Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Montana: A June Battleground?

Earlier this week, we wrote a piece that divvied up the 10 remaining states and jurisdictions in the Democratic presidential race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

In the story, we gave Obama the edge in Oregon, North Carolina, Guam, South Dakota and Montana. A number of readers of The Fix -- some with pro-Clinton biases, others without -- took issue with our handicapping of Montana, arguing that the New York Senator had a real chance to score an upset there.

Ever responsive to our readers, The Fix decided to look more deeply into the state of play in Montana. Here's what we found.

Unlike other western states (Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah) Montana -- and South Dakota -- will hold primaries, not caucuses, on June 3. Obama has not dominated primaries the way he has caucuses (he's won every caucus but those held in New Mexico and Nevada). In caucuses the smaller number of voters and the necessity of on the ground organization have played to the Illinois Senator's strengths.

So, we know the electorate in Montana will be broader than it has been in other western states but how much larger and who will vote?

Montana has experienced a Democratic revival of late -- a renaissance that began with Brian Schweitzer's election as governor in 2004 -- but given the party's struggles in the state over the recent past there is a limited amount of historical data to help understand the shape of the electorate in June.

The 2006 Senate Democratic primary between then state Sen. Jon Tester and state Auditor John Morrison gives us our best preview to the presidential primary. In that race, 108,198 votes were cast, with Tester winning easily 61 percent to 35 percent. Tester was widely regarded as the more liberal of the two candidates while Morrison was seen as the favorite of the establishment.

(The parallel between Obama/Tester and Clinton/Morrison only goes so far, however. Morrison's campaign was badly damaged by his acknowledgment of an extramarital affair and questions about misuse of his office.)

Tester's path to victory in the primary was built on a huge margin in Missoula County -- an area dominated by the college-town of Missoula where the University of Montana is located. In Missoula, Tester took 11,604 votes to Morrison's 3,341. Tester also won comfortably in Lewis and Clark County (God bless Montana), which includes the state capitol of Helena. Morrison's best showing in a population center in the state was in Silver Bow County, which is dominated by the blue-collar town of Butte. Morrison took 3,680 votes in Silver Bow to 2,949 for Tester.

In many ways, Tester's primary win is a blueprint for how Obama hopes to carry the state. Obama has shown considerable strength on college campuses over the nomination fight and has been actively organizing in Missoula for quite some time. Obama also has the support of Missoula Mayor John Engen, a popular and influential figure in the city.

"Considering the last contested Democratic primary -- Tester's -- I would say Obama looks strong," said David Sirota, an author who has worked for western Democrats in the past. "Tester churned out a massive turnout in Missoula, which politically, would seem to match the kind of place Obama has done well in in past contests."

Gov. Schweitzer (D), something of a political handicapper in his own right, said that the Obama team has been organizing on the ground in the state for quite some time and the Clinton campaign is still seeking to catch up. "The Obama campaign has demonstrated they plan to go hand to hand all the way to the end," said Schweitzer in an interview with The Fix earlier this week.

Although Obama is expected to come out of Missoula with considerable momentum, Clinton should run strong in Silver Bow (Butte) and Cascade (Great Falls) -- areas dominated by blue-collar workers attracted to the New York Senator's message on middle-class voters and their economic struggles.

The wildcard in all of these calculations is the vote that will come out of the Native-American areas of the state. Native Americans make up 6 percent of the state's population, according to the 2000 Census, but are likely to vote at a proportionally higher level in a Democratic primary with estimates running from 10 percent of the primary electorate to as high as 17 percent. Former President Bill Clinton is a revered figure on the reservations, a status that should accrue to his wife's benefit, according to those who know the state well. (Don't forget that Bill Clinton carried Montana in the 1992 presidential race, the first Democratic to so do since Lyndon Johnson.)

But, these same strategists note, if Obama makes a visit to the reservations, which he has yet to do, he could well fight Clinton to a draw or even beat her out due to the potential resonance of his message in that community.

The central question in the race is what turnout will look like on June 3. Schweitzer estimates that as many as 150,000 people will participate in the state's primary -- a massive increase from the 2006 Senate race. If Schweitzer is right about the turnout, the real question is who are those 50,000 people (or so) who didn't vote in the 2006 Senate primary but will make their voice heard this time around? Montana has no party registration so independents and Republicans as well as Democrats are free to vote. Do they? And, if so, which candidate do they choose?

The answers to many of these questions aren't likely to be known anytime before June 3. What is clear is that the primary has energized Montana Democrats like few political events have done in the state.

The party's April 5 Mansfield-Metcalf dinner, at which both Clinton and Obama will speak, sold out in 15 minutes -- 4,000 tickets worth. "We could have sold 50,000 tickets," boasted Schweitzer. (An interesting sidenote: South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, widely seen as one of the rising stars within the Democratic party nationally and an Obama supporter, will give the key note address.) Tales of hundreds of people showing up for Obama organizing rallies in disparate parts of the state are traded daily among activists. The media is covering the race closely, posting stories on rumors of an Obama visit to Missoula and detailed accounts of Clinton's plan.

Sifting through the data and the spin, it's clear that Obama must be considered a favorite in the state given his strengths in the population hub of Missoula and his on the ground efforts throughout the state. But, it would be a mistake to entirely write Clinton off, as Montana's primary is not Idaho's caucuses (or Wyoming's, or Colorado's) and she has several pockets of obvious support in the state.

An Obama victory in the state is expected. A Clinton win would rightly be seen as an upset and might give the New York Senator a bit of momentum as the campaign turns in earnest to the battle for superdelegates.

UPDATE: I incorrectly wrote that Utah had a caucus. The Beehive State actually held primaries.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 26, 2008; 12:13 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: Clinton in Bosnia
Next: Blog Roll: The Best of State Political Blogs

Comments

I have been trying to get some answers to this. The peoloe have right to know if this is true.
Wow!!!!!!!
New Inning: Judge Grants Sinclair Order

Friday April 4th, 2008 7:00 PM by BHDC Staff
Filed under: Sex, Scandals, Scoops, Barack Obama, Drugs, Larry Sinclair
Judge Henry Kennedy, who presides over District Court in Washington, D.C., has granted Larry Sinclair ’s motion for discovery and signed an order for subpoenas regarding Sinclair’s defamation lawsuit against three Internet posters.

Sinclair filed suit in March against the posters, whom, he claims, made up and spread lies about his mental state and character after he posted allegations about Sen. Barack Obama in January on YouTube. Sinclair claims to have used drugs and had sex with Obama in 1999.

The individuals Sinclair is suing have registered accounts at DemocraticUnderground.com, YouTube.com, and Digg.com, although their real names are not yet known. They are currently listed in the suit by their screen names: TubeSockTedD, mzmolly and OWNINGLIARS. Sinclair is seeking $3 million in damages.

The judge’s order, Sinclair tells Big Head DC , signals “a whole new inning and a whole new ball game.” The suit, filed in March, reiterates claims Sinclair has made in the past about Obama.

