was I didn´t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence." This implies that you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate when the vote was taken. Why then do you condemn Hillary Clinton and other Senators who voted for the war authorization resolution when you admit the possibility that if you had been in the Senate you would have done the same?

2. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Foreign Relations you could have held oversight hearings, called witnesses and offered alternatives to Bush´s disastrous efforts against A Qeada in Afghanistan. Your subcommittee held none and provided no alternatives to Bush policy that you condemn, why?

3. In the Senate you have one of the poorest attendance records, and you often simply vote present on thorny issues, why?

4. Senate Legislation was proposed to require nuclear giant, Exelon to make public disclosure of its radiation leaks. You did not fully support that requirement. Exelon has been identified as your fourth biggest campaign contributor. Why did you oppose the tougher regulatory proposal for Exelon?

5. Chicago financier Tony Rezko has been accused of numerous financial illicit dealings. You have claimed that you did no political or personal favors for Rezko. Yet as an Illinois state legislator you wrote endorsement letters to government agencies on his behalf, as well as having conducted other documented financial transactions and dealings and with him. Why do you deny that you have no relationship with Rezko?

6. The head of your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama´s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority. Why does she still have a principal financial role in your campaign?


7. You have taken money in past campaigns from straw donors. These are donors that have taken money from tainted and dubious sources and then contribute to your campaign under their names. You have talked much about financial openness in campaigns. Why did you take money from straw donors in the past? And do you take money from them now?

8. Following a speech by Hillary Clinton praising Lyndon Johnson for his role in helping pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an Obama campaign advisor privately released a four page memo urging hammering Clinton for denigrating Dr. King. Yet, you told reporters that neither you nor anyone in your campaign had made the accusation that Clinton denigrated King. Why did you say that when clearly it was the memo from your campaign advisor that triggered the media and public assault on Clinton regarding King?

9. You have not produced a single public document that would provide the public with greater insight and knowledge about legislation, initiatives proposed, your votes on key bills, and your attendance record during your terms in the Illinois legislature. Why?

10. You have repeatedly charged that Clinton violated a pledge not to put her name on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. However, neither Clinton nor any other Democratic contender pledged to the DNC not to have their name on the ballot. Three other candidates had their name on the ballot in addition to Clinton. Why do continue to make this claim that the other candidates, but especially Clinton, violated a pledge not to have their name on the Michigan ballot?

Obama´s campaign is based on the firm pillar that he represents a new, open, fresh, and transparent politics. He is the candidate that is the antithesis of the political duplicity, double dealing, evasions, lies and corruption that marred other candidates. Obama can prove it by answering these questions; questions that raise serious doubt about his contention that he represents a radical break from the political past. If He won´t answer them then will his supporters answer them for him?

Posted by: joep1 | April 1, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse


The same polls show McCain beating either Democratic candidate.

So the headline should read, "Clinton or Obama: Who Will Be Humiliated Less?"


Posted by: WylieD | April 1, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY 'FLAGRANT, HYSTERICAL, REPETITIVE, PATHOLOGICAL LYING'...ICY, CONTRIVED, HYSTERICAL, SENTIMENTAL, BITTER, MANIPULATIVE, SELF-RIGHTEOUS'...
RASMUSSEN POLL: Clinton Lead Shrinking in PA; Clinton 47% Obama 42%...
Hitchens: Hillary 'flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying'...
Crouch: 'Icy, contrived, hysterical, sentimental, bitter, manipulative, self-righteous'...
http://www.albertpeia.com
http://www.albertpeia.com/currentopics2ndqtr10108.htm
http://www.albertpeia.com/wallstreetlunacy2ndqtr10108.htm

Posted by: alpeia | April 1, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

At the very least the Democrats can be proud of an Obama candidacy. Plus didn't Clinton already opt out of the race to become McCain's VP?

In 1980, 1984, and 1988 the party opted for legacy candidates -- and the end result was a failure at the polls. Even in defeat Obama will help Democrats build the party. This one should be a no-brainer. Obama also builds the party west of the Mississippi -- he presents a real growth opportunity for the party -- and can position himself in a real way as the Washington outsider against a career Washington politician.

During the general HRC will boost McCain's negatives upwards -- as well as having her own hit the 60 percent range. The Clintons wedge strategy is a loser for the Democratic party and a loser for America. It is past time to turn the page.

Posted by: JPRS | April 1, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

The American people don't even know who the real Obama is. He is so full of contradictions. The Pastor alone would ensure his defeat in November. Combine that with his inexperience, his long term relationships with Rezco and Ayers and it's a landslide for McCain.

The Dems need to go with someone that we already know and who has the experience and leadership ability to IMPLEMENT the solutions to our problems. We need leadership and action, not speeches.

Posted by: joep1 | April 1, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

April Fools-Bubble Burst Tonight...

It was like watching the news in a foreign country. What happened between the time Obama supporters and endorsers began shoving Hillary out of the race, and today, is anyone's guess, but there's just been a 360o turn around today, the media indicting itself, including CNN, for giving this race to Obama on a silver platter. Radio talk show hosts, admitted they found his story and his candidacy, newer and fresher.

According to Lou Dobbs, who interrupted Bill Schneider tonight saying, "Bill, you said Hillary can't win? You know what Obama can't win without Supers either." In response Bill screwed his lips into a half smirk.

Dobbs to Bill- The media has exercised a clear demonstration of favoritism for Obama against Clinton.

Dobbs to Bill- When it's all said and done, Supers will decide this race.

Dobbs to Bill- The Democratic party has crushed the votes among Democrats (FL/MI).

Even the polls didn't predict this media awakening, this sudden and massive redo by the media. So, what caused it, now?

Obama has been ushered into the public arena as the budding star of a major studio, the Democratic Party, He's been long on oratory in a time of short attention spans--so the swooning is over; Obama has reinvented his routine, taking on Hillary's pitch in Hillary's territory. Though he's spending three times more in PA, he will lose there.

What happened? In the last month there was a fervor of endorsements, a slow-walk on getting votes counted, the emergence of the Wright association at the wrong time, the much alluded to dysfunctionalism and failure of the party itself, this list keeps growing...

In an interview on CNN tonight Howard Dean back tracked the DNC's delegate and superdelegate position saying they will reflect wins, losses and their estimation of who would make the best President.

Now even Pelosi is saying the race should run its course, a switch from her stated position that the race should end sooner, than later.

Not count votes? Believe it or not that's still an unresolved issue when it comes to FL/MI and will remain so according to who wins, so says Dean.

Enter Rocky Balboa- The underdog- (Hillary Clinton) who just challenged Obama to a bowling match and at the same time accused him of not wanting to count votes.

Now, that's the BIG in this race.

And maybe, party leaders just learned something about voters who don't take kindly to having their votes taken away.

Will you find that fact in the polls? Some.

Obama's outward role is to appear that he wansts Hillary to keep running; but it's just an attempt to mitigate the public fall-out from Obama supporters pressuring Clinton to get out of the race.

The public perception is that on behalf of Obama, his supporters are trying to push her out, and aid the slow-walk to any solution to count the votes.

Obama doesn't' just want to disenfranchise FL/MI; the campaign wants Hillary out now so they can disenfranchise the voters of 10 more states.

"I know there are some in Washington, and some in the media, who want this race to be over," she remarked at a rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, last week. "Well I disagree. Everyone's voices should count."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/01/clinton.obama/index.html


This is the straw that is going to break the camel's back.

We don't.... under any circumstances.... NOT count VOTES.

It's the most powerful point of contention in the race so far; it's the breaking point in the campaign; it makes the Wright debacle and all its implications moot in comparison....

Posted by: vammap | April 1, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

The reasons why Obama is winning the nomination against Clinton and why he will win the general election against McCain are the following...

With McCain, we have with McCain someone who lives for wars and who is missing the heros of WW-II (see the reference to Churchill in one of McCain's publicity). We also have someone who didn't object to the idea of starting a war under false pretenses.

With Hillary Clinton, we have someone who is associated to too many scandals with her husband before, during and after the White House:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Before Bill left office, he gave favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

The reasons why Obama is winning against Clinton and why he will win against McCain are that voters are sick of people starting wars for false pretenses and they are sick of corrupted politicians (I include the Clintons and some of their pundits who have been allies in their past scandals).

Posted by: Logan6 | April 1, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

To MarSF:

Your rebuke to "SVreader" is right on.

I can't figure out who "SVreader" might be. Either an unhinged nut, suffering from obsessive compulsions and paranoia, or a crazed Hillaryite, or a right-wing plant.

In any case, it's people like that who make me worry about what might be in store for the country. And the same thing goes for others, "rat_the" and "kingofzouk" and so on, too tiresome to list.

Get a life, people!

Posted by: jm917 | April 1, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Who is really better candidate clearly depends upon who can win 270 out of 538 electoral votes needed in the general election. Let do the math. Since FL & MI are not counted (although Clinton won both states with 44 electoral votes), revised electoral votes needed-to-win in this example would be 247 out of 494 electoral votes in the general election.

Obama won (will win also included) the following states with 241 electoral votes:

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Clinton won (will win also included) the following states with 253 electoral votes:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia.

Indiana is still toss-up but gave to Obama in this tally.

As you can see, Senator Hillary Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator John McCain in the general election.

If nominee is other than Senator Clinton, there is no need to wonder why once again democrats have lost 7 out 10 elections in last 40 years. Democrats are guilty of picking wrong horse for the general election race every four years.

Do they want to pick Obama and join LOSER'S CLUB with Humphrey (1968), McGovern (1972), Carter (1980), Mondale (1984), Dukakis (1988), Gore (2000) Kerry (2004) and Obama (2008)?

Do they want to pick Clinton and join EXCLUSIVE WINNERS CLUB members with Carter (1976), Clinton (1992, 1996) and Clinton (2008, 2012)?

Democrats have a clear choice. Just do not bet on a wrong horse race and deeply regret another four more years.

PS: YesWeCanForFree is also winner of "The Fix Prediction Winner". Still predicting California will move from "Liley Democratic" to "Toss-Up" column if Obama is the nominee.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/primary_predictions_redux.html

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | April 1, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

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

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

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

People are really, really, angry about it.

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

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

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

It's about Obama's lies.

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

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

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

He's like a human chameleon.

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

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

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Obviously the one who wins the primaries can best beat McCain. The one who can't even get a majority in his or her own party has no chance in November. Hillary is of course much easier to beat since she carries so much baggage with years of countless scandals (plus Bill!). Obama would be much harder to beat. McCain who always liked Obama as a senate colleague, would never attack him personally.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | April 1, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

mark --

Your right about Obama taking credit for bills he never wrote as the WP pointed out in their article.

You're wrong about Hillary.

She's going to defeat McCain.

Clintons always win Presidential elections.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

mark --

Your right about Obama taking credit for bills he never wrote as the WP pointed out in their article.

You're wrong about Hillary.

She's going to defeat McCain.

Clintons always win Presidential elections.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

mark --

Your right about Obama taking credit for bills he never wrote as the WP pointed out in their article.

You're wrong about Hillary.

She's going to defeat McCain.

Clintons always win Presidential elections.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Sourced from GovTrack.US:

Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee and 1 was successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 559 bills during the same time period.

Hillary Clinton has sponsored 356 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 308 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Clinton has co-sponsored 1739 bills during the same time period.

John McCain has sponsored 403 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 263 haven't made it out of committee and 12 were successfully enacted. McCain has co-sponsored 879 bills during the same time period.

--- 3 other senior Senators for comparison:

Richard Lugar has sponsored 261 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 158 haven't made it out of committee and 17 were successfully enacted. Lugar has co-sponsored 955 bills during the same time period.

Christopher Dodd has sponsored 336 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 268 haven't made it out of committee and 9 were successfully enacted. Dodd has co-sponsored 1874 bills during the same time period.

Joseph Biden has sponsored 229 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 132 haven't made it out of committee and 6 were successfully enacted. Biden has co-sponsored 1162 bills during the same time period.
------------------------------
My take: BHO and HEC have been asked to cosponsor a lot as junior Senators, and can be proud of that.

Lugar is the single outstanding legislator in the Senate. McCain is up there.
Admittedly, one would have to look at quality of bills and substance.

Lugar, Biden, Dodd, and McCain have passed a lot of serious substantive legislation.

The Ds are running second stringers, but highly regarded ones.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

marSF --

Just like Obama, you have no ideas of your own, you just steal them from others and switch the names.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Dear SVREADER, you really, really need to get a life.

I made a few improvements on your earlier screed:


Clinton supporters are only fooling themselves if they think that bloviating about voting for McCain over Obama really gives them the upper hand in their arguments. Any Democrat that is that short-sighted and vindictive should leave the party anyway.

Clinton supporters have parroted every right-wing talking point and shouted "sexism" at every possible chance as a way to present their candidate as a victim of "bullies".

The Clinton's have done everything in their power to trash the reputation of the only two-term Democratic President since FDR by running a campaign of lies, distortion and smear against a Democratic opponent.

If Clinton is the candidate, McCain's the President.

Barack Obama is far more qualified to lead America than Clinton is and would be an infinitely better President.

Posted by: marSF | April 1, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is toast: be it the summer or November 2008.

I agree that if Hillary were to win she would have to destroy the Democratic Party. In the unlikely event she were to win the nomination, she be toast. Rest assured that someone: e.g. McCain's campaign, the Republican National Committee, or a 527 group, would incorporate her lies about Bosnia into an attack ad, then its bye bye Hillary, and say hello to President McCain.

Posted by: lieb666 | April 1, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S POOR JUDGMENT leaves AMERICANS FOOTING THE BILL:

.

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war (i.e. hillary) should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.


Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...


$3,000,000,000... 3 billion dollars PER WEEK!


That is the amount America is paying for the Iraq War PER WEEK, money that should have been used here, at home.


Add to this:


Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) that carries interest; so in actuality, the war is costing the United States MORE THAN 3 billion dollars PER WEEK.


Higher oil and energy prices. Instability in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.


High oil prices mean high utility bills. Due to high oil prices, demand shifts to other sources of energy - gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?


Higher oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean higher prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?


Higher oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say Goodbye to your hard-earned money!


Our dollar is weak and getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit and is growing in large part to the rising cost of imported oil, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what? It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and getting weaker.


Lastly, how do you think the world views our country since the argument was made for war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to hillary's authorization.


Posted by: Sara_Bergstein | April 1, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I think this pretty much answers the question.

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I beg to differ: Obama will trample McCain especially on the war. How can an experienced man not know better on the war??? Given McCain's experience, all the more he should know we should NOT maintain our American citizens under the conditions of this illegit war. For what??? And then he admitted to knowing what about the economy??? Obama will be very interesting against McCain.

May the people show their increasing patriotism and participate with The Team to bring our people home. Let us not contribute to condemning our fellow Americans, while at the same time focus on our economy.

Obama or Hillary will do well against McCain.

My preference is Obama vs. McCain.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 1, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Want to see how St Obama "won" his first election?

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me

Think he's a "new kind of politician?"

Here's how he's actually run his campaign.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

He's even worse than Bush.

Did you know he worked to block Bush's impeachment?

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Judging by the virulent hatred--that's not too strong a word--on exhibit on blogs like this, I am seriously worried that one contingency that has a good chance of coming to pass before Election Day is Barack Obama's assassination. I hope that the Secret Service is doing everything posssible to protect him. But in press-the-flesh campaigns like this, mere candidates always have to be considered at greater risk than incumbents.

There are simply too many white-supremacist dead-enders out there, and too many who seriously think that Obama is a crypto-Muslim (and hence secret agent of al-Qaeda), and too many just-plain-unhinged nutcases (who always seem drawn to targeting "controversial" personalities)! Some such probably troll these blogs.

God help this country!

And I'm old enough to remember the Sixties, when Jack and Malcolm and Martin and Bobby all got cut down. Reading through the above comments, all that comes back...

Posted by: jm917 | April 1, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Copyright Reverend Irving Wright with twenty years of Amens from Barry Obama

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us repudiate a land that's so called free,
Let us all be hateful for a land that's so called fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Da-mn America,
Land that I loathe.
Stand astride her, yet despise her
With a chip on a shoulder from above.
From the plantations, up to Harvard
To the Jews rich from our blood
God Da-am America, keepin' us down down down.

Posted by: rahaha | April 1, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I must agree with some of the posters here. I do appreciate some statements made from both Obama and Hillary supporters. Some have a very interesting take on the subject.

I agree that McCain is going down in November regardless. I am for Obama or Hillary, whomever gets the Democratic nomination. I am anxious to see Obama/McCain as my preference. However, if it ends up being Hillary, I'll sit back to see if she gives him heck the way my preferred candidate has taken from her (honestly speaking but joking at the same time). I would anxiously watch to see how McCain handles himself, knowing he has some temper issues.

I have to say though, I do believe Obama will school McCain (a person with war experience) on the fact that this war is illegit for one and the price our American citizens has paid for it (for two), and then to follow up with some correlation on our economy (for three) and the list can go on and on. I definitely am looking forward to that. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will indeed get settled with popcorn.