“On the evening of November 6, 1999, Plaintiff’s limousine driver telephoned then-Illinois State Senator Barrack Obama to set up a introduction of Plaintiff to Mr. Obama,” according to the lawsuit. “Later that evening at a bar which Plaintiff believes was called Alibis, Plaintiff met Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama offered to purchasing cocaine for Plaintiff. Mr. Obama made a telephone call from his cellphone to a presently unknown individual during which Mr. Obama arranged the cocaine purchase.

“Mr. Obama and Plaintiff then departed the bar in Plaintiff’s limousine and proceeded to an unknown location where Mr. Obama exited the limousine with two hundred fifty dollars ($250) tendered by Plaintiff and returned a short while later with an ‘eightball’ of cocaine and gave it to Plaintiff,” the suit continues. “Plaintiff and Mr. Obama then ingested cocaine.”

A sexual encounter allegedly took place after the drug use.

A PolyScore computer analysis conducted on Sinclair in February indicated that he was being truthful in his drug claims, although experts hired by WhiteHouse.com, the Web site that paid for the polygraph, disagreed with the PolyScore readings.

The full order is here: [PDF]
Sinclair Affidavit: Signed, Sealed, Delivered

Wednesday April 2nd, 2008 4:47 PM by BHDC Staff
Filed under: Law, Barack Obama, Larry Sinclair
For anyone who hasn’t seen it yet, Larry Sinclair’s affidavit to the Chicago Police Department has been filed: [PDF]

Earlier: Sinclair to File Affidavit Involving Obama’s Murdered Choirmaster

WHY WON'T ANYONE PUT ANYTHING IN THE PAPERS
ABOUT THIS?

Posted by: Sherril | May 4, 2008 3:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama has won more:
Primaries: 15 -13
Cacuses: 16 - 0 (he got 1 more delegate in Nevada), + Virgin Islands + Dems abroad
Popular vote: 13.3 mil - 12.6 mil
Fund Raising: $237 mil - 175 mil
Individual donors: 1.5 mil - 750,000 (est.)

Posted by: polotka | April 5, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

What do you know? Despite that fact that "nobody lives [here]", there seem to be more than one Montanan posting here!

As a former Missoulian who has also lived in several large "liberal" cities around the country, I would concur that it is one of THE liberal cities in the US. I will cross my fingers for an Obama visit to the rez. Regardless of a rez stop, I think he will win MT.

Posted by: duetschl | April 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

earldy

I am glad to see another Montanan and Missoulian chipping in. Who knew so many of us would notice this blog. I'm here all the time, but haven't noticed too many other Montanans.

Missoula is not the only Democratic city. The voting results don't bear that out. But it is the most Democratc city and certainly the most liberal. It is the only city in Montana where alternative lifestyles are tolerated. Openly gay persons have won elections here.

But the Butte/ Ananconda area has been solid Democratic since their beginning. Missoula didin't start trending liberal until the 1970s, prior to that it was right-leaning centerist at best.

Also Great Falls and Helena consistently elect Democrats to local office and send Democrats to the legislature. Smaller Democratic enclaves include Havre, the largest town on the HiLine. Havre has a labor vote, being a regional headquarters for Burlington Northern and a liberal, albeit more centerist vote due to Montana State University-Northern.


Bill Clinton just announced a Tuesday visit to Montana that will include Helena, Great Falls and Havre, recognizing those cities as also important to a Democratic Primary. With Hillary visiting Butte and Missoula that's quite a full-court press considering this is still two months prior to Montana's Primary.

Havre is also in easy driving distance of two Reservations, Rocky Boy (Chippewa-Cree)and Fort Belknap (Gros Ventre and Assiniboine) and I bet there will be delegations to see Bill Clinton there from the Blackfeet Reservation and the Fort Peck (Sioux and Assiniboine) each of them on opposite ends of the HiLine and 140 and 200 miles from Havre, respectively. The Indian reservations are a strong Democratic enclave that's become more important each year.


No doubt about it, Missoula is a big factor, contributing nearly a third of those likely to vote in a Montana Democratic primary, but no one can win with just Missoula.

Other cities, while still majority GOP in the general elections, have growing Democratic minorities that make those cities more centerist than Republican. Billings is one, Bozeman is the other. Tester lost Gallatin County by just 100 votes and Burns won Yellowstone County (Billings for all those not familiar to our state) by only two percentage points.

So while no city in Montana comes close to Missoula in liberalism, it is not accurate to say Missoula is the only pocket of Democrats in Montana.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 30, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Not that anyone is going to read something this far in a blog, but since I'm actually from Montana and half the people posting have laughed at my state I figured I was obligated to comment.

- Why Montana matters: We're the last primary (with South Dakota) in an area that Obama has been easily winning. If Clinton were to win, it would signify a mood swing for the Mountain west.

- South Dakota matters less because Tom Daschel is one of Obama's biggest supporters and is very, very popular in SD among democrats.

- Why Obama will win Montana anyway. Hmmm... Clinton is dispised here. If she were to be the nominee, every other democrat on the ticket in November would lose. It's a sentiment very common in the west. Google it if you need to. The LA Times wrote a whole article on it last year.

- Missoula is basically the only city in Montana that counts for a democratic primary because we're basically the only democratic city. While most Montanans are populist, they generally vote republican because they are the only ones who talk about resource management without saying they're going to turn all our forests into public parks. Schweitzer and Tester know better, that's why they won. It's not that difficult.

- Most Republicans won't bother voting because they already had a caucus in February. They'll only be voting for Governor picks etc.

Posted by: earldy | March 29, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Cece:

The Re;ublicans who vote in the primary are not likely to vote on the Democratic ballot. That's because the presidential primary does not drive that electorate. The Republicans have contested primary elections for the US Senate seat and for Governor. I think the bulk of the party faithful care more about who their nominees are for those two offices, rather than who the Democrats will nominate for President.

I think there will be a big turnout of independents though. These voters often stay away from primaries, but they may well be drawn to weigh in on the presidential primary. The independents, I believe, will break heavily for Obama.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 28, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure if anyone has already talked about this, but as a Montana Blogger, I think it is important to point out that the Republicans held a Caucus in MT on Feb 5, and they selected Romney. Romney has since released his votes to McCain.

Since the Republican candidate has already been selected for the state, and Montana doesn't require that you declare a party, anyone can walk into the primary and vote for the Democratic Candidate of their choice.

I suspect that the results of the primary here in MT will be skewed with Republicans voting for the Demo Candidate of their choice to run against McCain.

The other possibility is that the MT Republicans will pick up a Republican ballot, and retaliate against the Republican Party for moving to a caucus instead of the citizen's voice in a primary.

Just another factor to consider in trying to predict MT's votes.

Posted by: ceceinmt | March 28, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Alan:

Re: rural counties in the eastern part of the state losing population.

I might disagree a little on that. We stayed in Miles and drove through Baker (I have friends there) and the oil producing part of the state is doing well... Baker hasn't looked this good in a generation from my POV... much as Williston is booming in my state. Yeah, my old family town, Harlowton and that surrounding area is emptying out fast, but on the far east side of the state things seem to be picking up a little.

But the general point is well made. Every time I go back to the Bitterroot, it amazes me how different things are than they were, and a lot of the movement is California type liberals. Aside from my mother, who is a 60s leftie and supporting Obama, I didn't get much of a sense that people in the root were all that engaged yet... and there hasn't been much of a bounce in registration from what I've heard.

Posted by: leuchtman | March 28, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Whoops. I meant to say the Butte Anaconda area is the only place in WESTERN Montana that is losing population. Virtually all the rural couties in eastern Montana are losing population rapidly.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see so many Montanans piping up. I guess people do live here after all.

The Grizzlies fill a stadium that seats 25,000. The only other event that came close is the Rolling Stones concert in October of 2006, but then the massive stage took out all the seats on the south end of the stadium. There are about 150,00 or so people living in the area on or near the Missoula valley, counting the Bitteroot and Mission Valleys. So it may not be so far fetched to think of 1/6 that number flocking to Washington-Grizzly stadium. But I think the Adams Field House/Dahlberg arena is the more likely setting with room for some nine thousand or so with seating on the arena floor. I think Obama could fill it, maybe Clinton too. Remember that this a historic occasion to have presidential candidates campaigning in Montana. Some with a sense for history may just want to observe the event as maybe a once-in-a-lifetime experience, without necessarily being a partisan for either candidate.

Who knows if events will ever again come together again to bring this much attention to Montana in a national election?

As far as the other Montana Democratic populations are concerned, it's really hard to peg them. In Butte, Great Falls or Billings, they do come out of more of a blue-collar tradition. But the industry jobs that used to produce a strong blue collar vote are gone. Anaconda Mining left Butte after ARco acquired it. The few mining jobs still there pale in comparison and the Butte Anaconda area is the only region in Montana that is losing population. The smelter jobs are also long gone from Great Falls. Even Missoula once had a stronger blue collar tradition when we had several lumber mills operating. All but two are shut down now, though Missoula has other demographics that keep it one of the fastest growing areas of Montana.

So the Democratic vote in Butte/Anaconda, Great Falls or Billings has transformed from its blue collar roots. The only Democrats that vote as liberal as Missoula would be Bozeman Democrats. It is home of Montana State or as we Grizzlies like to call it, "the udder school." (making fun of its roots as an agricultural colleg).

Though they do not yet control politics in Gallatin County, those that do vote Democratic there come from the same kind of Green, liberal flavor as Missoula. Missoula is likely to break strong for Obama. He already has an organization here and a strong tradition of political activism here will generate a lot of volunteers to get out the vote. Great Falls Butte/Anaconda and Billings voters could conceivably go for Clinton, but I doubt she would have a large margin of victory in any of those towns, meaning she is unlikely to put much of a dent in the cushion Obama will likely have out of Missoula.

But this is really all guesswork. This will be the first ever seriously contested presidential primary in Montana, so we have no history to fall back on. Montana has very few opinion polls, so it's hard to get that kind of read on the electorate. But perhaps the pollsters are getting ready now that were are "on the map."

It should be very interesting. Montana has one of the nation's smallest television markets, which means a political advertising dollar can buy a lot more time than in more populous states. So on top of candidate visits I bet we will see plenty of campaign advertising. I just hope they hire Montana actors. These campaign commercials where out of state actors try to sound as they think cowboys talk get big laughs here but are ineffective.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 27, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Leuchtman, you could be right. I spend all my time in Missoula and Helena, so I have no real sense of how the vote might go in other parts of the state. I think CC may be onto something with his Morrison/Tester comparison, though. There's a "progressives" vs. the "old guard" split among the Ds, which that race may have been indicative of. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes. (At least the Ds in Montana get to vote, unlike the Rs who were disenfranchised by the party leaders' unwelcome decision to use a caucus and limit participation to about 2,000 voters statewide.)

Posted by: acasilaco | March 27, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

acasilaco:

I feel your pain (the GOP in Msla) LOL. I sometimes feel like I'm the only Democrat in ND (not really, but kinda at least rational Democrat). But even for a moderate to liberal Dem like me, Msla is awfully uhmmm, liberal. I have to wonder, though if the vote in Butte/Silverbow, Billings and Great Falls, which is more blue collar type will fall more towards Hillary and cancel out Obama's edge in Missoula.

Posted by: leuchtman | March 27, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I just want to say that I'm thrilled to have such a substantial discussion in The Fix (and in the comments section) about Montana. Thank you, CC.

And, I think leuchtman may be correct about Missoula being one of the most liberal cities in the country. (At least that's my perspective as a Republican who lives in Missoula. I have also lived in Seattle and in the DC area, so I have some outside reference points of liberalness.)

I agree with CC that there are likely to be some parallels between Clinton/Obama and Morrison/Tester. I think Obama will win the state, propelled by a huge margin in Missoula. I think Clinton will do well in Helena (my hometown) and Butte.

If both candidates make personal free-to-the-public appearances in Missoula (as local media is speculating), I think both would get sizeable crowds, but Obama will do better. He might actually be almost as popular in Missoula as the Grizzlies football team, which is saying a lot.

Posted by: acasilaco | March 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't anyone except Dan Abrams highlighting the fraudulent voting by Republicans for Clinton as being promoted (and followed) by Rush Lambaugh! How can any numbers Clinton get be realistic with this violation going on.

Posted by: agner.abbie | March 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Alan:

So funny. Do you remember the little press area that they had? I felt like a horse standing in that straw that they had. That was a hell of a day.

The Secret Service guys went over my crappy Montana Press Association credentials like they were state documents. If I remember properly, Jackson also carried the other reservations in the state.

The point is that the turnout is typically fairly low in the primary, which will distort the Indian vote significantly. And even more so in South Dakota. Do you have any anecdotal on the S&K and which way you would sense its leaning?

Posted by: leuchtman | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I am in complete agreement with Leuchtman's observations. The In dian vote is very important in Montana.

I also remember Jesse Jackson's visit to Arlee. I was then editor of the Ronan newspaper. He made a big impression speaking at the "pow wow" grounds, a fairly large semi-outdoor arena. The primary season of course was all but over. Dukakis was ignoring the state. But Jesse Jackson did win the majority of the vote over Dukakis in Lake County.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 27, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Warning - Libs are trying to talk intelligently about economics. you may want to come back when sense returns."
Posted by: kingofzouk

Every financial catastrophe of the past 100 years was caused by conservatives and occurred during Republican administrations. Examples: Hoover, Great Depression; Reagan, S&L bailout; Bush II, tech-bubble pop and credit meltdown. Ignorance is bliss, so don't worry--be happy.

Posted by: edwcorey | March 27, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jreno21 | March 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno21 | March 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Mul - you say that Montana doesn't count. "Nobody lives there." It is that attitude that has helped sink the Democrats in Presidential races the last few cycles. The Republican electoral college victories are built upon states like Montana. If Obama can bring them back into play it really helps our cause. Last time I checked we were still the United States of America, not the United Big, Important States of America.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | March 27, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I have a pertinent observation here... and I think Alan will agree with this for the most part...

I was visiting my mother in the Bitterroot over the previous weekend. When I go home (graduated from Corvallis-which means nothing in this to anyone other than Alan) I have friends that I tend to visit on the S&K and Crow Reservations.