We need to bring our troops home and find other issues to help solve with The Trillions of dollars. It's time to get out of the brainwash with the war, and stop letting idiot presidents act out fantasies with war during their service. This is not a game.

Obama/Hillary '08

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 1, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain would eat Obama for breakfast.

Hillary would eat McCain's lunch.

Its better to eat than be eaten.

If Hillary's the candidate, McCain has to convince voters he'd be better than the combination of Hillary and Bill Clinton, who turned a Republican deficit into a Democratic Surplus.

The only Democrats the Republicans are afraid of are the Clintons.

That's why conservatives have worked so hard to derail Hillary.

That's why Democrats need to nominate her if they want to win.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Ha Ha Ha... predictable mindless you.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 04:22 PM

I think the derangement is progressing. now she is talking to herself. Or is that hillary-cackle I hear?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Well, Duh, Chris! Obviously the Republican operatives are going to say Clinton's the stronger candidate-- they're spinning-- shocker!!
Everyone knows Obama is the stronger candidate and if the press corps would step up to the plate and stop coddling McCain, the electorate would see he has nothing to offer but more of the same
stuckness. Can McCain's gaffes/flip flops/unpreparedness please get noticed???

Posted by: lloydhandwerker | April 1, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Republicans fear Hillary because if she's the nominee, the election becomes a referendum on Bill Clinton vs. George Bush and Republicans know they lose that one by a landslide.

If Obama's the candidiate, Republicans can waltz right back into the whitehouse.

Obama looks like an inexperienced kid compared to McCain.

There's even a great bumper sticker slogan --

"Who would you rather vote for, the 'coke head' or the war hero?"

Clinton's the far stronger candidate.


Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

The Reps would be wise to want to go up against Obama v. Hillary. True, Hillary's numbers in some key states are horrible and nearly really bad.


still.


The truth is that Neither Obama nor Hillary are strong candidates in the fall - no one wants to hear that however it is the truth.


Posted by: Miata7 | April 1, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Has everyone seen the email from Obama supporers that claims he's done more in the senate than Hillar?

According to newsweek, the email is a bunch of BS.

Here's another example of how Obama's supporters lie to puff up their lying candidate.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976


Hillary's passed twice the amount of legislation, and we know from the wasington post article that most of what Obama's been given credit for was stuff he was never even involved in.

Obama takes credit for stuff he never did, and never did the stuff he should have done.

He had a lot of good people fooled.

I hope this finally wakes them up.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

FYI: The ACLU is a bunch/group of lawyers that work to protect our "Rights" according to the Constitution of The USA. Lawyers are pretty well degraded/denigrated by most of the "Right Wingers" until they get into trouble. Most lawyers are good people, as are most folks in every walk of life. There was something very interesting about the last day of voter Registration in Pa. Take a look, and see what You'll think.

Posted by: lylepink | April 1, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza has written a very revealing column which can all be well summed in his last paragraph - a perception of Obama versus an experience with Clinton. For me, the problem with perception is where it comes from - the media. Two years ago no one even heard of Obama on the national scene, then virtually overnight he was everywhere. Now days he rolls a gutter ball and it's front page news. That kind of positive media attention has had its affect. With Hillary, on the other hand, if she so much as double-parks the Republicans appoint a special prosecutor. She is probably the most investigated person in the history of politics - and she's never been found guilty yet. It has become a bit old I'll admit. But, my guess is that the Republicans fear her a lot more than they admit...

Posted by: hariseldonsr | April 1, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"That's laughable. McCain will look like an old, clumsy joker (remember Dubya?) next to Obama."

Obama does not debate well. He looks stiff and clumsy. He gives great speeches when the crowd is stacked, much like GWB. McCain will make him look weak and unpatriotic.

Posted by: hdimig | April 1, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Duck...

In coming sniper fire.......

It's tough here in Bosnia......

Swift boating was never this easy

Posted by: scottinorlando | April 1, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The pros don't seem to know. Even if they are not telling us the truth to fool us they still come down on opposite sides.

As an HRC supporter the Gallup Poll does not look good for HRC. Seems like the 'reality' is Obama is the stronger candidate even though I don't know how anyone can tell at this point. Save the cultist who know all.

I think, but don't know, that Obama still has votes to lose in the Polls because he makes a good first impression. HRC will not go down and if she runs a well can go up a little.

I also think when people get into the voting both Mac and Obama will make them a little worried - they don't like HRC but no one fears her judgment aka she is safe on many issues. I don't know this and being cool or a 'white male' may decide all.

Posted by: mul | April 1, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Rules Agreed can't be changed for the interest of one candidate. Then once this decision is firmly stated, The Democratic Party should reduce the number of Delegates needed for the nominated candidate to pass the final line, we may have a candidate sooner than later and we can get down to the November Election Race.

Posted by: jaybs1 | April 1, 2008 05:39 AM


Got to love these Obama supporters. First they say rules agreed to cannot be changed to benefit one candidate. Then in the next sentence they say change another rule that clearly will benefit their guy.

Politics of "change" eh? Or politics as usual?

Posted by: chuchuchu | April 1, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- thanks for your input.

I hope the kid wins.

Even though, based on my reading, he seems like a fanatic who was just looking for trouble. (I generally don't support this kind of behavior.)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I just looked at the Wisconsin ACLU website and I do not see any indication that this kid's case is on their horizon. Perhaps I gave them too much credit.

The way the case is described online, I like the kid's chances of prevailing.

Unfortunately, from the kid's perspective in this case, the current Supremes are not big on upholding 1st A rights for kids in school. Scalia, who usually agrees with Ginsburg on 1stA [she tends to think it broadly protects the individual], is a bear when it comes to minors.

So I think the kid's best bet is the Federal District Court. Hope the lawyer has chosen a sympathetic forum.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama, but here are my thoughts.

1. Hillary is going to win in PA, but unless something gives, it is going to be by too small an amount to make a difference (5 to 8 points).
2. Hillary should not get out until the convention because you just don't know what will happen. I do think that unless we find out that Obama's preacher handed out guns to everyone in his church, nothing will happen and Obama will eke out the nomination.
3. Obama is the stronger candidate THIS WEEK. Last week it was Hillary. In July it could be Ralph Nader
4. McCain is going to be formidable against either of them.
5. For everyone who emails 'If Obama wins the nomination, I am going to vote for McCain, and my friends are going to also', there is an email that says 'If Clinton wins the nomination, I am going to vote for McCain, and my friends are going to also'

The truth is, at this point, we just don't know. We can only conjecture!

Posted by: jweber91 | April 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Another deep and meaningful statement from the General.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

jac13 I will answer all of your questions but I am certain you won't like my answers.


"Here is a question I haven't been able to get and answer to: exactly how does the alleged poor judgment exhibited by Obama for not quitting his church apply to the job of president? Name me a hypothetical presidential decision that it's relevant to. Whether to invade a country and depose a regime that are not a threat to us? Whether to break the law and wiretap US citizens without a warrant? Whom to appoint to the Supreme Court? Whether to dispatch relief aid and the National Guard to a region hit by a natural disaster? Whether to incarcerate suspected terrorists for years on end with no charges and no counsel?

In case you don't get my point, IMO this "judgment" baloney is a smokescreen for guilt by association, plain and simple.

I attended Catholic schools all my life, and attended Catholic church for 25 years, even served Mass for 5 years, while, I learned somewhere along the way, priests were sexually abusing children and other parishioners. Should my not leaving the church when I learned of this be an impediment to my seeking political office?"

1. Senator Obama has said from day one support me over HC because of my superior judgment. I thought that was a bogus argument the first time I heard it b/c that judgment was made when he was an Illinois Senator, not someone brave like Dennis Kusinich who bravely stood up to his party in the well of Congress. Sen Obama then opposed every vote when he got to the US Senate including Sen Kerry's bill to end the war; his fellow Senator Durbin actually took a stand that now political and presidential candidate Obama refused to take knowing it wouldn't be prudent in a general election;

2. Senator Obama has stood his ground which is great and stood with rev Wright. Note Rev Wright himself warned Sen Obama a year ago to distance himselg b/c even Rev Wright knew his language was inflamatory. And Sen Obama's. judgment? stand by Rev Wright. Why? He returned from vacation and immediately returned to an African Amer. church and once again stood by Rev Wright? Good Judgment?

And what you won't like is my comparison to W's stubborn streak. Sen Obama knew he was in a bind but fearful of upsetting his most ardent supporters he continues to stand by Rev Wright but cutely says he opposes his words.Brave of him don't you think? Most Americans would have left 20 years ago not still stubbornly standing by Rev Wright.

How does it apply to being President. Isn't the Judgment or lack thereof that W used in katrina even when he was advised how wrong that judgment was, something every Dem deplores about W? I guess you are saying that Sen obama compartmentalizing his bad judgment to only elevate Rev Wright to be his spiritual advisor but not to select a Brownie? Would you approve of Rev Wright giving spiritual advise to a potential president. I would choose Ted Strickland or Jim Wallace as the kind of spiritual advisor I would hope our next president would turn to.

As to your situation with the catholic church, that is your business by I would hope that if your priest preached such venom from your church you would leave that church; I certainly would. If your priest was molesting children I would presume that if you found that out you would confront that priest and ask him to leave your church, which would show good judgment and character. If you knew of such criminal behavior and stood by silently I would say no you would not be a candidate I would support.


Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse


Ha Ha Ha... predictable mindless you.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I for one, a democrat, will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated. I am sure there are others like me who will do the same.

Posted by: milton_dsilva | April 1, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Reporter: We want to find out who the R's would rather run against. Who, oh who, should I ask? Maybe I'll ask a liberal. No, I'll ask a conservative.

Republican: We would rather run against X.

Liberal: That's a conspiracy! Karl Rove won't hijack this election. The R's are just floating propaganda - don't believe them. There is a vast right-wing conspiracy against hope and change. This is bias reporting! How dare you ask a conservative what he thinks, Chris. This isn't "hard-hitting" news. We all know Republicans are stupid. Except when they fool us and steal elections. But they're stupid, I promise. Just keep your eye on Karl Rove - he's the least-stupid of the stupid R's. Don't let them trick us.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 01:25 PM


How is asking Republican consultants a good way to find out who would be stronger against McCain? Can one really expect them not to be disingenuous? This is like Karl Rove's column in Newsweek advising the Dems on how to run their convention. Or maybe the joke's on me. April Fool's?

Posted by: s.j.pinto | April 1, 2008 04:08 PM


Ha Ha Ha... predictable mindless libs.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

How is asking Republican consultants a good way to find out who would be stronger against McCain? Can one really expect them not to be disingenuous? This is like Karl Rove's column in Newsweek advising the Dems on how to run their convention. Or maybe the joke's on me. April Fool's?

Posted by: s.j.pinto | April 1, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

This Rev. Wright thing is a good example of the kind of shallow thinking and facile, unquestioned arguments that pass for political discourse these days.

Here is a question I haven't been able to get and answer to: exactly how does the alleged poor judgment exhibited by Obama for not quitting his church apply to the job of president? Name me a hypothetical presidential decision that it's relevant to. Whether to invade a country and depose a regime that are not a threat to us? Whether to break the law and wiretap US citizens without a warrant? Whom to appoint to the Supreme Court? Whether to dispatch relief aid and the National Guard to a region hit by a natural disaster? Whether to incarcerate suspected terrorists for years on end with no charges and no counsel?

In case you don't get my point, IMO this "judgment" baloney is a smokescreen for guilt by association, plain and simple.

I attended Catholic schools all my life, and attended Catholic church for 25 years, even served Mass for 5 years, while, I learned somewhere along the way, priests were sexually abusing children and other parishioners. Should my not leaving the church when I learned of this be an impediment to my seeking political office?

Many public officials have sat in church over the years and heard sermons preaching intolerance and hatred in many forms: racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc., etc., etc. They were never thrown out of office for that reason.

Oppose Obama because you think he's too inexperienced, liberal, glid, insincere, whatever. But stop using this church thing as an excuse.

Posted by: jac13 | April 1, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"It quite obvious the republicans want to run against Hillary Clinton. Republicans dope head hacks are begging their constituents to change their party registration to vote for Clinton." onefreeman

actually CNN reported yesterday that a majority of the Pa (1/4 million) who had changed their registration to vote in their primary were Obama supporters.


another example of Obama supporters wanting it both ways.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Jonothan,

The best shot honestly would go to the one who could a) win the popular vote and b) win the electoral vote- ridiculous rules make the caucuses ridiculous representations of nothing and open primaries attract voters with no loyalty to a candidate, party or political philosophy- so these are not a good judge of who can beat McCain

If you must use these skewed results you should probably figure out a way to get true representation of Michigan and Florida, since they vote in November and are important.

I have not figured out a way that Barak can win the electoral vote- and don't start claiming southern or caucus states where he won the primary/caucuses- those were Democratic voters, and in the case of caucuses, very few of them (9100 people voted in Wyoming- more people than that get on/off my subway stop in 6 hours. He has trouble with the wrong voters- working class and Latin- McCain polls well with both (trust me- I'm a lifelong Dem- I don't want McCain)

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | April 1, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

It quite obvious the republicans want to run against Hillary Clinton. Republicans dope head hacks are begging their constituents to change their party registration to vote for Clinton.

It won't work. It's only going to give Barack a campaign slogan after the primaries.

Republicans are the worse kind of people I have ever seen. Just think, I voted republican before. Never again as long as I live.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | April 1, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"you only listen to ppl you agree with?

I often disagree w/ my pastor, but i don't leave the church where i've found community because of that...

he wasn't there during that particular sermon. and kids are in sunday school during sermons."


sgoe: then your pastor said Damn America, and made antisemetic slurs? I doubt that.

I would walk out of my synagogue if my rabbi made such outrageous statements from the pulpit as I believe 90% of Americans would. I would then call his office and confront him man to man, and if he did not make an immediate public apology I would confront the President of my synagogue publicly call from his firing.

You can apologize from those incidendiary remarks, which even Pastor Wright told Senator to distance himself from and he sat quiely by and did nothing for 20 years.

I guess that HC and Obama supporters are different when it comes to such incidences. In fact my synagogue acted inappropriately towards a former rabbi, they were called to task for it and retracted.

and his pastor IS ALLOWED TO GET ANGRY. That's America's freedom of speech rule...do you dispute that right?

I do not agree w/ everything my pastor says and thinks. but i still love my church. it is boring to only listen to things you agree with.

I totally respect my religion but I am not wed to any particular synagogue(which I happen to be very pleased with), I am wed to my religion. Again I would not tolerate or elevate a Pastor Wright to be my spiritual mentor and neither would HC and certainly would not expose children to such language. Great spriritual message to children? Damn America.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

J_thinks --

Obama will lose whether Clinton campaigns for him or not.

Unlike Obama supporters, Clinton supporters aren't robots.

We don't follow "marching orders"

It won't matter who campaigns for him.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

If there's anything the Democrats are *really* good at, it's losing an election they should win.

This is probably the only thing USMC MIKE posted that I totally agree with.

Posted by: J_thinks | April 1, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

HRC stated - she will support the DEM nominee regardless. So svreader - with HRC campaigning for him, do you still think he will lose against McC?

Just wondering, because in my opinion, regardless of what is said about HRC she is a DEM first and her goal is a DEM in the WH. If she is big enough to state this fact, her supporters should be able to come to grips with it as well.

My oft repeated line is I will support HRC or Obama - the alternatives is not an option for where we are from a global perspective.

Posted by: J_thinks | April 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"Your "win at any cost" approach will cost Democats the election."

This just might be true. If there's anything the Democrats are *really* good at, it's losing an election they should win.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

ken --

Here's a "rule" you can take to the bank.

If Obama gets the nomination, McCain will be the President.

If Obama get the nomination without Florida and Michigan having their vote, McCain will win by a landslide.

The damage you guys have caused to the Democratic Party is enormous.

Your "win at any cost" approach will cost Democats the election.

We won't ever forgive you for that.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone in the Clinton campaign care that there is a set of rules that the game is to be played by? Florida & Michigan are not to count. All candidates signed off on that one, but now Hillary wants the delegates seated.

There is one very basic rule that she needs to acknowledge. The candidate who wins the most delegates in the nominee, not the candidate who has won the most BIG states or the popular vote or who could wins the most electoral votes.

Posted by: ken.hawbaker | April 1, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama has not had the "experience" of operating under enemy fire that Clinton claims and McCain actually sustained, giving over five years of his youthful life to imprisonment in Vietnam some time ago. But Americans are smart enough to honor his service and his sacrifice and move on, and poll data show this recognition.

Moreover, we are smart enough to recognize that our next President must be far more than a leader in initiating and waging ruinous war.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 1, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY ARE IN PAKISTAN."

Well General, why didn't you say something before?

Alert the Pentagon!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

leichtman
you only listen to ppl you agree with?

I often disagree w/ my pastor, but i don't leave the church where i've found community because of that...

he wasn't there during that particular sermon. and kids are in sunday school during sermons.

and his pastor IS ALLOWED TO GET ANGRY. That's America's freedom of speech rule...do you dispute that right?

I do not agree w/ everything my pastor says and thinks. but i still love my church. it is boring to only listen to things you agree with.

Obama did not say what wright said, wright said it. go listen to obama's speech in response to outcry over wright's sermons.

Posted by: sgoewey | April 1, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"What cost has it been to YOU?"

My beloved country, former land of freedom has become a pariah of the world. My beloved Constitution has been shredded. Anyone can be arrested, anytime, for anything, and be detained secretly without even knowing why. Even for wearing the wrong tshirt.

"And I don't mean that in a "you aren't a Marine, so shut your fat face" sort of way. I mean it in a, "what price does an average citizen actually pay? How does this war actually detract from your everyday life?" kind of way."

Cost? My duaghter's future. Who is going to pay this enormous deficit? Do you really think you can live on a credit card forever without making payments? The bill will come due and our children will pay for it. We can't even afford the interest right now.

"If the "gain" means killing a terrorist who would have killed YOU, wouldn't you say it was worth it?"

Why would an Iraqi insurgent, whose only goal is getting the occupiers out of their country want to kill someone here? If you want to talk about Pakistan, where all the terrorism is actually coming from, that's a different story. But we aren't there, are we?

"My final question (although I hope you don't ignore the others): Do you not think that there is a decentralized, committed, and capable organization of Islamic terrorists who are plotting, I mean really plotting, daily, to kill you (or any American they can)? [Because if we cannot agree upon this, we might as well cease our exchange, IMO]"

ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY ARE IN PAKISTAN.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are only fooling themselves if they think that Clinton supporters are going to line up like tin soldiers to vote the party line.

Clinton supporters will not forgive that Obama-nuts gleefully threw Bill, Hillary, and even Chelsea "under the bus" in their effort to get Obama the nomination "at any cost"

Obama supporters have parroted every right-wing talking point and shouted "racsim" at every possible chance as a way to supress any possible vetting of their candidate.

Obama supporters have done everything in their power to trash the reputation of the only two-term Democratic President since FDR.

If Obama's the candidate, McCain's the President.

Clinton suppporters will not condone the slime attacks of Obama supporters on the legacy of Bill Clinton, and on Hillary Clinton, who is far more qualified to lead America than Obama is and would be an infinitely better President.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

True, we do not know the dynamics of an Obama vs. McCain election. Nor do we know the dynamics of a Clinton vs. McCain election. One thing we know for sure--currently, there are no dynamics when it comes to McCain.

Despite being the presumptive nominee, McCain has yet to get the big money behind him; McCain has yet to get the conservative talk show hosts behind him; McCain has yet to energize and excite his party members and party leaders.

Day in and day out, McCain is virtually ignored by the press, while hours upon hours of coverage are dedicated to Clinton and Obama. McCain only gets coverage when he "misspeaks" or stumbles on the facts. The press follows the news; clearly, no one thinks McCain is newsworthy, and McCain is failing to make himself newsworthy.

Whether against Obama or Clinton in November, one thing is certain, McCain pales in the comparisons. McCain displays no intellectual savvy when it comes to any subject other than the war. McCain appears to be a single faceted candidate--hardly a candidate worth listening to, let alone supporting for the highest office in the land.

The republicans really blotched the succession planning when they picked a Bush/Cheney ticket. Without an heir-apparent, the field was open to everyone wanting to toss their hats in the ring. Unfortunately, none of the contenders were able to energize the party and its leaders; McCain became the presumptive nominee by mere chance, not by overwhelming support of the party.

The only way McCain will win in November is for his opponent to implode.

Posted by: txgall | April 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has one man to thank for the fact that he will surely be our next president.

And that man, more than any other, is George W. Bush.

The American people are so fed up with Washington insiders and power-players that the backlash has become a virtual tsunami!

Obama will almost certainly ride the "change-wave" all the way to the White House.

God knows we need a new direction.

Posted by: CrushInfamy | April 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Why are the Republicans afraid of the Clintons? Ross Perot and a recession defeated Bush the Elder. Peace and prosperity made the 1996 election nothing but a constitutional formality. There are only three paths to the nomination for Clinton, she can tear the party in two, Obama commits political suicide or Obama dies. The first scenario hands the election to McCain and the third makes McCain run against the ghost of the hyperbole here candidate of a generation.

Can McCain overcome a poor economy with his message of economic Hooverism, a reviled President of the same party and a war that wanes between unpopular and best not mentioned? It's like asking a guy in traction who we wants to fight for the heavy-weight title. But since it is a Democrat in the other corner the question is probably worth asking. I'd be more afraid of Obama. McCain v an unwounded Clinton means they will both be going after the same 55-60% of voters who went to the polls four years ago. Sure there will be some demographic changes, but fundamentally they are re-fighting the 2000 & 2004 election. McCain v a wounded Clinton is his best path to victory. McCain v Obama has the potential to be a whole new ballgame. Record participation rates by blacks and young people can radically shift the regular district by district voting patterns campaigns count on to decide their strategy. That is the truly scary scenario. I think any strategist who says I want to face Obama has to either 1) critically defend why turnout patterns will remain unchanged or 2) explain how McCain can kill the fervor among youths and blacks about Obama.

Posted by: caribis | April 1, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm not making the claim that you and I have never had arguments.

My sense is, that you have been going out of your way to disagree/disaprove with anything you think you can. And, that this trend has intensified since I have become critical of the Junior Senator [does that diction make me more worthy of a response from an elite liberal?]

And, you should know, the only reason I have noticed is because I [used to] care what you thought about things - I found you reasonable, educated, and fair. Most unfortunately, IMO, Obama has made you a fainter. I hope I'm wrong, but your relentlessness suggests otherwise.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

no jac13 I won't lightin up. Our HC supporters at our Texas District convention were spit on this past sat.(channel 11 report) and received robo misinformation calls from childish Obama supporters. Being Jewish I am not amused by references to goose stepping, its not funny one bit.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike writes
"The point you have never refuted: You only started paying attention to my posts... AFTER I started posting what an inexperienced, lying douche bag B. Hussein Obama (your Messiah) is. Let me know if you need a further explanation."

The historical record proves you wrong. You and I have argued in the past, most notably on war policy, before you regressed to the sophomoric level you reference, above. In that regard, your words speak for themselves, and do not require - or deserve - response.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

interesting, we are now learning the intracacies of the HC volunteer corp and fundraising of HC, from guess what, a rabid Obama supporter. Wow what credibility you guys have, we are so impressed. I guess that is why they call this a blog. Apparently you can come here, post constant misinformation about your your opponent, and cheered on by your minions.


"So it all comes back to "info4's observation" (and that is certainly credible?) about how well they run their campaign/hire campaign workers and inspire volunteers.."

"But Judgment is most important"

And I am sure you are impressed with Senator Obama's judgment to sit in Pastor Wright's church with his young children for 20 years and Damn America. Yea, right that was such great Judgment, you think?


Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Geez, leichtman, lighten up!

I intended no Nazi reference -- if you've read any of my posts you know I'm not into that kind of stuff. (The Soviets goose-stepped, too, by the way.) I don't understand why we Obama supporters can be called "Obamabots" or be accused of belonging to a cult, but you are insulted if it is suggested that Hillary's supporters are marching in lock step. As I said, lighten up.

Posted by: jac13 | April 1, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Want to ruin a city - elect a Lib:

Public-sector unions protect the dismal status quo. Detroit high schools graduate just a third of their students, according to an estimate by Michigan State University. But when a philanthropist offered to spend $200 million to create 15 new charter high schools, teachers staged a walk-out. Mayor Kilpatrick spurned the offer. These failing schools throw kids with no skills into a struggling economy in an environment characterized by social breakdown.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"I would not be surprised if the ACLU DID take this kid's position."

It was the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group.

So far, the ACLU is conspicuously absent.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

bookedtwice:

You could troll around these boards and look for "svreader" if you just want the straight HRC propaganda on Obama's Rezko ties.

Or you could spend some time and look at the following websites to determine for yourself what you think.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/index.html

Maybe starting here:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.stng

Posted by: mnteng | April 1, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Mike, it reinforces my opinion, unles the school can wriggle out by saying it did not know or approve of the teacher's policy.

For a really "clean" case, a lawyer would have had a kid appeal the form, lose the appeal, then submit a painting that fit the teacher's assignment [landscape, abstract, whatever] but that contained a religious symbol.

I would not be surprised if the ACLU DID take this kid's position.

Really gotta go.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

info4 ... wow. that bit of news about the poor management of HRC campaign funds is exhibit A as to why Obama (that young whipper-snapper!) beats her (AND McCain).

It is so clear that it is OBAMA who has created all the excitement and record-breaking primary voter turn out (not just among young ppl either) it's ENJOYABLE to listen to him (he's just not boring like most politicians), he's SMARTER than McCain (A student vs. C-) and more articulate than Hillary (and just about everybody else--though I miss Edwards, Biden) he has better judgment/managers behind him than either McCain or HRC , making WAY better hiring decisions... which is SO impt in a president...more impt than anything else! His speaking skills make HRC look/sound ... strident and McCain sound so...old. Don't we WANT to listen to an inspiring speaker for the next 4 years?! I do.
AND he's reaching the "unreachable"... the young. Who says they don't turn out ever? They do for Obama... THAT IS WHAT IS SO EXCITING ABOUT THIS RACE! I think many college kids feel Obama's "race" gives them a chance to say, "SO THERE, you racist old people who allowed such terrible things to happen in our country's history, we're colorblind and you should be too! We finally have someone we can rally behind and we'll tell our friends--you tube and real friends and we hate this endless war that was based on a lie... old men in D.C. keep sending other people's kids to die in iraq, for what?"
(see moveon.org endorsement, among others)

and that's fueling the obamamentum and it's real, not a creation of either organized party or the media. If the media is "swept up in it" it's because it is just so exciting! People who never cared about politics, care about the horse race... they're reporting what they are seeing.
And, btw, for upteenth time, Gore DID turn out the vote enough to get more votes than Bush...it's that pesky electoral vote system and FL's inability to count accurately that did him in...
But none of us in 2000 had any idea that Bush could possibly be as bad as he's been. If ONLY he'd been a "do nothing" president thousands of lives would have been saved here and in iraq, instead he made these horendous hiring decisions and relied on a bunch of bullies (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove) plus some nice incompetents (Rice, Hughes) who in turn made even worse hiring decisions and it all trickled down to the huge fiasco we now have in Iraq.

So it all comes back to info4's observation about how well they run their campaign/hire campaign workers and inspire volunteers as to the acid test how well they'll lead the country not just answer the "3 a.m." call... so far, of the 3 remaining candidates, Obama seems to operate the best under sleep deprivation!

Of course, he's the youngest applicant for a job that requires more stamina than I've got and I'm Obama's age...can't imagine I'll be SOOOOOO much smarter 15, 25 years from now. Life experience counts. Leadership counts. Management skills count. But Judgment is most important.

Posted by: sgoewey | April 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Last post. Bsimon and Mike, if the school had a rule against religious expression in art that rule violates the "Free exercise" clause.

It is not an "establishment" issue like mandating prayer.

-------------------------------------
Mark -- if you get around to reading this, the teacher aparently made the students sign a form that, among other things, prohibited any religious art. Does that change your above statement?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"The point I'm calling you out on is the irrational claim that one art teacher's censorship is representative of a nationwide (if not global) political group. I think it makes you look like an idiot; consider it my way of trying to help you keep people from thinking so."

I know the liberal view of the world is self-centered.

I don't give a flip what you think of me, spare me your "help".

My claim is hardly irrational. Liberal groups assault Christianity on a daily basis. Google ACLU.

I repeat: Which is more likely, a conservative censoring the cross, or a liberal? I think we both know what "most people" would say. I think my point passes the "reasonableness" test fairly easily.

The point you have never refuted: You only started paying attention to my posts, and are willing to do anything (extra research, investment of time, and even make youself "look like an ass") to refute anything I say, only AFTER I started posting what an inexperienced, lying douche bag B. Hussein Obama (your Messiah) is. Let me know if you need a further explanation.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Last post. Bsimon and Mike, if the school had a rule against religious expression in art that rule violates the "Free exercise" clause.

It is not an "establishment" issue like mandating prayer.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Embattled Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson announced his resignation yesterday....".

Antoin "Tony" Rezko is facing federal charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud. His ties to Barack Obama have been one of the focuses of the 2008 Democratic Campaigns.

Please excuse my ignorance. Are there any similarities (but in different scale) between these two events? What ties are there between Barack Obama and Antoin "Tony" Rezko? Bribe?

Posted by: bookedtwice | April 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"And that point, you have never refuted."

Sorry, you're losing me now. What point is that, again?

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

First of all, Hillary is not going to be the Democratic nominee unless Obama makes a very bad gaffe between now and the end of the primary voting or a major scandal involving him erupts.

Second, I agree with the posters who point out that the opinions of the Republican strategists whom Chris is quoting need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. They are playing head games with Democrats, trying to keep their opponents' divisions alive. That's normal politics, and Democratic strategists do the same thing. Discount it all.

The truth is that no one can make acurate "predictions" at this stage. The November outcome is going to depend on (1) how bad voters see the economic situation, (2) how bad voters judge the war in Iraq, and (3) whether the United States comes under a terrorist attack (here or overseas) before the votes are cast.

The Republicans are basically the party representing the economic "haves." To win national elections, normally the GOP must convince the majority of voters that their economic situation is good and/or improving. If the economy is in bad shape, the GOP usually can only hope to win if the Democrats happen to be the incumbents, and thus can be blamed for the mess--as happened in 1980, when Jimmy Carter and "the liberals" got saddled with responsibility for all that was going wrong. (And yes, a hell of a lot was going wrong.) If voters think that the economy is headed downhill, they will normally vote to throw the rascals out--as in 1992, when Old Bush bit the dust.

Unless there is an unexpectedly dramatic economic turnaround between now and November 2008, McCain is going to have two strikes against him. And neither his professed ignorance of economics nor his insistence on sticking with Bush's economic policies is going to help him. And Obama will benefit by having McCain behind 0-2 in this area. (But Hillary would have exactly the same advantage.)

On the war, McCain also seems to be behind on the count, 0-2. The "hundred years war" curse is going to be hung round his neck relentlessly between now and November. Events of the last week suggest that McCain's claim of the surge "working" are pretty hollow. If between now and November someone of the stripe of Moqtada al Sadr becomes the big cheese of Iraq, or if that Godforsaken country collapses into civil war, the American voters are likely to demand that this country cut its loses and bring the troops home. Again, I don't think Obama or Hillary will have any comparative advantage over one another in arguing the case against McCain in such a debate--although Obama will (as he repeatedly claims) have the greater credibility when it comes to arguing that Iraq was a ghastly mistake from the start.

McCain's hopes have to rest on the Fear Factor--and to be very blunt about it, the GOP has long been skilled in ginning up votes from ordinary Americans by playing on fear. They did it successfully in 1968 ("crime in the streets"), in 1972 (when McGovern was the candidate of "acid and amnesty"), in 1980 (when indeed the economy was going to hell in a handbasket and liberalism seemed to be utterly out of gas), in 1988 (Willie Horton), and in 2004 (gay marriage and swiftboats). McCain is an honest (if deluded) man, and I don't think he will hit below the belt--but his surrogates and 527 supporting cast will do so enthusiastically. Obama will be pummelled endlessly with the Rev. Wright and whispering campaigns that he's a Muslim, and certainly there will be plenty of under-the-radar talk of no-black-can-ever-be-elected. As an Obama supporter (white), I'm reasonably confident that he can not only withstand those fear-mongering attacks but also rise above them. But just imagine the intensity of attacks that the Republicans could--and will--unleash against Hillary (and Bill) Clinton!

Yes, McCain will make much of his long years of military service and national-security experience, but Obama will counter that with his better judgment--and though Obama will not himself make the attacks, his surrogates will have plenty of opportunity to remind voters of McCain's volatile temper and penchant for shooting from the hip. The very real danger of (not-so-distant-future) war with Iran will definitely be in play.

In such a debate involving national security/"experience," Obama will have a better case than Hillary simply because all the latter's claims to "experience" have already been shredded by her lies about Bosnian sniper fire. McCain will be able to ridicule Hillary's non-experience far more effectively.

There remains, though, the big Republican ace-in-the-hole. If Islamic terrorists are able to pull off a shocking attack within the U.S. or on Americans overseas (say, another embassy bombing or airplane hijacking), and do so pretty close to Election Day, then millions of Americans are going to vote their burning desire for vengeance and their fears that more dangers lie ahead. And probably most of those fear-factor votes will be for McCain. All that Obama (and the Democrats generally) can do ahead of time is cast as much doubt as possible on McCain's mental stability. Would McCain overreact to such an attack, and land us in another Iraq? (Of course, with George Bush's current Iraq mess still unresolved and the Army/Marines probably on the ropes because of personnel shortages?)