Missoula is probably (now at least) one of the five or six most liberal population centers with over 50k people in the country (I kid you not- where else would you find a shop that survives in the most pricey commercial real estate area selling only Birkenstocks?), and should be fertile ground for Obama, but I think he ignores the res at his own peril.

I suspect that the NA vote may make up as much as a quarter of the vote in the primary, and while NA are not racist like CA latinos, HRC is VERY well regarded.. that said, the respect that a visit to Arlee or Lodge Grass would imply (by BHO) would drive the vote his way, leading to maybe a split. History is on my side here... I covered Jesse Jackson's 1988 visit to the S&K res when I was in high school (for the (then) Stevensville Star-- a liberal weekly in the Bitterroot), and it drove the NA vote in the primary that year.

As Alan correctly points out, the rural vote is very Republican (there are still tons of Ron Paul billboards dotting I-90), as it is in SD, but Obama neglects particularly the Res vote at his peril, probably 30% of the vote in the SD primary will come on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge, and while people on the coasts forget this, those two places delivered the 2002 Senate race to Tim Johnson-- John Thune beat him substantially throughout the rest of the state-- and probably would have delivered the 2004 Senate race to Daschle but for abnormally high turnout in Rapid.

Personally I don't think either state will be in play this fall, but Obama needs to get his butt out to the Pine Ridge instead of speaking to the ND DemNPL convention-- he won't carry ND this fall anyway-- and a trip to Browning or Lodge Grass (a short drive from Billings) or Arlee (a very short drive from Msla) after the Mansfield dinner, could essentially sew up MT for him... but if he doesn't do it, and HRC does, especially given a large win in PA, and the story from the June primaries could be HRC winning "upsets" and being on the path to the nomination.

Posted by: leuchtman | March 27, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Drindl,

Believe it or not, this is my third attempt to answer you question about farmer/ranchers and oil and gas exploration. The first ended in some kind of involuntary deletion---still don't know what happened and the last post was rejected because it said I was not signed in. I don't know what happened there as I was certainly signed in for the posts that did appear.

There is one large issue with oil and gas exploration and that is for proposed exploration along the Rocky Mountain Front in North Central Montana. This has been proposed for exploration, but so far the green lobby, which does include ag people in the area have been successful. There is a party split on this. Republican Denny Rehberg, the state's lone at-large Congressman strongly supports oil and gas exploration.
Conrad Burns, who was a three-term Republican Senator also favored this development until his fatal re-election bid in 2006, when he flipped-flopped on the issue. Supposedly he thought appearing more green would undercut some of Tester's support.

Both Tester and Baucus, the Democratic Senators have opposed the exploration. Governor Brian Schweitzer has also opposed exploration on the front, but has raised some friction with Greens over encouraging development of "green" coal gasification. As you probably know, Greens are not too keen on any kind of fossil fuel development.

That said, oil and gas and agriculture have mostly lived side by side very well. If a farmer rancher owns the mineral rights to his land, it can be financially rewarding. Many eastern Montanans do own their mineral rights because they acquired title back when no one suspected any value to the area below the eastern Montana surface. In the oil patches of north central Montana and Northeast Montana many ag people get regular royalty checks from the energy industry.

Oil and gas is but a shadow of what it once was. All of the refineries that existed in northcentral Montana are long shut down. The drilling crews that still operate don't control many jobs, but it is good-paying work compared to the notoriously low wages most Montana workers get.

Mining has raised a bigger controversy with ag people because mining activity directly impacts the real "liquid gold" in our semi-arid part of the country -- water.

There has been a good deal of opposition among ranchers in southeast Montana to the coal strip mining. Also some hard rock operations, particularly gold mining in the "island" mountain ranges of eastern Montana have impacted water.

That said, rural Montana votes conservative. In ranching (livestock raising) country, primarily in southern Montana, from the Idaho border to the Dakota border, rock-ribbed, moss-back Republicans dominate. The rural farming region of north central Montana and the HiLine (roughly, that section of land between the Missouri River and the Canadian border) is farming country (small grains raising, primarily wheat). It was once strongly Democratic but that changed, particularly in the 70s when the Democratic Party was seen by social conservatives as too friendly to alternative lifestyles and pro-abortion people.

One thing that has made a swing back to the Democrats is in those rural areas of Indian Country. Six of Montanan's seven reservations are in Eastern Montana. Indians stayed away from elections in droves until new voter drives and court actions that made it easier for Indians to compete for local office. Now with many Indians running for local office (all politics is local) there is a strong voting bloc in Indian Country that trends heavily Democratic.

While Democrats have counted on their base in the cities of Montana, I would credit the emerging Indian vote with most of the extra legislative seats it took to take control of part of the legislature. Last session the Democrats controlled the Senate by one vote and Republicans controlled the House by one vote.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 27, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Alan,

I would bet there are many Americans like me who have a relative [in my case, great grandmother] who were Native American, and hence are aware of the Indian Trust and the continuing shoddy treatment of NAs by the US government. It's like what else is new? I hope Obama has a grasp of this and can communicate to the leaders that he will make an issue of it in his admnistration.

And now, another example of Bush and McCain's foolishness and hypocrisy -- remember when they both criticized Obama for saying he would strike at terrorists inside Pakistan, if intelligence warranted it? Well guess what...

'The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations in that country, according to U.S. officials.'

When will the republican hypocrisy and politicization of national security stop? When we're all dead?

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you shouldn't forget WA in handing out divine blessings. We just gave Lewis and Clark each their own counties. And I'm sure no one else has a Pend Oreille, Klickitat, or Wahiakum.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 27, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you shouldn't forget WA in handing out divine blessings. We just gave Lewis and Clark each their own counties. And I'm sure no one else has a Pend Oreille, Klickitat, or Wahiakum.`

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 27, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

That is not a threat but reality and from the Clinton volunteers who have told me of the abuse they have had to tolerate I suspect its much greater than 25 per cent.

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


But, imo, this doesn't hurt Obama in the long run. If what all the doom-and-gloomers say will come to pass, Hillary and her defecting supporters will be blamed, and rightly so, for Obama's loss and McCain will have a poor Presidency and Barack will return in 4 years with more experience ready to campaign again. And the nation will be in no mood for any Republican. Hillary's career will be over.
And there's only one person to be angry at: Hillary, who ran an awful campaign.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

'I haven't heard a single misogynistic remark from Obama supporter'
wpost this was a joke right? (you really don t want me to itemize all of those hateful posts again?
Gallup on CNN today according to Blitzer said that 25 per cent of Clinton supporters will never support Sen Obama; after seeing how they are treating the Fla and Michigan voters I may soon join them. That is not a threat but reality and from the Clinton volunteers who have told me of the abuse they have had to tolerate I suspect its much greater than 25 per cent. I know I will be once again attacked for saying so because the Obama supporters just don t want to hear that. My guess is that the Clinton campaign after Pa will try and win Indiana, Ky, W Va, and Puerto Rico and will not have the resources to seriously conpete in Montana with few delegates at stake that just wouldn t make a lot of strategic sense. I am convinced that even if she were to win all 10 states, which is'n t going to happen that as long as the Obama campaign can block Fla and Nichigan they will insist they are entitled to the nomination, shove it down our throats and damn the general election or the Clinton supporters