No one can predict how those kinds of contingencies will play out. I can, however, predict that Osama bin Laden will want to keep the Great Satan stuck right where it is--embroiled in a lose-lose situation in Iraq that only breeds anti-American hatred among tens of millions of Muslims around the world. Bush and Cheney are, to al Qaeda and their ilk, gifts that keep on giving. Presumably Osama is rooting for McCain and the Republicans, and will do everthing possible to ensure their election.

Posted by: jm917 | April 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"I know your standard reaction is to just ignore me after I point something out to you."

Not sure what you're point out, above. I'm from a podunk little town in WI, that's somewhat conservative. It doesn't seem like an insult to characterize them that way. Similar towns exist throughout the midwest.

The point I'm calling you out on is the irrational claim that one art teacher's censorship is representative of a nationwide (if not global) political group. I think it makes you look like an idiot; consider it my way of trying to help you keep people from thinking so.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I would have appealed to my baseball coach.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"However, if it makes me an ass to point out that you're an ass, I'm willing to pay that price."

That's only because I have been relentlessly attacking your Messiah.

You hardly paid attention to my posts until your precious hope-boy came under attack.

And that point, you have never refuted.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Like the other day, with your one of "5 worst Senators", who would have lost anyway. "

You asked for a Dem who stepped down, I named one. Nobody knows whether he would have won or not. The GOP put up a milquetoast candidate that was about as unappealing as Dayton; it is entirely unclear who'd have won that battle of uninspiration. Klobuchar is a vast improvment over Dayton; Kennedy would not have been.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Boring!

Obama 55.2%
McCain 43.2%

Moving on.....

Posted by: robertell | April 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"I made an ashtray in a jr. hs art class from clay - a nude woman with her legs spread around the ash bowl - fired it and enameled it a glistening black."

Mark, I would have failed you or made you do it again.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton or Obama: Who's Got The Best Shot at Beating McCain?"

I'm guessing Obama, since Hillary isn't even going to win the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: mahmud010 | April 1, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"That's interesting, it doesn't say anything about being a bastion of conservatism on that website there"

Nor does it point out the art teacher is a leftist liberal. It does corroborate the claim that the school is in a podunk town 100 miles from Madison. However, if it makes me an ass to point out that you're an ass, I'm willing to pay that price.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"No, you made a stereotypical assessment & projected the actions of one individual onto a larger group of people based solely on your negative views of the group & your assumed motivations of the individual in question."

"Tomah is a podunk little town in central Wisconsin. In all likelihood, it is like other podunk little towns throughout the midwest, where folks are pretty conservative."


Bsimon, I know your standard reaction is to just ignore me after I point something out to you. Like the other day, with your one of "5 worst Senators", who would have lost anyway.

I'll take your silence as another concession.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

That's interesting, it doesn't say anything about being a bastion of conservatism on that website there, Simon.


---------------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton just offered her April Fool's joke -- bowling for delegates, maybe even the entire Democratic nomination.

"I am challenging Senator Obama to a bowl-off," she told reporters in Pennsylvania.

She even magnanimously agreed to spot Barack Obama two frames. But even that might not be enough for a close contest.

Obama has been savaged by pundits for his bowling ability -- or lack thereof -- that he displayed in Altoona, Penn., on Saturday night. (Joe Scarborough said Monday on MSNBC that his 4-year-old daughter could do better.)

Obama totaled 37 in seven frames (a perfect score is 300 over 10 frames). His excuse: He hadn't bowled since the 1970s.

"My economic plan is better than my bowling," he said, according to press accounts.

"It has to be," a man called out.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I made an ashtray in a jr. hs art class from clay - a nude woman with her legs spread around the ash bowl - fired it and enameled it a glistening black.

The art teacher [male] never noticed until I had finished, flunked it, and gave me a bad grade in deportment. I appealed to the vice-principal who was a coach who knew me and got my art grade raised to a "B". I gave the ashtray to my dad who kept it on display in his office.

My bad deportment grade was not changed.

I hated Jr.HS. Probably would, even now.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

1st, I am CERTAIN that there is a "committed, and capable organization of Islamic terrorists who are plotting, I mean really plotting, daily, to kill you (or any American they can)".

2nd, the cost to me -- as an American -- has been substantial.

I am convinced that we could use $400,000,000 per day in a much more efficacious manner. There is enough fodder here for another conversation, but there are many, many ways we could use that money more effectively.

I believe we really took our eye off the ball. We had bin-Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban ON THE ROPES and we failed to deliver the knockout punch. Now they are resurgent and Afghanistan is really in play again. It should have been a done deal.

Furthermore, we have greatly eroded our prestige throughout the world.

We have done considerable damage to important relationships with our traditional allies.

We have greatly strengthened the Real Enemy (hint: it is not the Iraqis).

There's more... but I have a meeting I have to go to. Be back later

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Using my powers of deductive reasoning, I made an educated guess."

No, you made a stereotypical assessment & projected the actions of one individual onto a larger group of people based solely on your negative views of the group & your assumed motivations of the individual in question.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party is this country's greatest enemy. EVER.

In 2000, that party nominated an ignorant dry-drunk -- the most unfit nominee in American history.

Now they are nominating the runner-up to the aforementioned dry-drunk -- a man who the Navy passed over for promotion to high rank, even though he was a war hero and his father and grandfather had been admirals.

John McCain is not fit for the job he seeks. He lacks the education, intellect or temperament. He is also a 72 yo man in an 85 yo body.

McCain will be a national security disaster. His ignorance of technology and economics -- the foundations of military strength -- will set this country back by decades, if not centuries. If getting shot up qualifies on as a national security expert, let's elect the living veteran with the most purple hearts.

TOTAL IDIOCY.

Posted by: mnjam | April 1, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon -- do you actually know that Tomah Hich School is from a 'podunk', conservative town, or are you just assuming?

Good Lord, you enlightened liberals are always one step ahead aren't you?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Of course, you could be presuming the art teacher is the leftist in question."

You may have stumbled upon something.

It being a "podunk" town makes it all the more likely that my narrative is correct. Because the boy, and his parents, are likely strong Christian conservatives.

Maybe they don't "take kindly" to liberal art teachers.

Which is more likely - a conservative censoring the cross, or a liberal?

Using my powers of deductive reasoning, I made an educated guess. Of course, when Simple Simon does the same, he is lauded.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

but at what cost? And are the American People willing to incur that cost -- and for what "gain"?
-----------------------------------------------

You're right - counter-insurgency is hard, and there is no shortage of examples of failure. On that, we can both (all) agree.

I ask of you (as I did of bsimon),

What cost has it been to YOU?

And I don't mean that in a "you aren't a Marine, so shut your fat face" sort of way. I mean it in a, "what price does an average citizen actually pay? How does this war actually detract from your everyday life?" kind of way.

If the "gain" means killing a terrorist who would have killed YOU, wouldn't you say it was worth it?

My final question (although I hope you don't ignore the others): Do you not think that there is a decentralized, committed, and capable organization of Islamic terrorists who are plotting, I mean really plotting, daily, to kill you (or any American they can)? [Because if we cannot agree upon this, we might as well cease our exchange, IMO]

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

USMC-Mike:

Not to pick at a really sore scab, but didn't our withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975 and removal of the Marines from Lebanon after the embassy bombing in 1983 send that same message?

Posted by: mnteng | April 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"Now we know about the "tolerance" of the left."

Not sure how you get 'the left' out of that one. Tomah is a podunk little town in central Wisconsin. In all likelihood, it is like other podunk little towns throughout the midwest, where folks are pretty conservative. Of course, you cite a news article apparently written in Madison, which is certainly a hotbed of hippy liberals. But to assume the hippy liberals in Madison censored the high school student in Tomah - about 100 miles away, by my guess, seems a bit of a stretch. Of course, you could be presuming the art teacher is the leftist in question. Point being: you're ASSuming. And we know what that makes you.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Hear that on Limbaugh, clown? Anything to perpetuate your tedious stereotypes.

"According to the lawsuit, the student's art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes. The student, a senior identified in the lawsuit by the initials A.P., drew a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of love" in his drawing.

His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.

Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. "

I personally don't agree with the policy -- ridiculous for an art class. But the kid is a jerk.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Mark, IKE was right.

Mike: ""We ARE the most powerful country on the planet" and that we CAN be defeated by a band of rag-tag terrorist thugs.

Oh, that's a good one."

History has shown -- time and time again -- that a committed, rag-tag indigenous group can, and will, outlast and defeat an occupying power.

The Vietnamese defeated the French and then outlasted us, as well. We, Americans, did it to the British in 1775-1783.

Yes, there are instances when the occupying power triumphs. The US over the Filipinos. The French brutally crushed the Algerians.

So, it can go either way. But like bsimon said the other day. Sure, we can crush the Iraqis... but at what cost? And are the American People willing to incur that cost -- and for what "gain"?


Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

' and that we CAN be defeated by a band of rag-tag terrorist thugs.'

or that perhaps we can be defeated by several religious armies of determined, US-trained and equipped citizens of a country who want us to get the hell out.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

MADISON, Wis. -- A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference.

"We hear so much today about tolerance," said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group representing the student. "But where is the tolerance for religious beliefs? The whole purpose of art is to reflect your own personal experience. To tell a student his religious beliefs can legally be censored sends the wrong message."

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

Now we know about the "tolerance" of the left.

Gays, freaks, terrorists, pimps, and Spitzer: You're all welcome.

But "typical white people" and Christians are not.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

In your opinion who's more likely to win against McCain?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2013

.

Posted by: f.fox1212 | April 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Didn't mean to imply that you were a voter during the Great Depression. :) I think McCain has promised to release his medical records within the next month or so. His case is probably of more import than the other two since he is a cancer survivor.

Obama's at least in good enough shape to play some pick-up hoops with a couple of the Lady Lions.

Posted by: mnteng | April 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

mark thanks for the acknowledgment it was simply childish play by local out of control Obama supporters. I will not tolerate such behavior by any HC supporters and will call them on it if I see such misbehavior.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

AdrickHenry - Fair enough on the Bush Sr.

World opinion does matter.

But so do principles.

Neither of us are going to convince the other that the war was the "right" or "wrong" thing to do from the beginning.

I would point out that, regardless of right or wrong, it is what it is now, and broadcasting our retreat sends the strongest message to our enemies of all: "We ARE the most powerful country on the planet" and that we CAN be defeated by a band of rag-tag terrorist thugs.

Oh, that's a good one.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

This story today should concern Obama supporters because it reflects that voters in upcoming states like Indiana are leaving Sen Obama in droves after hearing of Pastor Wright.

Serious Obama supporters should read this story and undertstand that Pastor Wright has not disappeared as they thought.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ad.x9sdAW1Tw&refer=home

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I used to spend a lot of time reading this kind of garbage but then I realized that 90% of political coverage is just speculation about what is going to happen. That's not "news"... it's a waste of time.

What will happen, will happen. And surely this column isn't changing any minds about how to vote!

This particular post is even worse... because it's not EVEN speculation about what WILL happen. Rather, it's speculation about something that will NEVER happen.

Is Clinton or Obama stronger against McCain? We will never know, because only one of them will ever run against McCain. Why agonize over placing a bet on a race that will never be run!

Posted by: fairbalanced | April 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

To Bradk1: Excellent analysis of the different electoral stategies each democrat will employ in the general. I have long thought that Obama puts more states in play than HRC. I think Obama can be cometative in states like Louisiana and in Georgia also, making MCCain defend areas he would rather not. This could be huge in the General when Obama's fund-rasing prowess gives him the luxury to compete in any damn state he wants, while MCCain has to pick and choose his battlegrounds.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | April 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"Australia and Britain elected leftists"

As a point of clarification, the UK Prime Minister (Brown) is of the same party (Labor) as former PM Tony Blair. The difference is Brown is not expected to continue Blair's 'poodle' policies. When Blair was elected, he was compared to Clinton, as something of a triangulator. When Bush came into office, Blair continued to enjoy close relations with the American President, to a degree where he became known, in the UK, as Bush's 'poodle'. As in 'lap dog', or pet. Brown has stepped back from that approach, as expected.

In France, on the other hand, Nicolas Sarkozy is seen as more of a US-friendly leader. But that should not be misinterpreted as support for US foreign policy. Instead, Sarkozy is more inclined to try to mimic the US economic and business environments, in an effort to boost France's economic productivity. Regarding foreign policy, they're still very much anti war in the middle east, much like back when the US House found it necessary to rename a popular side dish 'Freedom Fries', in order to disparage all things French. I guess that is no longer necessary.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

mteng, I am not THAT old, but FDR is a great example, too. Have any of the three released their general health records?

Adrick, It was Eisenhower who said we should never station troops in the Middle East, which was at one time 20th C. received knowledge - just a point of perspective, not an arguing position.

Leichtman, I saw your post about the BHO supporters hijinx in Houston and I apologize for jumping to conclusions about the identity of the trixsters.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

McCain's campaign has been, and will be, about the past. Nostalgia for times that never existed. He can't imagine the future, he can only look back. This is a new century; things change. We need a leader who understands the world as it is today, not 50 years ago.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

info - well said. The arguments about the candidates is getting completely overwhelmed by tangental and irrelevent(in many cases) news snippets. The media has completely ignored the message in the mess called the Clinton machine and the effort called the Obama campaign. Its not just for nothing Obama's team keeps keeping on a successful path.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 1, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain on Tuesday tried to connect with voters on a personal level by visiting his high school and sharing memories of what he called some of his happiest years."

Jeezus... why does he think anyone cares?

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

info once again DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

That story is already 2 days old. The bills have been paid and she has raised over $3.1 million over the last 24 hours with money pouring in(look at our meter if you are not too lazy to check out the facts). Can we match the $200,000/yr plus Obama supporters which you brag about, probably not.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Reporter: We want to find out who the R's would rather run against. Who, oh who, should I ask? Maybe I'll ask a liberal. No, I'll ask a conservative.

Republican: We would rather run against X.

Liberal: That's a conspiracy! Karl Rove won't hijack this election. The R's are just floating propaganda - don't believe them. There is a vast right-wing conspiracy against hope and change. This is bias reporting! How dare you ask a conservative what he thinks, Chris. This isn't "hard-hitting" news. We all know Republicans are stupid. Except when they fool us and steal elections. But they're stupid, I promise. Just keep your eye on Karl Rove - he's the least-stupid of the stupid R's. Don't let them trick us.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Mike, I did not mean to misrepresent you. I honestly thought you did not like Bush Sr and I said that he "got it right".

Anyway...

When did we play the bully? Most recently, the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Most of allies were opposed, but we did not care to hear them

Most of the world -- the U.N -- was opposed but we did not care to hear them.

We invaded anyway. A big massive superpower beating up on country not even 1/10 our size. This is not a "war". It was an invasion and is now an occupation.

The evidence was dubious at best. It turned out to be false, didn't it?

We invaded on false pretenses -- against the will of most of world. We bullied.

But in this new era, "gains" made like that will prove to be very short-lived.

The way China is wooing the 3rd world is the way to garner influence in the 21st century. The world will unite to oppose bullying tactics.

We ARE the most powerful country on the planet. And we can STILL maximize our influence -- it is not too late.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse


Obama polls high because he hasn't been through the Republican attack machine yet. If you think the Republicans found "-gates" with the Clintons, and tore down a war hero like Kerry, wait till they get hold of Obama.

Only polls after that will mean anything, and they won't be pretty. The Wright thing will just be a typical day for him.

Of course people say that Republicans would love to attack Hillary even more, but Obama is fresh meat and the 527's will make water cooler fodder of him.

Unelectable this time around, but this go round may immunize him for a future go, just as Hillary is immunized now.

Hillary '08

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | April 1, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters want to talk about her supposed advantage in "big states" but that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Current polls show Obama and Clinton running about even in head-to-head match-ups against McCain in most of the "big" swing states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The big exception is Florida (27 electoral votes) where Clinton clearly runs stronger against McCain.

But on the flip side, Obama runs much stronger in a band of important Upper Midwest swing states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, total 27 electoral votes); in Colorado (9 electoral votes); in the Pacific Northwest (Washington & Oregon, total 18 electoral votes); and in the coastal Southeast (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, total 36 electoral votes). This is no statistical aberration; not only did Obama show surprising strength in these states' primary contests, but Hillary Clinton showed extreme weakness in every one of them, and the current match-up polls indicate she has made no improvement on her poor primary showings.

Incredibly, polling has also consistently shown Obama to be highly competitive---and Clinton not at all competitive---in another bunch of conventionally "red" states led by Texas (34 electoral votes) and including among others Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), and South Dakota (3).

Obama won't win all of these states, of course, but the point is, he doesn't have to. Far more states are "in play" with Obama at the head of the ticket. Hillary's "big state" strategy is the same failed strategy used by Al Gore and John Kerry: the Democratic standard-bearer writes off most of the country, and can win only with a more-or-less clean sweep of a dozen or so big states and smaller reliably Democratic base states, including a handful of big swing states in the Northeast and industrial Midwest, plus Florida. In short, the Democrat needs to "draw an inside straight," with no margin for error. The Republicans don't need to waste resources on their "base" of 35 or more states where the Democrats aren't competing, and can concentrate on picking off just one or two of the swing states, which they have successfully done in each of the last two elections.

Obama completely redraws the electoral map, potentially forcing the Republicans to play defense in Texas and large swaths of the Southeast, Midwest, and Mountain West they previously could take for granted. Even if Obama loses an Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey, he can easily make up the difference elsewhere. To my mind, this makes Obama a much more formidable candidate in the general election. It's only if you believe we're irretrievably stuck in the same "red state/blue state" electoral pattern that prevailed in 2000 and 2004 that Clinton's "big state" argument looks at all persuasive. But if you take into account Obama's strength and Clinton's weakness in the Upper Midwest, Pacific Northwest, Mountain West, and coastal Southeast, and consider Obama's superior capacity to draw the youth vote, excite and expand the black vote, and win a healthy slice of independents and moderate Republicans, Clinton's "big state" strategy looks like a big loser in comparison to Obama's "expand the playing field" strategy. This is close to a no-brainer.

Posted by: bradk1 | April 1, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Clinton didn't pay health insurance bills
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 3/31/08 10:50 AM EST

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton's struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Clinton, who is being pressured to end her campaign against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, has made her plan for universal health care a centerpiece of her agenda.


Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 3/30/08 7:00 AM EST Updated: 4/1/08 9:05 AM EST

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html


Hillary Rodham Clinton's cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months -- freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community -- and anyone else who will listen -- to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton's inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.


Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

'Britain, France, Australia have all elected pro-Bush conservatives!'

No. Do you get all your 'news' from Fox? Come out of your hole. Australia and Britain elected leftists. Rudd of Australian a friend of Hillary's, btw. And then there's Spain, Italy, Poland and Japan.

"Do the opinions of Venezuela, Iran, and Russia really keep you up at night?"

More tired old cliche boogeymen. Have you ever had an original thought/ Ever?

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

When I want the real, unvarnished, hard-hitting truth about political realities I turn to... Republican strategists.

April Fool!

Posted by: HeavyJ | April 1, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

That reminds me of FDR -- how many people would have voted for a President paralyzed by polio? It is interesting to compare the level of intrusion by the press nowadays with their collusion to prevent publication of photos showing FDR in a wheelchair back in the day.

Posted by: mnteng | April 1, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

actually info Sen Obama has outspent HC in contributions to buy superdelegates. Once again do you bother to research anything you post here, or do you presume that we are all stupid and just buy in to any drivel that you post?

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

info you are back repeating nonsense about the HC campaign obviously you once again, even when I directed you to recent HC fundraising success,you refuse to do your homework but prefer to just repeat Obama drivel. How does that spreading of misinformation ad to the debate?

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama is out spending Clinton because he can, she ran such a poor campaign that she has left unpaid bills and unpaid health insurance premiums for her staff and doesn't have enough money to spend on advertising. What that shows is Obama was smart enough to run a campaign against the unbeatable Clinton machine and win. She had everything going for her, the media, the name recognition and a black guy with an odd name whupped her. Last year this time the Clintons were promising cabinet positions to their friends, now they are promising them to the superdelegates. Hillary couldn' manage a campaign and now she wants to manage the country.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary goose-steppers ?"

there you go again you just can't resist making your slanderous comments can you jac13. We get it, if you don't support Sen Obama you are a nazi. Any other clever comments to uplift your candidate today?

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike wrote Britain, France, Australia have all elected pro-Bush conservatives!

Sorry Mike, but this is not true.

Posted by: J_thinks | April 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

The FIX has no clue, as evidenced by going to the opposing team and asking - how do we beat you. Kind of silly to believe any answer you get isn't it? Think about it - why would anyone give you an honest answer to this question.

They should have asked, why will McC lose, and see what the answer is. To be fair, it is not McCs fault, he truly believes what he says, which is refreshing, however, those ideas have come and gone. The world is much different than it was, and failing to admit that currently is evident in teh currnet state of the economy and our current standing (fiscally) in the world today.

Stagnation and clinging to the past is exactly how old business gives way to new business and new ideas. Failure to adapt in business is the surest way to become irrelevant. America is, and always will be about progress and moving forward - we understand this must be the case to maintain a position of leadership.

Posted by: J_thinks | April 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

How about I serve as guest-poster for ALL the Hillary goose-steppers today? That way you can all take the afternoon off!

"The narrowing of the PA polls and Obama's widening lead in the Gallup has NOTHING to do with him -- or Hillary, either, for that matter. I mean, look at this! He's outspending her 1,000 to 1, the media had the nerve to report that story about her sleep-deprived confusion about being shot at in Tusla, then they published some cockamamie poll that said her negatives were up, then that turncoat Casey gets bribed into endorsing Obama, then a know-nothing freshman senator from Minnesota drinks a gallon of kool-aid and she endorses him, too! On top of that, the pollsters in NC are all on the take from the Obama campaign and show him up (duh) 18 POINTS!

All you Obamabots are in for a rude shock when, by and by, EVERYBODY's gonna wake up of a morning and realize that they -- all 14,000,000 of them -- have been taken in by this rookie snake-oil salesman from Illinois-via-Hawaii-and-Indonesia (a BLACK man and MUSLIM -- God help us!!!!), and 71-but-still-energetic-as-long-as-he-takes-his-vitamins McCain, who can run the 100 in 4.4 (WITH THE IRAQ WAR AND THE BUSH TAX CUTS HANGING AROUND HIS NECK LIKE A CINDERBLOCK, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!) will run over him like a steamroller!!!"

That concludes the renevue portion of our programming.

Posted by: jac13 | April 1, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

McCain talks about reaching out to the rest of the world, but he vows to continue the very policies that have produced the world's mistrust of Bush.

WHO IS THIS "WORLD" THAT HATES BUSH?

Britain, France, Australia have all elected pro-Bush conservatives!

Do the opinions of Venezuela, Iran, and Russia really keep you up at night?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The Bush/McCain plan to pass the expense of the war to the children and the unborn that will make up the next generation is irresponsible and is nothing more than putting a tax on them to pay for their adventures. That is not leadership. If you have to go war then pay for it but don't pass the expense on to your kids. That is a disgrace.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Addrick is right about the 20th century paradigm. McCain talks about reaching out to the rest of the world, but he vows to continue the very policies that have produced the world's mistrust of Bush. Even the Australians are now withdrawig from Iraq:

"Bush may be a loathed figure in much of the world, but one group owes him a debt of gratitude: the many opposition leaders who came to power after Bush-friendly ruling parties were voted out. Howard took his place alongside Jos¿ Mar¿a Aznar of Spain (whose party was dumped in 2004), Italy's Silvio Berlusconi (tossed out in 2006), and Britain's Tony Blair (stepped aside in favor of a Bush-skeptical understudy in 2007). Ruling parties in Poland and Japan also paid for their leaders' friendships with Bush with big defeats.

Bush's pariah status has turned his Coalition of the Willing into a retirement community and given the president an unusual role in the domestic affairs of other countries. In Australia, one of Rudd's predecessors as Labor leader, Mark Latham, got the top job after describing Bush as "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory." He further described members of Howard's government as a "conga line of suckholes" to Bush.

Relations are perhaps not quite so great now, but Bush put on a brave face as he welcomed Rudd to the White House Friday. He called the 50-year-old premier a "fine lad" and even praised Rudd's decision to pull out of Iraq. "I always like to be in the presence of somebody who does what he says he's going to do," Bush reasoned."

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"I know this is going to really p***-off USMN_Mike, but Bush Sr. had it right in building the coaltion to kick Hussein out of Kuwait.

To effectively lead in the 21st century, and thus, maximize one's power and influence, a great nation needs the respect and trust of other great nations.

Gone are the days when you could just bully the world to accept your point of view."

1. I'm not *opposed* to building coalitions.

[Don't fall into the standard liberal argument trap of making me defend ground I don't even advocate.]

2. Bush Sr./Powell had an unrealistic view of war.

[War, a clash of human wills, cannot be reduced to scientific/mathematical/probability. War is messy, people die. They should have marched all the way to Bagdad, but didn't, to appear to win "overwhelmingly".]

3. Respect and trust is not unique to this century.

4. When have we "bullied" the world around?

[We bullied the Nazis, then the communists. When have we ever bullied the world?]

Your ignorant, anti-American view of "history" is staggering[ly similar to Obama's].

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is the harder candidate for the Republicans to beat. I only see one state that Obama can add to what Kerry won and that is SC. He stands a chance of losing to McCain in NJ and in PA.

Clinton will keep the states that Kerry won and if she has Strickland on the ticket she has a real chance of winning Ohio and will win Arkansas.

The national polls are as useless now as they were when Clinton was ahead. And asking rank and file democrats doesn't make a lot of sense either. People don't like to answer these questions based on race but that is what we will face in November. I don't like it but it is time that Democrats face reality. Both Obama and Clinton will lose most of the South. But in reality Clinton's voters- women, elderly, hispanics, catholics and white males over 50 making under $50,000 give her a better chance of taking the states Democrats need to win.

The Republicans know what it is like to run against the Clintons. Bill Clinton may have lost some of his sheen to upper socio economic level whites, and to African Americans. But I give both those groups the credit to understand what it would mean to elect a Republican and they will come back to the party in enough numbers to keep the blue states if Clinton is the nominee. We can't say the same for the Reagan Republicans if Obama is head of the ticket and those are the people who will decide this election.

I like both Obama and Clinton. But Clinton can go head to head with McCain. There is already a made for television ad where McCain says Clinton is qualified to be President. So the Clinton McCain fight will be more about issues whereas the McCain Obama fight will be about experience vs. no experience and Obama will lose enough Independent votes there that he won't be able to make up the votes he will lose based on racism.

Not pretty -but a fact of life.

Posted by: peterdc | April 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

But do try to find a job, zouk. Surely there's something someone will pay you for. Maybe the zookeeper would hire you to sit in a cage all day, jumping up and down with your teeth bared, throwing feces at passerby-- the intellectual equivant to what you do all day here.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I don't think McCain's 71 years is a factor from a physical point of view.

But it does seem to be a factor from a cognitive perspective.

Based on the things he has spouted, McCain seems too locked into a "20th century" paradigm.

Wanting to keep troops indefinitely stationed in Iraq -- like we have around the globe since WWII -- seems to indicate that he does not fully grasp the interconnectedness of globalization.

The leaders of THIS century are the ones that can lead coalitions of great powers.

I know this is going to really p***-off USMN_Mike, but Bush Sr. had it right in building the coaltion to kick Hussein out of Kuwait.

To effectively lead in the 21st century, and thus, maximize one's power and influence, a great nation needs the respect and trust of other great nations.

Gone are the days when you could just bully the world to accept your point of view.

This is a new world. We are intertwined like never before. The Internet, TV, and wireless have brought upon us a new age.

Obama "gets it". Hillary seems to -- not sure. But McCain is looking in the rear view mirror. So, 71 years old is not important, physically... but if it affects his outlook as evidenced by his statements, then it is a major, indeed, deciding factor.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse


'Well, when your only skill is sitting in your mom's basement all day frantically posting juvenile insults about 'Libs' on a blog, there aren't a lot of paying jobs.'

I guess when you spend your whole day fantasizing about a woman you'll never meet you're unlikely to find a job.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I have lost my ability to accesss media matters, the nation, Daily Kos and moveon. Please post all the stories you usually find there that indicate your total ignorance of objectivity.

Moonbats unite. join the jackals. contact drindl for membership information. no brain needed. Must be able to operate ctrl-c andf ctrl-V and be unburdened by employment.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

My, my...Most of the nice little Republican "strategists" marching along in lock step...How utterly...REPUBLICAN of them.

In truth, ANY competent Democrat will destroy McCain the moment the Democrats stop chewing on each other and the MSM stops giving McCain the free ride he's been getting to continue making the incredible gaffes and missstatements he's been making...and getting away with with NO critical calling to account. The man's almost as unintelligent as the man he hopes to succeed.

What this DOES do, though, is reflect Republican thinking about Obama and Clinton and it shows that while they are scared of Hillary, they are absolutely TERRIFIED of Obama! They have NO idea of how to even begin to run against him...so they've conspired to try to jumble the mess in hopes that Democrats will decide they are correct and go for Clinton.

HEY, DEMOCRATS...IT'S APRIL FOOL'S DAY!

What it boils down to is that McCain will be swamped by either candidate...and the Republicans know it. The BIG question, though, is NOT by how much either Obama or Clinton wins, but how long their coattails are.

Clinton's are almost non-existent, while Obama's will be record-breaking! With Clinton, we get a continuation of the present impasse in both houses of Congress...With Obama, we are assured of the majorities necessary to make certain that actual congressional work gets done...

AND that investigations, charges and, eventually, convictions are not just sought...but BROUGHT!

Posted by: PETETENNEY | April 1, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

hate hate hate
blame blame blame
muck muck muck
envy envy envy
victim victim victim

Love always,
your friend
drindl

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Conservative: Obama is the harder candidate to beat.

Liberal: Who can survive the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'? Who can weather the 'Republican attack machine'? Hillary has the 'experience' and 'vision' to 'lead on day one'.
-----------------------------------------

Conservative: Clinton is the harder candidate to beat.

Liberal: Clinton is just Bush-lite! We need a true man of hope, faith, and the future. Obama is an agent of change, stop the dynasty! Don't let Karl Rove steal another election! Damn faux news!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

'Well, when your only skill is sitting in your mom's basement all day frantically posting juvenile insults about 'Libs' on a blog, there aren't a lot of paying jobs.'

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

That must be why he uses Hill's middle name but not Barak's: "The debate over whether Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama would make the stronger general-election candidate..."
Why must we say Rodham but never Hussein? Clinton's opponent is Barack Hussein Obama. This is not made up.
Posted by: dgladstone | April 1, 2008 12:26 PM
------------------------

Because "Rodham" is her maiden name. Diane is her middle name. She uses her maiden name as part of her last name. She doesn't use Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

usmc unfortunately if just looking at past voting patterns you are spot on. Will that change in Nov? anyone that says absolutely they know is fooling themselves.

"Young people don't turn out. Ever.

MTV can rock the vote time after time.

No President Gore or Kerry."

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse


"Think about who has computers, free time, and strong political interests - my answer, coffee sipping elites (liberals)."

and alleged military who apparently has same excess of time and accoutrements.. but can only speak in tired, 30-year-old cliches.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh Chris, Chris, Chris. You should know better than to ask a Republican who they think is the strongest Democratic contender? Since when aren't they salivating at the opportunity to run against Hillary ("the most hated woman in Republican politics") Clinton?

Posted by: wheniwasyourage | April 1, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

For instance, Chris writes
"Clinton seems to have cleared the "commander in chief" bar in the eyes of most voters..."

She lost it with her Bosnia sniper fire lie.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

the drindl cut and paste hate machine is shifting into top gear.

"stupid, uninformed, and answering debate questions with "what she said."

In other words, the pack of jackels that used to follow drindl. they have been curiously silent of late. Probably had to get a second job at burger king to pay their connection charges. that must be tough, mornings at McDs and evenings at the King. Well, when your only skill is cutting and pasting, there aren't a lot of paying jobs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"Maliki was forced to sue for peace, Sadr magnanimously accepted, and the fighting ebbed. The Mahdi Army remains entrenched, in Basra and other cities, and armed to the teeth. Maliki's regime looks less like a government than just another faction -- albeit one with a couple of big brothers who will come in to finish any rashly started schoolyard fights.

All of which illustrates the insanity of the open-ended Iraq war policy that Bush has followed and that McCain vows to perpetuate.

What, exactly, did the United States use its military might to accomplish last week? We intervened in a struggle among various Shiite power centers for control of a city where much of Iraq's oil industry -- and thus much of its potential wealth -- is based. We supported a political figure who was trying to weaken another political figure in advance of upcoming elections. We boosted the morale and fervor of the most implacable opponents of continued American occupation.

Does any of this have anything to do with our nation's vital interests? I suppose you could argue that Basra is important because of the oil, but the city is no more under Baghdad's control today than it was two weeks ago.

Please note that throughout this episode, you haven't heard the name al-Qaeda. According to Bush and McCain, isn't Iraq supposed to be the central front in the war on terrorism? Wouldn't the only plausible reason for continuing the occupation of Iraq be to fight terrorists -- rather than help one Shiite leader against another? And what's the strategic reason for backing Maliki, who recently gave Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a red-carpet welcome to Baghdad, over Sadr, who is believed to be living in Iran, enjoying Ahmadinejad's hospitality?"

it's becoming quite clear to everyone but the most deluded rightwing propagandists that this 'war' is probably the biggest military policy blunder in history-- yet McCain vows to continue it -- no matter if it brings this country to its knees.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

majorteddy: instead of writing sexists commenidate about a woman candidate you might want to read what actually happened in Bosnia.