Posted by: leichtman | March 27, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

'I haven't heard a single misogynistic remark from Obama supporter'
wpost this was a joke right? (you really don t want me to itemize all of those hateful posts again?
Gallup on CNN today according to Blitzer said this that 25 per cent of Clinton supporters will never support Sen Obama; after seeing how they are treating the Fla and Michigan voters I may soon join them. That is not a threat but reality and from the Clinton volunteers who have told me of the abuse they have had to tolerate I suspect its much greater than 25 per cent. I know I will be once again attacked for saying so because the Obama supporters just don t want to hear that. My guess is that the Clinton campaign after Pa will try and win Indiana, Ky, W Va, and Puerto Rico and will not have the resources to seriously conpete in Montana with few delegates at stake that just wouldn t make a lot of strategic sense. I am convinced that even if she were to win all 10 states, which is'n t going to happen that as long as the Obama campaign can block Fla and Nichigan they will insist they are entitled to the nomination, shove it down our throats and damn the general election or the Clinton supporters

Posted by: leichtman | March 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

AlaninMissoula,
Thanks for your response. Sorry your time in the DC area was not enjoyable and I hope your daughter is finding it bearable. I have relatives that now live in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan that have expressed the exact same sentiments. The only point I was trying to make, apparently not very well, is that I don't believe the sole reason people on the coasts sometimes overlook what happens in places like Montana can be attributed to elitism. I believe it is also a function of population. Coasters tend to overlook events in places like Delaware and Rhode Island too, not because we think our more populous states are better or more important, but because power, news and information eminates from population centers and that is not Delaware, RI or Montana. It is certainly not to say that important things don't occur in all places or that the things that do can't or don't impact us all. If there were issues in Montana with,say, livestock or agriculture, I feel safe in saying the coasts would feel the impact.

I am aware of the Indian Trust issues and lawsuit although not in huge detail. It is important to me as a matter of fairness and as a means to identify and hopefully fix incompetence (which could easily affect us all). I sincerely meant no disrespect to your state.

Posted by: dave | March 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary IS - Dishonest, Disingenuous, Deceptive, Divisive, Delusional, and Dangerous"

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 26, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

One final note on Indian Country. McCain is well versed and well known in Indian Country, but he tends to talk down to tribal leaders...tell them what they should be doing. When I've heard him speak to the tribal leadership I never really liked his tone. Obama has an opening there.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

To answer Chris on Republicans voting on the Democratic ballot:

All politics is local.

The Republicans have contested primary races for the nomination for US Senate and Governor. That should keep the true-blue (true-red?) party faithful voting on their own ballot.

To the extent that there may be people drawn to vote in the primary just because of the presidential race, then I suppose those voters would be drawn to the only ballot with a true contest, the Democratic ballot.

In an open primary state like ours, there is always speculation that the opposite party loyalists would vote on the other ballot for the sake of political mischief, but no one has ever demonstrated that to be the case.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"Indian Trust" not "Trust fund".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Alan - Thanks again. Most people do not know about the Trust Fund case, the incredible sums involved, or the decades of continuances and postponements.

It is the closest match to Dickens' "Bleak House" or Franz Kafka in U.S. judicial history.

I suspect that both McC and BHO are very aware of it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

much will depend on his VP choice...Lieberman would lock Florida.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I think he can beat McCain in the general, but I'm not so sure he can win FL. It really depends on how weak McCain looks by then.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Yeah...the chances of FL going for Obama are slim to none...too many old NYC transplants, but he has a chance in MI, especially since McCain is such a bonehead on the economy.
--------------------------

I disagree. One thing Barack has proven is that he can mobilize a very effective grass-roots organization in even the most difficult states. Remember that he has overcome huge 20-30 point deficits against the Clinton machine in many states. And he did it as a nearly unknown candidate. Now that he is better known and the Muslim question has been put to rest (ironically by the Wright matter), he will have a stronger wind at his back. Once the Dems unite behind him post nomination win, I think he will run an extremely effective national campaign and win convincingly over McCain.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Also Dave, to answer your question, I disagree with Chris that there is any special reverence for Bill Clinton in Indian Country. They like Democrats rather than Republicans but that's about it. For starters Obama or anyone else might address the money lost by the Interior Department in years of slip shod management of Indian Trust lands. It has been subject of a major civil suit, which probably is known only to us who live on or near Indian Country.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 26, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Yeah...the chances of FL going for Obama are slim to none...too many old NYC transplants, but he has a chance in MI, especially since McCain is such a bonehead on the economy.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Dave.

Events in Montana have no impact for you because to you, we are nothing but scenery. By the way, I spent some of the most disagreeable times of my life living in the Baltimore-D.C. area, from 02-04. My daughter is a foreign service officer currently stationed there.

I don't like the area much. It is full of consumers not producers. Er... that's something you might think of when you think our small-population producing states have little impact on the country.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 26, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

brian- i would have to agree,considering Mi was at least a blue state in the last few cycles. i would recommend the dem nominee campagin harder in this state. same with florida but i wouldnt stake money on winning there.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | March 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

glazer--

Bad assumption on your part. Most University of Montana students claim Missoula as place of residence. The time has long passed that traditional 18-22 year-old-single students made up most of the University population. Non - traditional students dominate now. These students depend on local jobs to help them stay in school. They don't leave town at the end of Spring Semester. Missoula is where they live..

But the dorm-living traditional students who go back to mommy and daddy in the summer were never a voting block here.
Few of them register to vote in Missoula County anyway. The campus precinct turnout is notoriously poor.


The liberal vote in Missoula does not depend on school being in session. School was not in session when Tester drubbed Morrison 3-1 in the 2006 primary. Missoula has the kind of political climate that attracts liberal voters. The transformation began in the 60s and has continued. That has not always been the case. I grew up in this town in the 50s and 60s and until the early 70s Missoula nearly evenly split. Even with McGovern hot on campus in 1972, Nixon took the Missoula County vote.

The liberal trend in Missoula has taken deep roots now.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 26, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

MI and FL Dems will vote in November as it will be clear by then who caused the cluster @#!$. Its Hillary and her supporters who want to muddy the waters.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

nice try hillary, looks like you just lost michigan.

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds in Detroit ruled that the law's provision giving the list of voters' partisan preference only to the Democratic and Republican parties violated the rights of several small parties, who argued that the information should be distributed to all who wanted it or to no one.

But the ruling likely further damages the already small hope that the Democratic Party would honor the Jan. 15 results. It is unlikely that national Democratic officials would relent in their opposition to seating delegates based on a disputed vote that has now been declared flawed under the constitution.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361

must be more of that activist judges stuff i keep hearing about, long story short, the mi primary never happened and MI state legislature just took a well undeserved vacation. if Mi residents are looking to place blame, please direct your ire to the state dems.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | March 26, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Now that everyone has sobered up and realized that Hillary is finally done let's move on to the real problem: McCain. We don't need to spotlight her lack of honor or truthiness, she's taking care of that all by herself.

McCain vs. Obama...McCain vs. Obama!