Straight Shooting from Tuzla:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/opinion/01muscatine.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=muscatine&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

On the "ageism" point: when I was graduated from High School in June, 1960, I was so enthusiastic about JFK. I wished that I could have voted for him, but I was too young. I do not know how I would have processed his actual health report if it had been publicized. And I remember that only my dad's high regard for Eisenhower got in the way of my thinking he was "so old".

Now that I am 64 I cringe when I read posters who argue that McC looks "too old". We probably ought to have some general report from the candidates' physicians because health is a possible issue, but age should not be, for a healthy septuagenarian, with a pistol of a mother.

For those of you who do not know, JFK suffered Addison's, was in terrible health, and was propped up on steroids. We were not told these critical facts. We only knew that he was 43 and "vigorous".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

RE your above post, bsimon:

that is why I think Obama / Biden is such a powerful ticket.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 1, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Good to know Mr. Cillizza is an unbiased journalist. That must be why he uses Hill's middle name but not Barak's: "The debate over whether Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama would make the stronger general-election candidate..."

Why must we say Rodham but never Hussein? Clinton's opponent is Barack Hussein Obama. This is not made up.

Who's going to survive the GOP attack machine? Wait and see what dirt is dug up by November. No one spent $30,000,000.oo investigating the Obamas yet. When Ken Star & the GOP congress tried to lynch the Clintons, the only person who got nailed was Monica. With all the tons of money Obama has raised, wherever it came from, he would have dug up a lot of dirt on Hill by now if there was any.

If Clinton has misspoken about how close the snipers were to the Bosnian landing strip a decade ago, it's nothing compared to robbing the voting rights from Michigan & Florida, not to mention 20 years of membership in a church led by a BIGOT like Jeremiah Wright.

I'm so sick of hearing Obama say, "I wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan." He deliberately, misleadingly makes it sound as if he was excluded from the Michigan ballot instead of owning up to the FACT that he CHOSE not to seek Michigan votes. He's only too glad to use any excuse Howard Dean gives him, even the denial of voting rights to Michigan & Florida, victory by any means necessary.

Obama must be president no matter what the stupid voters say, right? Sure, Obama is ahead in the popular vote as long as you pretend Michigan & Florida are no longer part of the USA. I remember hearing Clinton say before the primary she'd try to get Florida delegates seated at the convention. Barack Hussein Obama did not. Obama supporters claim Hill only sought Michigan & Florida votes after polls indicated she'd need them. It's at least as easy to say Obama fears Michigan & Florida votes, denies the rights of MILLIONS of US voters, because they will cost him the illegitimate victory he seems to feel entitled to. An alleged Clintonian attitude of entitlement is the primary excuse Bill Richardson gave for trying to be on the winning bandwagon of the other side. If a slightly annoying attitude is your reason for choosing experience over style, you deserve what you get.

Oprah knows better how to choose our president than the dumb voters do. Oprah Bless the Conveniently Exclusive 48 States of Oprahland.

Oprah forgive me if I choose to vote for Clinton or McCain to be President of the United FIFTY States of America.

COUNT EVERY VOTE! COUNT EVERY VOTE! COUNT EVERY VOTE!

Posted by: dgladstone | April 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The characters playing "Obama" on Jay Leno and SNL portray him as stupid, uninformed, and answering debate questions with "what she said."

It'll take a B***h to fix the economy - Kumbaya won't do.

Go Hillary!


Posted by: JoseyJ | April 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"Still, I would rather have the number of Facebook.com supporters, for examples, that Obama (736,230+) has compared to McCain (101,362)..."

I woudln't.

Young people don't turn out. Ever.

MTV can rock the vote time after time.

No President Gore or Kerry.

[I'm guessing HRC steals the nomination, then loses.]

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

To Greg who wrote:
"In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation..."
This kind of fear-mongering is what I detest about the Republicans. The only way they can get your vote is to make you afraid not to vote for them. Hopefully, the electorate will see through this charade in November and vote for the candidate who appeals to our better angels.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | April 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Maliki's decision to send troops into Basra and root out the "criminal gangs" that controlled the city was praised by the White House as a bold move to assert the Iraqi government's sovereignty. In reality, though, it looked more like an attempt to boost Maliki's political standing by dealing a blow to the Mahdi Army -- the biggest and most powerful Shiite militia -- and its leader, the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraqi forces launched their offensive and were immediately met by what Maliki's defense minister called unexpectedly strong resistance. In other words, they ran into a buzz saw. Maliki went to Basra to personally oversee military operations. History will not confuse him with Napoleon.

The government might have suffered a humiliating defeat if not for the face-saving intervention of U.S. and British air power, and a bit of British artillery as well. At least the United States didn't have to go it alone. It was the British military, after all, that had declared its job done in Basra and withdrawn, knowing full well that the city was controlled by gangs and militias, not the central government in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Maliki's putsch had inflamed Shiite communities throughout the country, including the vast Sadr City neighborhood in Baghdad. The tranquility brought about by Bush's ballyhooed "surge" turned out to be as evanescent as a rainbow.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain's Free Ride
By Eugene Robinson

Quite a "defining moment" in Iraq, wasn't it? At this rate, John McCain is going to be proved right: The war will last a century.

That is indeed what McCain meant, by the way, no matter how his apologists try to spin it. Those who claim that by "a hundred years" McCain was talking about a long-term peacetime deployment like the U.S. military presence in South Korea are being disingenuous or obtuse. In and around Seoul, citizens aren't shooting at American soldiers or trying to blow them up with roadside bombs -- and U.S. combat forces aren't taking sides in bloody internecine battles over power and wealth.

It was George W. Bush who called last week's fighting in Basra and other Iraqi cities a defining moment for the fledgling government. By that standard, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been defined as an impulsive leader and an inept general -- and his government as a work barely in progress."

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Hell ,yes Clinton is stronger. They pulled the Marines out of Bosnia and sent Hillary in with two 38's in her bra and a hand grenade in her teeth and she stabbed all the enemy in the back.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama will soundly defeat McCain.

Hillary will soundly defeat McCain.

And it is not only because Obama is such a gifted speaker and inspirational leader.

Nor is it because the Clintons are so politically savvy.

Nor is it a knock against McCain personally.

It is because the VAST majority of the United States is on the side of the Democrats when it comes to the biggest issues of our day.

2/3 of the country realizes, now, that Iraq was a Huge Strategic Mistake. Yet, McCain wants to stay in that expensive, wasteful, diversionary quagmire. Both Obama and Hillary know that we should get out ASAP and use our finite resources much more expeditiously.

McCain admits, openly, that he does not know jack about the economy. The U.S. economy is teetering on the brink. Collapse is NOT inevitable -- if we have someone who knows what they are doing at the helm.

McCain seems not to care about the 48,000,000 Americans who have no health insurance. Obama and Hillary both have plans to help ALL Americans.

McCain, self-admittedly an economic novice, still claims that the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are a good thing and hopes to make them permanent. He seems oblivious to our humongous deficit. He seems not to notice that the Chinese are buying up our debt like they are at a fire sale.

Furthermore, McCain seems not to grasp the geo-political ramifications of this massive transfer of wealth and power.

So...

McCain is on the Wrong Side of History. He will lose. And he will lose big. LBJ vs. Goldwater big. Reagan vs. Mondale big. To either Obama or Hillary.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 1, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it's like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright." - Obama

Obama mocks U.S. soldiers held as POWs during WW2!! Thousands were killed or died of starvation.

McCain will easily beat Obama!

Obama/Wright08

But in the meantime - Go Hillary!

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 1, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The Repubs think Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate?

Oh, I get it! April Fools Day to you too!

Because that is obviously not a genuine belief held by any actual Republican who has read the polls, added up the popular votes, listened to an Obama speech, counted up the campaign contributions, consulted with a Senatorial colleague, or just turned on the evening news.

Senator Obama is far and away the class of this primary season which is why he has picked up 65 super delegates since Super Tuesday compared to Senator Clinton's nine.

Her pathetic attempt to rewrite her personal history to bolster her claims to substance fatally backfired at the same time that Sen. McCain was revealing himself to be dangerously out of touch with the military reality on the ground in both Iraq and the economic reality in the United States.

No doubt McCain will be a formidable candidate despite his many personal and policy weaknesses. But Obama wins the contest by a squeaker in November and a new day dawns for America.

Posted by: dee5 | April 1, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

actually info you once again prove that you just post anything you hear from the Obama campaign. Look at the HC site if you don't believe me. She raised $3.1 million in the last 24 hrs alone, has an Elton John concert scheduled that will raise over 1 million and has paid those bills that you parrot from the Obama campaign.

Before you post that Jewish voters are abandoning Hillary and she has no money check your facts.

incidentally a new poll has the race 47-45 Obama and Sen Obama losing support among Pa students and African Americans in Pa(reported on MSNBC this morning, so you might want to slow down measuring for curtains.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

So far, I've seen various polls of each race. Survey USA had each beating McCain in the electoral college, but Obama by more. Other polls have different results.
One point that polls cann never measure is that Obama has a track record of pulling new voters in. The question isn't whether these would vote for Clinton or McCain; the questionis whether these would vote.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | April 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

For instance, Chris writes
"Clinton seems to have cleared the "commander in chief" bar in the eyes of most voters..."

Has she? My guess is that, should she receive the Dem nomination, that 'qualification' will be reopened for futher examination. Certainly, the McCain campaign would be foolish not to question her credentials on the subject. She's been given a 'pass' on the subject thus far only because her Dem competition has - to a man - been similarly inexperienced, with the possible exception of Joe Biden.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike, that is true, not all or even perhaps not most conservatives will get their info from the net for this election. Yet still, it will play a factor and perhaps more than we all know- come November.

Still, I would rather have the number of Facebook.com supporters, for examples, that Obama (736,230+) has compared to McCain (101,362)...

Posted by: davidmwe | April 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Also the Republicans know that with Hillary as the nominee they can fire up their base without McCain having to jeopardize his favorability among Independents and some Democrats.

With Obama the Republican base is not as fired up. You can easily see this by the efforts of the conservative media to go after Obama. Obama represents an opportunity to garner more Independents support, new voter support and some disenchanted Republican support than Hillary does.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

In his book and in speeches, Obama LIED about his father's connection to the Kennedy family.
But the videos of Obama's LIE will never be aired on TV 24/7.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/13655/6958

Our media has given Obama a pass from the gitgo - very similar to the media in communist China that conceals negative info about candidates they've "chosen."

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 1, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

' He ranked 790 out of 794 midshipmen in his graduating class.'

We don't need another C- president. McCain is simply an older, angrier version of Bush. He wants to continue the same failed economic policies that got us into this:

"Now let me show you how we taxpayers are picking up the tab for much of this rescue mission to the markets, even though Uncle Sam isn't sending checks to Wall Street. Here's the math: Say the Fed extends $500 billion of emergency loans to firms in need of short-term money. They're paying about 2.5 percent interest to Uncle Ben (or Uncle Sam, if you prefer). That rate is way below what they'd pay to borrow in the open market, if they could borrow. The difference between the open-market price and 2.5 percent is a gift from us, the taxpayers. I think that's better than letting the world financial system collapse, but it's a serious subsidy to outfits that made a lot of money on the way up and that are now whining about losses. You gotta love it -- private profits, socialized losses."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102355_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008033100743

McCain and Obama on a stage are a perfect visual representation of The Past vs. The Future.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Conservative: I think Obama is the harder candidate to beat.

Liberal: That's just Rove talking points. You're afraid of Hillary, so you float the idea that you're not.

------------------------------------------------
Conservative: I think Hillary is the harder candidate to beat.

Liberal: Can we please get politics out of the gutter? Darth Vader and Karl Rove aren't going to steal it this time. Look at who has won more states and delegates?
-------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: The liberal mind has a fixation on Bush, Cheney, oil, Rove, Halliburton, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.

No original thought since 1965.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Think about the general election. What would each candidate do to run against McCain?

Hillary's primary campaign has been all about her experience. She talks about how she's been vetted, she's trustworthy at 3 a.m., etc. How does she stand up to McCain on experience? McCain is older, he has real military experience, he's spent decades in Washington, and he's a national security expert. How can Hillary compete with him? She'd need to entirely redo her campaign and completely reinvent herself.

Obama's primary campaign hasn't focused on experience. He's talked more about judgment, optimism, a new vision for America, and a new kind of politics. And all of those arguments will work at least as well against McCain as they did against Clinton. McCain can try to focus on his own experience, but Hillary already tried that against Obama and failed. That's why Obama is the stronger general election candidate; he can treat the general as an extension of his successful primary campaign. Hillary can't.

Posted by: Blarg | April 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"How will McCain pay for his 100 years stay in Iraq? How long will he stay with a full military force that costs $2 billion per week to maintain?"

info4 is either intentionally misrepresenting McCain (and is thus a liar), or ignorant of history (and is just an idiot).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 12:07 PM
------------------------

I actually presented it correct. I never said a 100 years war. I said he wants to stay in Iraq like he compares to Korea. But he never said how he will pay for it. Then I asked "How long will he stay with a full military force that costs $2 billion per week to maintain?" I then asked how long with a full military force like we have now? That is a fair question. How long will he stay with the large military force and how will he pay for it. Two questions there.

USMC_Mike it is you who is either intentionally misrepresenting my questions or (and is thus a liar), or ignorant of history (and is just an idiot).

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I question the validity of questioning a bunch of Republican strategists on whom they'd rather face in the general election. Would any of them give you the straight dope? Or would the opportunity to spin be too enticing to pass up? Can you tell who is spinning, and who's not? Of the responses I've read in the comments thread, everybody seems to be assuming spin that favors their preferred candidate. I don't think its possible to have a reasonable discussion on the subject; or not in this forum anyway.

Posted by: bsimon | April 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Killing Machine
Push-Button Suicide Machine To Be Rented To People With A Death Wish. A German lawyer and politician has unveiled Europe's first suicide machine for people with a death wish as "an act of Christian love".

I hear the device is rigged to look like a voting booth and the button that actuates it is labled:
B. hussain Obama (D) for President.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

The distilled wisdom of the posters regarding the single question includes the following observations.

1] Time. The election is seven months away. Events may trump all other considerations. ???
2] Indies. Many indies are more interested in depolarization than in specific policies. A McC calling card. An
HRC weakness? So Point BHO?
3] Money. Point BHO?
4] D turnout. Point BHO?
5] R turnout. Which D brings out fewer among the R base? Point BHO?
6] Ability to inspire. Point BHO?
7] Misogyny and Race and Ageism. ???
8] Easy targets. Both Ds have provided thrilling sound bites for the Rs.
9] Debate prowess. Point HRC?
10] Grass roots organization. ???

In the Scottish vernacular, the answer is beyond our ken. Point number 1] trumps all others.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman Rips Democratic Party
"It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me."

Watch it, you can get kicked out of the party for telling the truth. Oh wait. too late. add him to the list with
Zell Miller et al.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

As a resident of Massachusetts -- and looking at Obama -- he is the spitting image of our Governor Deval Patrick. Deval is also a great speaker and promised to bring us together and end the politics of old. Well guess what -- he has had a steep learning curve and has been a pretty ineffective governor. My personal opinion is that we cannot take that chacne on Obama -- not now -- that why I have and will continue to support Hillary.

Posted by: markmalbo | April 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Another Obama LIE exposed by Politico.
But don't look for this in the pro-Obama media and press.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/1/02019/83931

Obama also created a false narrative and LIED about his father's relationship to the Kennedy family - easily exposed by Washington Post on Sunday with tons of available documentation.
But have you seen the numerous videos of Obama stating this LIE?? ha!
Obama bamboozled the Kennedys - but this Obama LIE will also never be in the media.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/13655/6958

The media is concealing negative info about Obama and selling us a pig in a poke.

Obama cannot win against McCain!


Posted by: JoseyJ | April 1, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Iraq Wins
Sadr Fighters Raise White Flag

Fighters of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have melted away from the streets of the Iraqi capital and Basra where they fought fierce battles with security forces,

Let's see the moonbats spin this into a loss somehow.

I know - the enemy has redeployed, which we all know is code for victory.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Just stepping back and looking at who has run and managed the better campaign, I'd say that Barack is the more formidable opponent. He's over-maneuvered Hillary over and again.

Posted by: sw7104 | April 1, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Hillary isn't spending money because doesn't have much left. She owes money for catering and party planners. She is in debt. The Politico reports:
"Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton's struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html

She wants to mandate heath insurance but hasn't paid her campaign's premiums. Maybe she will fine herself.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"USMC_Mike, hi- I disagree. The Internet revolutionizes the campaigns by allowing voters o interact with their candidates (virtually) and their fellow supporters. The fact that McCain is so far behind on almost every Internet Stat, says something...
He has work to do."

Find me a poll that says most conservatives get their news from the "blogosphere".

My guess would be that they don't. They read newspapers and go to work.

For a time there, ron paul should have won, based on relative internet strength.

Think about who has computers, free time, and strong political interests - my answer, coffee sipping elites (liberals).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

BTW - HRC or Obama will wipe the floor with the GOP candidate. After the last 7 years, a friggin broomstick will win against McC. Not his fault mind you, but any hint of going down the same worm hole with someone who has only a answer of lets go to war on any issue is comedy.

Also, I am sick of hearing all the "what the GOP attack machine will do" crap - like that is supposed to scare someone. Are you all truly trembling in your boots waiting to get slapped around? Like the DEMs are just going to sit and take it? Like everyone see these ads and other pablum and instantly believe it - NOT THIS TIME. You can duped the American public but so much. It may take the old girl a minute to wake up, but the USA voters have had it - and all the bums will be shown the door. Hopefully the FIX will be out of a job afterwards. We have enough repeaters already employed.

Posted by: J_thinks | April 1, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"How will McCain pay for his 100 years stay in Iraq? How long will he stay with a full military force that costs $2 billion per week to maintain?"

info4 is either intentionally misrepresenting McCain (and is thus a liar), or ignorant of history (and is just an idiot).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike, hi- I disagree. The Internet revolutionizes the campaigns by allowing voters o interact with their candidates (virtually) and their fellow supporters. The fact that McCain is so far behind on almost every Internet Stat, says something...
He has work to do.

Posted by: davidmwe | April 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans know that a McCain versus Obama race would be very challenging to them.

First and foremost is the visual challenge. You have Obama, a 6-foot 2-inch 46-year old, standing next to a 5-foot 7-inch 71-year old. (Even Michelle Obama towers over McCain at 5-foot 10-inches!) Then you have the black and white dynamic. Then you have the young vigorous looking Obama image vs the old unhealthy looking McCain image. This would be the ultimate image of the future (Obama) vs the past (McCain).

Secondly and more importantly is the difference in policies regarding the economy, healthcare, education, Iraq and national security. Having witnessed McCain in the Republican debates he has a tendency to come across an unintelligent on the issues but stubborn. Obama has greatly evolved from a timid and high-soaring rhetoric debater to one who commands the issues and thinks very quickly on his feet. I can see Obama clearly winning the debates with McCain.

YES WE CAN! Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

How will McCain pay for his 100 years stay in Iraq? How long will he stay with a full military force that costs $2 billion per week to maintain? When Sadr acts up it proves the Iraq military can't beat him so how long will McCain prop up Iraq at the expense of the American dollar and economy? We will see how McCain answers those questions standing next to Sen. Obama in a debate. The people are tired of Bush's smoke and mirrors Iraq policy. McCain will need real answers or he will face a certain loss come election day.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, pundits and pollsters, how about getting real for a change? The outcome of a Presidential election has always been driven by the negatives and nothing else.

The candidate with the most negatives loses. That's why, for decade after decade, presidential elections have been characterized by a majority of voters as a "choice between the lesser of two evils".

Between Senators McCain, Obama and Clinton...it's Senator Clinton who has the highest negatives. She has had them since she began her campaign and she has not be able to do or say anything to change this picture.

The ongoing questioning of pundits and campaign insiders has only one benefit. Pundits debating with other pundits, and writers who write about the debates, is about keeping pundits and writers fully-employed....it has nothing to do with future election outcomes.

Six months ago the WaPo, the pundits and pollsters had Senator Clinton as the Democrat's shoo-in, and Guliani or Romney as the Republican nominee. McCain wasn't a player.

So much for their opinions...

Posted by: Vunderlutz | April 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

a 37 is what I heard king but his lousy bowling is not why I believe he will make a lousy president.

Any temporary bump harlemboy in Pa is likely from the fact that Sen Obama has a 2 million dollar ad buy running there while HC is waiting another week before spending her resources. If HC wins Pa convincingly harlemboy will that effect who you support?

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The Media keeps the story of Obama being the stronget candidate, which the Repubs want. From the very start he has been the weakest of any viable Dem. Each wants to run against who they think is the weakest, and say the opposite about who they really want to run against. IMHO, Hillary will win, Obama will lose.

Posted by: lylepink | April 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

davidmwe - your google test is stupid.

Wellsfargo.com, Wachovia.com, Chase.com, {fillinyourbank}.com all have more hits than these 3 candidates combined.

Why would I, a likely McCain voter, go to his website?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Just how dense is the collective wisdom of the blogoshepre and the MSM. clinton is toast and is only hanging on because she has no grace, no class.

On the other hand, Obama has now an appropriate metaphor available for him to use.

gutter Ball hussain.

He got a 32. Expect similar results in the electoral college for the return of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

McCain will not win because there are too many issues facing our nation and he is a one-sided person - Military and foreign policy is all he cares about. He isn't interested in domestic or economic policies and he is clueless on these issues. Just look to his ethics while at the Naval Academy, one of his friends said that he only did well in the two subjects that he liked - history and literature, and only did what he had to in order to pass his other classes. He ranked 790 out of 794 midshipmen in his graduating class.

He can only handle two subjects at a time. We don't need a President who is a two issue person. We need a President who can focus on all the issues and do a good job on all the issues not just foreign policy and the military.

Obama has a better grasp on where our nation should be on the homefront and the global stage. It's time for a younger generation to take over. McCain and his cronies are out of touch with the needs and challenges of this millenium. Their ideas are passe. We need innovation and change to meet the needs of the future. We need true change which Obama sees and represents.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | April 1, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary's lead is shrinking in Pennsylvania, then good for Obama! I will support him if he's the nominee. Again, my point is this: if Obama is so much more electable than Hillary, then he really needs to prove it NOW by defeating her in Pennsylvania AND bringing working-class voters into his coalition.

Posted by: harlemboy | April 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Of course the Obama groupies will chime in with the Kennedy/fresh-Nixon/tired analogies, but they will leave out one thing: McCain is actually likable and Nixon was not. Kennedy was likable and Obama strains in that department. McCain is probably more likable than Obama or Clinton. but if you add Obama's likability deficit to his experience/detail deficit, it's pretty clear Clinton would have the edge.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The independents as always are the only ones who matter. Obama at the national level lost ground with the independents not because they are upset with Wright, but they came to learn Obama is like everyone else - until he is humliated on an issue he will run from it.

I think among true Democrats Obama won the wright issue - he finally admitted race is still an issue in this country. Independents are mad because he tried to run from the issue.

FACTS: We are in crisis mode before congress is willing to look at the oil issue - Congress can stop the trade of US crude on the commodities exchange tomorrow - the mere threat and watch how fast the price of crude comes down.

They do not act unless they are humiliated first.

FACT: Cngress knows that the BUSH people in the Department of Education have created a CFR not supported by law which is designed to punish Iraqi veterans and congress does nothing.

If you are an Iraqi veteran who has had his legs blown off on the day you earned one penny more than the poverty level you cannot have your student loans discharged based on disability. If you had your legs blown off one day earlier then you can have your student loans discharged.

This congressionally unsupported CFR is hurting Iraqi veterans - the matter is in federal court in DC - the press says not newsworthy - until they are humiliated to cover the story - the press and politicians are the same people. They refuse to act until they are humiliated into acting

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
Brownsville, TExas

Posted by: bobbywc | April 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I say Obama OR Clinton, for two reasons;
1) their stance on the war
2) their far more in-tuned with the masses, as these Internet stats point out:

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
The Google Primary:

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

Posted by: davidmwe | April 1, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I think its interesting that one of the Republican quotes was (to paraphrase) a visualization of having both Obama and McCain on the same stage. Picture that for a moment...
First, picture McCain, who is often soft-spoken and poorly articulated (although not as poor as Bush). McCain the man who admits knowing almost nothing about economics except for plans to read Alan Greenspan's book. McCain who has been directly quoted as envisioning a 100-year presence in Iraq.

Obama, perhaps the greatest orator of this generation (or maybe not better but AS GOOD AS ANY orator ever). Obama who is calm under attacks and the pressure of the debate stage (refuses to get frazzled by Hillary's low blows while on stage... she's tried to drag him into the mud countless times). Obama who embodies the LOOK of change; moving away from stodgy old white men. Obama the fiercely intelligent former Harvard Law Review Editor who may not know every policy cause and effect but he will know it within a day if it matters.

Finally, not that this SHOULD matter but you know it WILL.... Obama is just a whole lot better looking than McCain (McCain has also had skin cancer on his face)

Posted by: fletcher.dan | April 1, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

What incentive do Republican elected officials and operatives have to tell the truth? If there are multiple candidates out there, you want to float the idea that you're "scared" of the one you think you can beat. I'm not saying that's what these Repubs are doing, but shouldn't that at least cast a little doubt on their statements?

The fact is, Clinton and Obama are both stronger than McCain, assuming they stop drawing their swords on each other and start pointing them towards McCain.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | April 1, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The past polls (over two months ago) and recent polls have shown Obama to be the stronger candidate against McCain.

McCain's strength lies in the perception that he is a war hero and experienced natinal security politician who achieved what he has on his own. Obama's strength lies in the perception that he is a uniter and has great oratorical skills as a politician who achieved what he has on his own.

Hillary's strength lies in the fact that she owes her political career to Bill Clinton. Without Bill Clinton, Hillary would not have become a New York Senator and would not be in the Presidential race. The news media tip-toes around this subject for fear of offending women voters.
Hillary is no Shirley Chislom or Ann Richards.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I would like to see a debate between McCain and Hillary. When pushed against a wall, she just looks like a total b****. I think most people are turned off by that.

Unfortunately, McCain has a hard time with debates. He often can't construct a coherent thought without stumbling and looking his age. An Obama-McCain debate would look and sound like a young Kennedy vs. a sweaty old man.

If Obama wins the nomination, he strolls into the WH, regardless of his anti-American church, pastor, wife, and his ultra-left-wing beliefs.

Clinton's sleazy tactics are the only way McCain can get in (which I'm not even sure would be much better).

Obama may think himself a JFK, but he's just a Jimmy Carter.
(yikes)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

'Mommy Mommy, how come Barrak Obama and his church are allowed to make fun of me?'

'Well, honey, he's a senator.' 'He can break the law and violate Article 14 of the Constitution and make fun of your skin color and gender and it's ok.' 'Look honey, you're different.' 'your hair is different, your nose is different and your mouth is different.' 'You just don't fit in.'

"But that doesn't make me feel very good Mommy, .'

'Don't worry Honey, someday they'll enact laws to protect all people so you won't be made fun of and ALL people will be treated equally.'

'When will that be Mommy/"

I don't know Honey, .... Let's ask the Delegates and super Delegates.

Delegates & Super Delegates WHEN WILL THAT BE?!?!?

The child needs your reasoning.

Posted by: rmason1 | April 1, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

There is a solution, Hillary yesterday was pushing for the Michigan and Florida Delegates to be seated, the answer to this has to be a Firm NO! - Rules Agreed can't be changed for the interest of one candidate. Then once this decision is firmly stated, The Democratic Party should reduce the number of Delegates needed for the nominated candidate to pass the final line, we may have a candidate sooner than later and we can get down to the November Election Race.

Posted by: jaybs1 | April 1, 2008 05:39 AM
------------------------
Pretty funny. You say the rules can't be cahnged and then say 'The Democratic Party should reduce the number of Delegates needed for the nominated candidate to pass the final line'. Isn't that changing the rules?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

leichtman I think it is great. Your rabbi thinks one way and my parents think another way. It shows that Jewish voters should not be sterotyped, not all Jewish voters think alike, and that is a good thing, that other people should understand.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Harlemboy

Hillary's lead is shrinking in PA, Rasmussen +5(-5) and SurveyUSA +12(-7). Obama's got three weeks to campaign.

Posted by: sjxylib | April 1, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Look Folks,

If the last two or three Presidential elections hasn't taught us anything else about the current state of politics, it has taught us that in this deeply partician era electablility boils down to two things:

1) Who of the two candidates is the most dogged in a street fight ala Clinton v. Dole, Bush v Gore and Bush v. Kerry.

2)Which candidate is able to reach the swing middle Class and Blue collar worker and convince them (rightly or wrongly in the case of the election of Geroge Jr) that the swing voter can trust that particular candidate to support their values and interests above the other candidate....

So, My advice to the leaders of the Democratic Party is to be mercilessly objective with your analysis as to who is the more electable Democratic candidate, based on What we have learned from the past two failed attempts at recapturing the White House. And then make plans for a massive campaign to defeat John McCain (Or start packing your bags because I don't think your Democratic Base will tolerate another bottched attempt by Leadership to win another winnable election)....

Posted by: Birddog08 | April 1, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The truth of the matter is that no one knows the answer. Obama has a message that seems form-fit for an undecided independent voter, but he is also relatively untested in the foreign policy arena in a race that could well come down to a referendum on which candidate Americans trust more to keep them safe. Clinton seems to have cleared the "commander in chief" bar in the eyes of most voters, but many within even that group see her as too divisive and political to appeal to anyone other than Democratic base voters.

You call this an article - this was pure trash, offered absolutely nothing as noted by your summary paragraph. I think you sit around and eat cookies reading all teh comments to form any opinion. Your articles, just as your TV appearances, offer nothing - you should go into law, since you always make the on the other hand reference and wait to hear opinions.

Posted by: J_thinks | April 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Interesting that you put all of the "Obama is the stronger candidate" arguments "below the fold" or "after the jump" or however you'd say it on here.

Everyone knows that Obama would be a tougher candidate. I think the GOP strategists are realizing that the public knows Obama would be a stronger candidate and they don't want to solicit the concept to the point of conventional knowledge because that could permanently cripple the McCain campaign before the general election even starts.

So they want to tell voters that Clinton is the tougher candidate to both help draw out the race longer and also squash the perception that Obama may be a better candidate as a whole than McCain, which is what virtually every poll has showed us since last summer.

With the economy becoming the biggest issue and none of the three candidates having large-scale executive economic experience (running a large business, running a state, etc.), I think the biggest example is going to be how they have run their campaigns. And from what I can tell, Clinton is in massive debt (according to several recent stories her campaign still owes money to a sandwich caterer from the Iowa caucus night - thousands of sandwiches they say) and can't keep her campaign together to save her life, and McCain went completely broke, had to lay off half his campaign last summer and is still struggling to raise and manage his money effectively.

We all know and see how well Obama has utilized his resources, while retaining his staff and saving a hefty amount of cash on the side. We also know that somehow, Obama has managed to build and run the most successful financial campaign in recent history without taking a penny from PACs or federal lobbyists. He also isn't employing any federal lobbyists on his campaign, unlike Clinton and McCain.

All Obama has to do is periodically remind voters of the complete ineptitude that has been the financial theme of Clinton and McCain's campaigns and he'll have the economic argument in the bag.

Posted by: thecrisis | April 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I don't know about you all but my crystal ball is clouded over and may even have a crack in it. I dont think its possible to say who is stronger against who, unless you consider what could be the potential environment for the election. Its all Iraq vs the economy and exactly how bad either or both of them are. Americans vote thier pocketbooks before all. Further, I personally think that no matter what, the Obama message of change will resonate with the American people, whether it will be front and center is up for debate. Finally I cant help but feel that no matter how much HRC sounds like the policy queen, enough people dislike her enough to not vote or vote against her rather than have to hear and watch her for the next four years.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

info: that is certainly interesting that you bring up the Jewish vote. In my precinct caucus my rabbi and his wife were HC delegates to the distric Convention,and at least 50% of my conservative Texas precinct who were HC supporters in our HC caucus of 118, were also Jewish.
If HC is doing so poorly with Fla Jewish voters as you proclaim to know, then Senator Obama should be strongly pushing for a revote in Fla to seal his nomination. The fact that he is not, leads me to believe that your Fla assesment of Jewish voters is way off base.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I am an advocate for positive political campaigning. Check out this great website with free stuff. http://www.lookforthegood.org

Posted by: rmast | April 1, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Chris, do you write press releases for Hillary Clinton in your spare time?

Posted by: davestickler | April 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Alex Vogel is completely wrong, Obama standing next to McCain would make McCain look old and unfit for the job. Hillary is to divisive, I know a few independent Democrat leaning Jewish seniors in Florida that when the campaign started were huge Hillary supporters but as the campaign got nasty they soured on both Hillary and President Clinton to the point of telling me last week that if Hillary got the nomination they would not vote. If the Clintons can turn off Jewish seniors then they have lost a good chunk of their base. I just can't see Hillary winning in a general election too many people will stay home, which may cost the Democrats the Congress.

Posted by: info4 | April 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"Obama's gotten this far because he's run a dirty campaign against clinton"
svreader

Obviously your idea of dirt is far different than the rest of us. The Clintons are the ones who have been trolling in the deep doo-doo for some time now. They have run a sloppy, self-indulgent, nasty campaign and IT SHOWS

Posted by: nclwtk | April 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone accept the on the record pronouncements of GOP officials or consultants who make their living advising GOP candidates?
Does anyone take Howard Dean at his word that John McCain is a "weak candidate"? No, it's evident to any rational observer of American politics that the GOP nominated their only viable general election candidate. Credulous
acceptance of these statements is not political analysis and does not provide any insight. The question of the candidates' electability should based on more objective criteria than what their opposition states about them in public.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | April 1, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not the best candidate to run against McCain, just look at the facts. What did he real do in the Illinois Legislature on his own, without the help of Emil Jones? Nothing. What has he real done in the U S senate, except try to jump on other senators band wagon? Look at what he calls good judgement, Rev. Wright (racist, bigot, anti-Semantic), Rezko ( indited money launder, who help politician get elected). Look at his foreign policy advisors, Brzezinski,( who help to place Bin Laden in Afghanistan) , Robert Malley,( sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah, anti Semitic). We though Rumsfeld was bad, why do you think Obama wants to have face to face with terrorist. Can't you just image what the Republican will do with this information!