The old broken warrior is gonna go down, but in a nice and respectful way...watch Obama work! Its still gonna hurt tough.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I do not agree with Chris's analysis of the Native American vote. Obama has been cleaning Hillary's clock in the NA community. This along with the Native American cross identification of many of the Latinos (yes, I know that many NM Latinos are multi-century descendants of the Spanish colonial communities) in NM and AZ was a reason for the close results in those two Hispanic dominated states. Look at the AK results, SD has already been mentioned, and there may be data from some of the other pockets of Native American votes (HI is a somewhat different case and Obama's childhood state, but we could add it to the stack). Furthermore, we shouldn't dismiss all the caucus results as a tiny "unrepresentative" sample of the voters in those states. The Wyoming caucus had a participation rate of 15% of registered Dems. That is not terribly out of line with primary turnouts in some areas (admittedly in other election cycles)

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | March 26, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Brad is right on with his assessment. Too bad the Clinton campaign didn't think it out...I mean great because I was not looking forward to voting for Billary.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Cool...didn't catch the play on words...tunnel vision.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

With only a few minor exceptions, Hillary Clinton has pretty much ignored the nation's midsection and Mountain West, and her aides have arrogantly dismissed these states as "irrelevant," insisting only a dozen or so "big states" on the East and West Coasts (and apparently not including Illinois, the nation's 5th largest state) should count toward the Democratic nomination. Result: she's lost Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho, all by very wide margins with the exception of Missouri where she did put up a fight and lost a close race. Her campaign's dismissive attitude has not gone unnoticed in these states, and there's little reason to think the result will be any different in Montana.

Between them, these 12 states account for 94 electoral votes. Only one of them, Illinois (21 electoral votes), is reliably Democratic. A few---Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and probably Kansas, accounting for a combined 18 electoral votes---are reliably Republican. Most--Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, good for a total of 55 electoral votes---figure to be very competitive in the general election if Obama heads the ticket, and current head-to-head polling confirms that. Clinton's weakness in this region, compounded by her dismissive attitude toward these states, stands her in poor stead in this region should she end up as the Democratic nominee. And the downdraft a Clinton candidacy would create for down-ticket Democratic candidates in this region is not going unnoticed, either. There's every reason to expect Montana and South Dakota will join the rest of the region as Obama Country when they hold their primaries later this year.

Posted by: bradk1 | March 26, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

For the first time, the Democratic Party has a very closed competition.

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

First time? Not by a long shot. First time in your memory? If your relatively young, I could understand that.

Latest Wall Street journal polls show Hillary has lost ground on nearly every front in the past week.

Barack's lead in NC is growing. She needs to win NC to claim momentum. If Barack wins PA, it's over. Whoever wins NC will most likely be the nominee.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

brian....i hope you realize that the humor was intentionally lame...and a play on the Bosnia story.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

All presidential primaries are important. For the first time, the Democratic Party has a very closed competition. Democratic voters are excited. Every vote matters. Senator Hillary Clinton is gaining more supporters. She is a strong candidate. Recent polls in Puerto Rico, shows that Senator Clinton is ahead by 72%.

Posted by: mmarii | March 26, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Good for you! Thinking before you say something is a nice approach in life.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Your wit and old school humor with the arrow and chief jokes is so refreshing to hear!

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

LOL. I almost used the verb "braved" but felt there was a limit to even lame humor.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Your wit and old school humor with the arrow and chief jokes is so refreshing to hear!

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

This won't look good on a resume:
"US: Saddam paid for lawmakers' Iraq trip

Federal prosecutors say Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion.

An indictment in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam's regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary.

In exchange, Al-Hanooti allegedly received 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil.

The lawmakers are not mentioned but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. There was no indication the three lawmakers knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam."

Posted by: dave | March 26, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Yup...two million Indians are not a big enough voting block for her to even consider.

Oh yeah, and Chicago (Obama country) was a big center for Indian relocation back in the day and the Indian center there is something Barrack is aware of.

I'm sure Hillary doesn't even know what Indian relocation was or that an Urban Indian exists.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Besides Indians always love the underdog and insurgent."

---------

I heard she came under a hail of arrows on her last visit to the reservation. Heck of a Commander-in-Chief!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

This won't help Hillary either:

Dick Morris (The Hill):

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)


• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)


• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)


• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.


• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.


• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.


• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.


• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.


• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.


• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.


• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.


• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.


• She was always a Yankees fan.


• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).


• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"Besides Indians always love the underdog and insurgent."

Hillary knows that. She spent lots of time in India as a foreign policy expert, and the experience she garnered -- what's that? Indians, like Native American Indians? Oh hell, Hillary doesn't care about them.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"NEW YORK - Having a big belly in your 40s can boost your risk of dementia decades later, a new study suggests.

now that we know the cause and effect, maybe you can seek professional help."

Speak for yourself, fatboy. 6'1, 180 over here.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Just a little insight on the Indian vote. Bill Clinton is not "revered" in Indian Country. Dan Inoyue is "revered", but Bill is not...his wife is not even on the radar screen. Bill has a better record than Bush with tribes, but the tribal trust mess did not start with Little Bush. He also stalled on sacred site protection and offered pardons to his friends but not Peltier...left some wondering...even those that do not support the release of Peltier. He did hold a tribal leaders summit, but that didn't amount to a hill of beans and we remember that.

Barack Obama is from Hawaii and knows about Native issues, he's also the only candidate who has mentioned Indians consistently in his speeches (see South Carolina and Wisconsin victory speeches). Indian Country has taken note and will overwhelmingly support him in Montana and South Dakota. Besides Indians always love the underdog and insurgent.

Posted by: brian | March 26, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"those evil Repubs and corporations - imagine them creating all that wealth."

Props to zouk, but that's inflation, not wealth, that was created.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

AlaninMissoula - "I notice some posters here, both GOP and not seem to disrespect our giant piece of real estate that has nearly one million souls spread throughout. This is typical of the elitism east coast/pacific coast denial that anything of substance happens in between."

As someone that has lived pretty much my whole life in the DC burbs but has visited Montana and SD numerous times and ranks those two states among my favorites, I would submit that the thinking is not that things of substance don't happen in the middle of the country, but since the populations are less than on the coasts, those things tend to have less of an impact (which results in coastal people caring about it less). That does not make it right, I think it just is what it is (and not necessarily elitism, although there is definitely some of that). But this year Montana lucks out with the closeness of the Dem primary. Enjoy it while it lasts!

"People there will be looking for something concrete on Indian policy, more than the lip service they usually get."

So why was Bill Clinton revered there and what could Obama say that would sway those voters, if anything?

Posted by: dave | March 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I think The Fixes analysis on Montana is right on the money Obama will win! The Morrision/Tester primary is a good template for the 08 Dem. primary! Also I think that Penn. is the big state coming up if Obama wins the race is over! Its a knockout blow! and in Penn. the template is the Casey/Rendell Dem. Governors Primary Casey is the establishment candidate=Hillary and Rendell the insurgent Mayor from Philly=Obama it was upset victory for Rendell. Look for the Obama upset knockout blow in Penn.!

Posted by: gfsurrette | March 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm also not sure that Obama's political career would benefit from winning the nomination but losing the general. For one thing, we need look no further than John Kerry to see how the Democratic party treats the losers of hotly-contested presidential contests. On top of that, I suspect that Sen. Clinton would be pushing the "I told you he wasn't electable" message hard in 2012. I wouldn't expect too much from the "kitchen-sink-free" nature of Obama's campaign, either. Sen. Clinton's supporters certainly perceive his campaign as having been dirty, and in the end it's perception that counts.

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

Kerry and Obama are very different creatures. I myself found Kerry to be wooden and uninspiring as a political leader. He has complete support and still blew it. Totally different scenario.

If Obama wins the nomination, I think he will win a huge and overwhelming victory against McCain.

If he loses, most of the blame will go to Hillary, not Obama. Why? Because the Republicans will run those clips where Hillary praises McCain over Barack. Much will depend on how intensely she campaigns for him. If she is seen as not supporting him fully, even more blame will come her way.

Most Democrats are aware that Hillary is attacking Barack and not McCain. Her dark tactic works ONLY if she not only wins the nomination, but the general and has a brilliant Presidency. Then all is forgiven. Esp if she nominates Barack to the Supreme Court, as she should.

Otherwise, if she loses the nomination and/or the general, she and Bill will have savaged their own reputations.

It's possible she can do it, but the probability is low. Her future depends on total victory, Barack's is just a matter of time.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Alan, I opened this thread looking for your opinion and now that I see you have posted it, I thank you.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

To wpost4112 -- Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

To dyinglikeflies -- You are right that true Clinton and Obama supporters can't be convinced to switch. However, I don't think either camp is giving up on convincing the losing side of voting for the other in the general election. These blogs certainly aren't a good start.

Posted by: amaikovich | March 26, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

drindl, LOUD and DUMB there is a scientific reason now for your situation - we understand now:

NEW YORK - Having a big belly in your 40s can boost your risk of dementia decades later, a new study suggests.

now that we know the cause and effect, maybe you can seek professional help.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't know, wpost4112. That's two months to try to unmake all of the bad blood created by eight months of tooth-and-nail fighting. I agree that it's not an impossible task, but I maintain that it's unlikely. Political grudges can be awfully long-lived beasts.

I'm also not sure that Obama's political career would benefit from winning the nomination but losing the general. For one thing, we need look no further than John Kerry to see how the Democratic party treats the losers of hotly-contested presidential contests. On top of that, I suspect that Sen. Clinton would be pushing the "I told you he wasn't electable" message hard in 2012. I wouldn't expect too much from the "kitchen-sink-free" nature of Obama's campaign, either. Sen. Clinton's supporters certainly perceive his campaign as having been dirty, and in the end it's perception that counts.

Posted by: tjmaness | March 26, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Geez zouk, 12 posts in this comments section alone?"

And wpost4112 14 times. But a lefty doesn't stand out here. I am sure you would claim with a straight face that there is no MSM press bias. at least that you can see.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Geez zouk, 12 posts in this comments section alone?"

It is not the number of the posts, it is the intelligent content contained in them that counts.

why didn't you notice that drindl has also posted 12 times and offered nothing informative or original? Is this now an official lefty biased blog? still?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

That ain't necessarily so. Though the last primary takes place in June, I don't see any reason to expect that the battle for the superdelegates won't go right down to the convention at the end of August. The Democrats will have less than ten weeks, not "several months", to build party unity.

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

T'aint nothin necessarily so cept death and taxes (well, only death for certain Republicans).

I can think of several reasons why the nominee will be in place by June. But even if it is not a done deal by August, that leaves 2 months and change. Which is a very long time in political life.

Think of it: it's only been 2 months and change since the Iowa caucus...look at how drastically things have changed.

The point was that polls taken in the heat of primary battle are historically meaningless post-nomination.

Could the nomination of either candidate split the party? Sure! But it is as true of Hillary as it is of Barack.

If McCain wins, as he most likely will if the Dems split, who benefits in the long run? Barack. Why? Because he and not Hillary has the support of young voters, while Hillary has the support of senior citizens. In 4 or 8 years, Barack's supporters will continue to increase while Hillary's will be dying off.

Who has a better chance at coming back in 4 or 8 years? Barack. By keeping his campaign positive and "kitchen sink" free, he has not alienated future voters as Hillary is doing.

So, however it turns out, Barack comes out ahead.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

year mean median
1989 277.9 68.8
1992 246.1 65.3
1995 260.7 70.8
1998 328.5 83.2
2001 423.9 91.7
2004 448.0 93.1

In thousands of dollars - net worth for USA

SCF Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html

those evil Repubs and corporations - imagine them creating all that wealth.
Stupid people were supposed to give it all to the government, not invest it in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. how dare they flirt with not needing the nanny state?

If we could only get a Lib in power we could tax away all that wealth in no time flat.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Geez zouk, 12 posts in this comments section alone?

GOP, that's a cute poll and everything but it's highly deceiving to take such a poll at this point in time. It's the height of tensions between Clinton's supporters and Obama's, while McCain is essentially running around the world kissing babies and shaking presidents' hands.

Read: McCain doesn't look so bad when no one is talking about him. He reminds most people of their uncle ... or should I say grandpa? Once the Democrats' hurricane passes, they'll rebuild their allegiance right where it used to be, just like people always do. Everyone knows this.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 26, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Actually dyinglikeflies, one of my best friends is a Hillary supporter for some reason...but we have a spirited debate then let it go. Ultimately we both agree that the economy is terrible, this war has went on too long, gas is too high, and healthcare cost too dang much. We also believe that Hillary and Barak pretty much say the same thing when we listen closely to the issues and take the personal out of it. I do not want to attack you because I do not know you. But let's not forget why we need a democrat in the white house while concentrating on who it will be.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"But no, of course I am not trying to convince you of anything. "

Good, because you would be a failure at it.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Gallup Poll
March 26, 2008
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

If McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCain

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx?version=print

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

wpost: Not trying to convince anyone on this board of anything. Nobody who bothers to post here is convince-able, we have all made up our minds as to whom we support. We do this because others read this idly and may absorb some of what we say, including blog authors, other posters etc. I've also had comments on these boards picked up to other sites, and perhaps had the opportunity to try and persuade a reader there. Who knows. But no, of course I am not trying to convince you of anything.

(Besides, trying to convince an Obama supporter of the truth is like trying to exlain the color red to a person born blind. Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies,

I am sorry but Hillary's campaign is dying like flies...quickly and free fall. I agree with wpost...so if we do not vote for Hillary then in the fall you guys will ignore your prinicples and values...yeah her and Barak share the same...to punish the nation for her losing the democratic primary with four years of McBush Lite? I hear you saying such wonderful things about McCain...why are you a democrat again? I mean if you are aligned with him then why not just be a republican. Now take your toys and go home

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 26, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

No data, but I don't buy the premise of your claim about "crossover Republicans". But are you saying that Obama will win with votes from the center and center-right, and so-called "new voters"? While he has now become associated with a leftist, "liberation" agenda?
------------------

I suppose that's why he is solidly supported by a leading conservative Catholic and Republican who served under Reagan and Bush1?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/25/douglas-kmiec-conservative-professor-defends-his-endorsement-of-obama/?mod=WSJBlog

"Data" is not over-rated.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 writes
"Why blame all Obama supporters or Obama himself for what one person asked of Chelsea. Who knows whom that guy supports."