Posted by: jpannebecker | April 1, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

As Jonathan said, this is an irrelevant question. After such a long and hard campaign, the voters will not let some back-room deal decide on the nominee.

The Republican are throwing smokescreens because they are running scared of an onslaught in Nov. Vogel said: ' at some point he is going to stand at a podium next to Senator McCain -- and McCain has the ability to make him look like a child in terms of depth and experience." -- That's laughable. McCain will look like an old, clumsy joker (remember Dubya?) next to Obama. No one in his/her right mind would want McCain to control the red button.

Posted by: KT11 | April 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"The perception at the moment is clearly that Obama is the stronger candidate against McCain. The reality is much less conclusive."

How do you know this? How could you possibly know whether the reality is conclusive or not?

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | April 1, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

HIllary Clinton should just get out of the race. She's mucking up the Dems chances for November. Do the math, lady. You don't have a prayer. Your numbers are in the toilet. Do the right thing for once in your life. Don't flush the rest of us.

Posted by: nezbangi | April 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

johnathan says he doesn't want any 'back room deals to decide the nomination' interesting that his campaign doesn't seem to complain when they receive superdelegate endorsements, are those the kinds of backroom deals sir that your refer to or only those superdelegates who endorse HC?

My take on it is to start with those states that John Kerry won and came very close to taking the whitehouse in 2004 and getting state by state poll numbers and first see which candidate does the best in those state.

My second test would be judging those secondary states that John Kerry sought but did not win which include: Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Ohio,Missouri, and Florida and seeing state by state which candidate does the best in matchups there.

My next test are what I would consider to be purple states which are trending blue and where I worked in 2004, states like Va and Colorado where Senator Obama has significant support.

And finally I would look at maybe another 5 border states like Kentucky, Tennesse, Arkansas, Indiana, and Wyoming where there is maybe a 45% chance our nominee could win but where it is unlikely that significant time and resources will be expended in the general election by either side.

Sorry but I would certainly not consider states like Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Mississipi and Nebraska as having any likelihood of success unless there is a 1972 type landslide, which is certainly possible, but not likely and would not factor in my calculation as an undecided superdelegate.

Next I would measure the negative response to each candidate's worse stories and its potential general election impact. HC's story about Bosnia, and B.O.'s story about Pastor Wright.

My final measure would be which candidate polls highest about the economy, which should be the deciding factor in November and which candidate has the greatest backing from the military.

Certainly as a HC supporter I would hope that their choice would be her, but my final factor would be a short prayer asking that my choice be made with the wisdom to do what is best for this country's future and which candidate has the best tools for cleaning up 7 years of Bush incompitence and corruption. We should all agree that the Bush Admin.has wrecked this country's economy and standing in the world and whoever the next Pres. is will have their work cut out to repair. That is where I would most strongly give HC the advantage but that would not necessarily be my deciding indicator, IF I were undecided.

Scream at me all you want but those are the tests I would use as an undecided superdelegate.

Posted by: leichtman | April 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

harlemboy makes some of the most sound comments I have read to date regarding the electability of Clinton vs. Obama. The fact is that Barack Obama -- while a fine and decent man -- is not battle tested, and that worries many of us in the Democratic party. And while I find Barack Obama to be a talented orator, I find that he relies far too much on the "vote for me because I'm ahead in the delegate race" argument. As voters, we should look for more steak than sizzle. And I just don't think that we're getting a lot of substance with Sen. Obama. Ideally, Sen. Obama would have waited for 8 years -- or at least until he had considerably more experience in national office -- to run for the highest office in the land.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, I think does have more substance to lend to the Democratic cause. And I think that she is better situated to run an aggressive campaign against Sen. McCain.

Posted by: kdecker | April 1, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

A glance forward to the electoral college using state level head-to-head polls seems to back up the Gallup findings. Obama does better against McCain state to state than Clinton.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-electoral-college-really-argument.html

Posted by: jtputnam | April 1, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The GOP poobahs are saying "Don't throw me into that Clinton briar-patch". Really?

Face it, she is their only path to the WH and they know it.

Posted by: cbl-pdx | April 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the polls is that some of the pollsters are not ethical. Rasmussen and Gallup, for instance, do not show what data they use to arrive at their numbers. They just seem to put down whatever they think will help McCain at any given point. Don't use those two pollsters to make any decisions on the candidates.

The only polls worthwhile are those that give the demographics of the survey population. We need to know the number of participants, race, party affiliation, age, sex, location of those surveyed, etc. As we all know, that makes a tremendous difference in the results. Rasmussen and Gallup are the only pollsters doing surveys recently, so the current poll information is useless.

Surely the media understands this and is just choosing to go with this unreliable data because it supports McCain and the media's choice for Obama to run against McCain. Republicans KNOW Obama will be much easier to defeat in November than Clinton. They know all the negatives that are out there on Obama...they just choose not to bring it to the public's attention. They can keep it from those who don't check the web and rely on TV and major east coast media for their information. They're doing the same thing they did to Al Gore in 2000, when they trashed him relentlessly so that dumbo dubyah could win. Al Gore never said he invented the internet, the press took that out of context and ran it daily to defeat him.

A lot of us are smarter now and we won't allow the disingenuous media to determine our next president. People think the press is liberal and it used to be but now "the press" is one big corporate conglomeration and big corporations lean far right to Republicans.

Things change and one of the worst changes of my lifetime has been the deterioration of the veracity of the American press corp. They are so unethical you can rarely believe anything they say or print. They say and print that which will benefit them personally whether true or not.

Posted by: hazwalnut | April 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

It's interesting to hear opposition party operatives' take on such a question, but it's not like you can trust what they say at face value. There's the possibility their bottom line is the opposite of what they really think.

Posted by: newageblues | April 1, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

""at some point he is going to stand at a podium next to Senator McCain -- and McCain has the ability to make him look like a child in terms of depth and experience,""

Really - McCain is 71 and Obama 46.
when they stand next to each other i think it will watching "a grandson taking his Grandpa for a walk". Do you really think America will elect oldest president ever?
The truth is both Hillary and Obama can beat McCain.

Posted by: chatwithsillyboy | April 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

How can anyone vote for Obama when the church he has worshipped for the past 20 years publicly declares that its ministry is founded on "the destruction of the white enemy."

"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love," Mr. Cone wrote in the book.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080401/NATION/766118950/0/SPORTS

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | April 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Chris: Here is my take - thus far:

I predict that in 2008, the Republicans will enjoy the same sort of victory they suffered the last time a Senator from Arizona was their standard bearer.

Why? Mr. Bush!

In a tragic-comic operetta, McCain finally gets the nod to run as the Republican nominee in his last chance to beat Father Time and for his trouble inherits the "live grenade" of the Bush legacy.

Serious-minded discussion of American foreign policy will be drowned out in 2008 by the screams of outrage from an American electorate in absolutely no mood for anything Republican. My God - diesel fuel will cost more than $5.00 per gallon by mid-summer.

With Iraqi battles escalating among Shi'ite factions and the Maliki government while American war casualties continuing to mount, the 2008 voters will rebuke the Republicans with tsunami-sized turnouts of Democrats, Independents and angry Republicans voting for the Democrat's candidate.

This result will be strengthened as there seems little likelihood that either the housing or credit market will rebound before November 4. IO fwe continue towards a recession - it is over.

Nonetheless, true to his code, McCain will throw himself on the Bush legacy grenade in truly heroic style, but in the end the old warrior will be defeated by the wisdom of Dick Chaney, the organizational skill of Don Rumsfeld and the brilliant policy choices and deft execution of the Bush White House.

Normally, I would vote for McCain -- but he does not have a clue - same for Hillary -- just same-o/same-o. Bush lite.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | April 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans would play those Wright videos all the way up to the election and Obama would lose. The best ticket is still Clinton-Obama.

Posted by: ScamfortheRich | April 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

If Obama's the candidate, mainstream Democrats aren't going to lineup like tin soldiers to vote for him.

Democratic party leaders overestimate "party loyalty"

Obama's gotten this far because he's run a dirty campaign against clinton while claiming to be a saint.

Americans don't like to be played for fools and don't like hypocrites.

They have overriding concerns about his lack of experience at anything but campaigning.

They are deeply worried about what his real agenda is and what he'll really do if get in office.

Finally, they are angered about the anti-white hatred that was preached in his church for 20 years and fancy speeches can't change the simple fact that he stuck with Rev. Wright for that long.

They will not vote for him.

Posted by: svreader | April 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

With the widening spread of people to idenify as Ds over Rs, I can't imagine how McBush can win. He has tied himself to 100 years in Iraq. Does he not know why the Republicans lost so many seats in 2006? Obama has the ability to bring a new generation of voters to the process. He has the ability to squash stupid, petty issues that he Republicans will attempt to throw at him. The fact is that an R after your name could be the end of your political career in 2008.

Posted by: djeterpt1 | April 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

The question really is what are Americans vulnerable to. Lies, Media, Fear Tactics, and a Bad Memory.

Another good question is, who is going to stand up for the American peoples right to keep Arms against threats from within?

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton tried to send the ATF around to take guns from people. Who protects the people from the government? Right now, not many people are speaking the right language but OBAMA.

Bill Clinton takes your Guns, Bush takes your money and Home. No more room for mistakes.

The US government is scared of it's own citizens! We are not all stupid!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | April 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

How about another October Surprise?

What if the economy gets really, really bad through the summer? High gas prices, high food prices, foreclosures. Sounds like a recipe for a Dem shoo-in, regardless.

How will McCain do in a debate with either Dem? Even HRC looks a lot younger than him.

That was a joke. Seriously, McCain is 72, HRC is 60 and Obama is 42. If McCain's debate style is not up to snuff, who knows? Although last time it seems a lot of voters identified with Bush's stupidity, not against it. You certainly don't want someone smarter than you in charge of some things, I guess?

I feel bad for the MSM. They have to run all these "what if" stories between primaries in this, THE ENDLESS CAMPAIGN.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | April 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

[QUOTE]
Alex Vogel, a Republican lobbyist and one-time adviser to former Tennessee senator Bill Frist, sounded a similar note. "While many people are clearly swept up in 'Obamamentum,' at some point he is going to stand at a podium next to Senator McCain -- and McCain has the ability to make him look like a child in terms of depth and experience," said Vogel.
[/QUOTE]

Gee, isn't this the same argument that Hillary Clinton has tried to make, and failed? It was all, "He's untested, he's too inexperienced, he won't be able to stand up to scrutiny." And yet it turns out that Obama is doing just fine, thank you. For an untested, inexperienced, unscrutinized candidate he seems to have won more of the popular vote, more delegates, and more states.

Gee.

Posted by: egc52556 | April 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, BEFORE they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it's critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our "war against terrorism", keeping in mind that "Amnesty" is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. The policies espoused by both Clinton and Obama would grievously damage our Nation's National Security Interests; and, intensify America's vulnerabilities to terrorist activities. As history has repeatedly taught with grim consequences, PEACE is won only THRU STRENGTH; and, NOT THRU the nebulous psychosis of HOPE. Greg Neubeck


Posted by: gneubeck | April 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Primary is shrinking.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania shows Clinton leading Barack Obama by just five percentage points, 47% to 42%. For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a ten-point lead a week ago, a thirteen-point lead in mid-March and a fifteen-point advantage in early March.

Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.

Obama recently received a key endorsement from Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey and has also spent more on television ads than Clinton. If Obama is able to pull off an upset in the Keystone State, it would effectively end the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Obama currently leads Clinton nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. However, while an Obama victory could end the nomination battle, Clinton remains ahead in the state and recently demonstrated her ability to finish strong in the Ohio and Texas Primaries.

Tensions clearly remain in the contest. If Obama is nominated, just 56% of Clinton supporters say they are likely to vote for him against John McCain. Forty percent (40%) of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania say they are not likely to vote for Obama.

On the other hand, if Clinton is nominated, just 67% of Obama supporters say they are likely to vote for her against McCain. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not.

Just 21% of Pennsylvania's Primary Voters say that Clinton should drop out of the race while 18% would like Obama to leave. Those figures are similar to results from a recent national survey. Fifty-one percent (51%) in Pennsylvania say it's very likely the contest will not be resolved until the convention in Denver. That figure includes 61% of Clinton voters and 38% of those who support Obama. Overall, another 33% say a convention decision is Somewhat Likely.

Forty-seven percent (47%) say they have followed news stories Very Closely about Clinton's Bosnia misstatements. Another 27% have followed those stories Somewhat Closely. Overall, 19% consider that issue to be Very Important in their voting decision. That figure includes 6% of Clinton supporters and 36% of Obama voters. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Pennsylvania voters say that most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments. Only 12% disagree.

Clinton voters, by a 64% to 26% margin, believe that American society is generally fair and decent. Obama voters are evenly divided--45% hold that optimistic view while another 45% say society is generally unfair and discriminatory.

Among voters who say the economy is the top voting issue, Clinton maintains a sixteen-point lead over Obama. Among those who view the War in Iraq as the top issue, Obama has a seventeen-point advantage. Among those who say health care is most important, 48% prefer Clinton and 40% choose Obama. Overall, 54% say the Economy is most important, 19% say it's the War in Iraq, and 10% say Health Care.

In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 74% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Obama by 73%.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | April 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Electability arguments, blah. Any decent Democrat could beat McCain.

Posted by: novamatt | April 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama still has not sealed the deal. The results in Ohio -- along with Hillary's still-significant lead in Pennsylvania polls -- clearly demonstrate Obama's serious vulnerability as a general election candidate.

In fact, we really do not know how Obama would endure a Republican smear machine running at full capacity, which has not even come close to happening. If there's one thing the Clinton and McCain campaigns agree on, it's that the Jeremiah Wright controversy is a ticking time bomb for Obama. Is that just wishful thinking on their part? I'm not so sure.

Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 presidential elections largely by appealing to blue-collar voters in states like Ohio and West Virginia who saw each Democratic nominee as "not one of us." Bill Clinton won the other two elections by making a gut-level connection with working-class voters of all colors. Obama has yet to prove that he can bring together a coalition which will enable him to reach 270 electoral votes on November 4. He can start by winning over the working-class voters in Pennsylvania, and perhaps Sen. Casey's endorsement will help him do that. However, if Obama fails to defeat Hillary in Pennsylvania on April 22, the superdelegates have good reason to doubt Obama's ability to defeat McCain in November.

Posted by: harlemboy | April 1, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

After decades of low-road, Karl Rove-style politics, the American electorate is ready to respond to high-road appeal. I'll let readers of this comment decide which of the Democratic candidates this favors.

Posted by: Stonecreek | April 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

It is my opinion if it should end up with Hillary Clinton running against John McCain there will be little to choose between them, two Over 60's both very much the politics of yesterday that so many of us want to Change from.

Barack Obama will be the much better candidate to stand against McCain. Iraq sees a real difference between the candidates, but all over Voters will see a stronger candidate to bring around Changes with Obama, he has the opportunity to run rings around McCain. recently John McCain has been looking a very tired and not a well man. Of course McCain is going to play the experience card! well for me that is starting to become a non-starter as more and more voters are seeing that Age does not give a guarantee of the right experience, often as the saying goes, "old dogs, can't be taught new tricks"

Barack Obama has energized new voters and young people the like not seen for such a long time, these will stand by Obama along with many Independents as well as some Republicans.

First though The Democrats need to finalise the nominated candidate quickly as it is destroying both The Party and its November Election chances, people are getting tired of the fighting, lies and personal attacks. There is a solution, Hillary yesterday was pushing for the Michigan and Florida Delegates to be seated, the answer to this has to be a Firm NO! - Rules Agreed can't be changed for the interest of one candidate. Then once this decision is firmly stated, The Democratic Party should reduce the number of Delegates needed for the nominated candidate to pass the final line, we may have a candidate sooner than later and we can get down to the November Election Race.

Posted by: jaybs1 | April 1, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

The best shot goes to...the one who wins the most primaries and caucuses, who wins the most pledged delegates, and who gets the most votes-we do not and should not let back room deals decide our nominee-welcome to democracy!

Posted by: jonathanR | April 1, 2008 5:29 AM | Report abuse

The best shot goes to...the one who wins the most primaries and caucuses, who wins the most pledged delegates, and who gets the most votes-we do not and should not let back room deals decide our nominee-welcome to democracy!

Posted by: jonathanR | April 1, 2008 5:28 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company