The guy who asked the question supports Clinton & was trying to pitch Chelsea a softball so she could explain how Sen Clinton is stronger for having dealt with such adversity.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112, quoting Gallup, said:
"The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee [...]"

That ain't necessarily so. Though the last primary takes place in June, I don't see any reason to expect that the battle for the superdelegates won't go right down to the convention at the end of August. The Democrats will have less than ten weeks, not "several months", to build party unity.

Posted by: tjmaness | March 26, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies writes
"No data"

That's what I figured. Enough said.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Republicans will vote in Montana's primary. They voted in the Democratic primaries in Mississippi, Texas, and Ohio, and they will vote in Pennsylvania, too. (The big lag in between primary dates means that people have had enough time to switch party affiliations before the deadline, and many seem to have done so.)

By my measure, Republicans are largely voting for Clinton. It's hard to say how much effect they have had in races so far, but Mississippi ended up a lot closer than anyone expected, and much closer than neighboring states that voted earlier in the season.

These Republicans will most likely switch back in the fall, so their presence creates a false image of strength for Democrats. There are a few Republicans who have been inspired by Obama's message of unity, but most of the recent-comers to Democratic primaries are those merely seeking to prolong and disrupt the process. They see Obama as the stronger of the two candidates right now, and so a vote for Clinton is a vote to weaken the Democrats generally heading into the fall. Besides, the logic goes, even if Clinton were elected, on many issues she is not that much more liberal than John McCain, and is maybe even more conservative in some respects. Clinton's divisive qualities (both within her party and among Republicans) could put government at a stalemate, and so, all told, a Clinton presidency is not the worst thing in the world for conservatives.

Or so the argument goes. It's unthinkable Republicans arguing this a decade ago, five years ago, or even last year.

I have no idea how prevalent this voting pattern is, but I know more than a few Republicans who are taking this path of voting for Clinton in the primaries with no intention of supporting her beyond that.

Posted by: blert | March 26, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112:
Clinton supporters are not more cultish, just more angry. We truly feel disenfranchised by the manner in which Dean and his people are letting this go down, and by some of the venom directed at Clinton (I mean, come on, going after her daughter for what happened between her parents when she was a kid? Really). It didn't have to be this way. And, again, a move from the Clinton-center to McCain and the center-right ain't as much of a move as from Obama-land to McCain.

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

Why blame all Obama supporters or Obama himself for what one person asked of Chelsea. Who knows whom that guy supports.

To ignore all the dirt thrown by supporters of Hillary onto Barck or his supporters is to be in denial. Hillary has said that only she and McCain are fit to be commander-in-chief. She has betrayed the Democrat party in doing so.

More angry? Who knows. I do know that voting for McCain is voting against women's rights. That would indicate a certain level of self-hatred.

Neith Hilary nor Barck are divine. Neither has a right to the nomination.
It's a political election.

You're trying to convince me, an Obama supporter, to support Hillary instead simply because more of her supporters will switch to McCain in a fit of anger.

That's not an argument I can take seriously.

The reality is that there is anger on both sides. And the sure way of increasing that anger is to continue assigning all the blame to just one side.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: No data, but I don't buy the premise of your claim about "crossover Republicans". But are you saying that Obama will win with votes from the center and center-right, and so-called "new voters"? While he has now become associated with a leftist, "liberation" agenda? As Ricardo Montalban might say, welcome to Fantasy Island. Let's have this discussion again in November after gramps wins the election.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse


"social security to tuck away its surplus"

what surplus, you mean the one the Dems are spending as fast as they can get it? Maybe it's in a lockbox? Should we start making fun of the goracle again?

Warning - Libs are trying to talk intelligently about economics. you may want to come back when sense returns.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

If Obama can win 6 out of the 10 remaining contests (including both North Carolina and Indiana), then Obama will have momentum as well as the most pledged delegates, the most states won, and the most popular vote. I agree with another blogger that latinos are not one-dimensional voters. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are different. If you don't think so, accidentally call a Puerto Rican a Mexican and you will find out.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 26, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

zouk writes
"What, you mean the market doesn't always go up?"

That's not what she said. She said, and backed it with data from the WSJ, that perhaps treasury bills have been a better place for social security to tuck away its surplus, rather than the equities market. The reason for this is precisely becasue the equities market doesn't always go up. I hope that clarifies it for you.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies writes
"It didn't have to be this way. And, again, a move from the Clinton-center to McCain and the center-right ain't as much of a move as from Obama-land to McCain."

This comment implies a lack of research on the part of dyinglikeflies. My understanding is that Obama has won votes from more independents & crossover Republicans, whereas Clinton has won more votes from the rank-and-file Democrats. Obama is drawing new participants to the primary process - is it your contention that all these people are coming from the fringe left? If so, I'm curious to see the data.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

What, you mean the market doesn't always go up? ??? House prices don't always go up? ???? I understand you Libs are shocked at this revealation.

The government ought to do something!

President Bush should personally see to it that the market starts going up again. and while he is at it, can he make sure it doesn't rain on sunday?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112:
Clinton supporters are not more cultish, just more angry. We truly feel disenfranchised by the manner in which Dean and his people are letting this go down, and by some of the venom directed at Clinton (I mean, come on, going after her daughter for what happened between her parents when she was a kid? Really). It didn't have to be this way. And, again, a move from the Clinton-center to McCain and the center-right ain't as much of a move as from Obama-land to McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Those "crazy" liberals are at it again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/26baltimore.html

Actually making a difference.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse


'The WSJ says that recent problems in the markets suggest that we might be in the midst of a "lost decade." The stock market is at the same level it was nine years ago, and many think the period of decline is far from over. Stocks are often referred to as the best long-term investment, but the truth is that over the last nine years, investors would have gotten a bigger return out of Treasury bonds.'

So it looks like Social Security is the best place for a retirement account after all, according to the 'liberal' Wall street journal. hmmm...

And so much for Republicans and the economy... not such a great record.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649226977964203.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

alaninmissoula writes
"Some disrespect South Dakota too."

I like to poke fun at Dakota Territory, but don't lump me in with the loons that disparage Montana. That's one lovely state, with much to offer, though I have to admit I haven't spent as much time there as I'd like.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

To wpos, jnoel-
Check Google headlines re the new polls-
And it seems decidedly more of the flippers to McCain will be Clinton people than Obama people, by a wide margin (but that's only logical because Clinton voters, to pick McCain, have to move less far to the right from where they are than Obama voters would).
------------------------

You forgot to include this rather important, and astute, remark that Gallup appended to its polls:

"It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated."

If anything it supports the claim that Barack's supporters are more supportive of the Democratic Party whereas Hillary's supporters are more supportive of the Clintons. More "cultish", as it were.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies,
thanks for the follow up, pretty interesting. I found this link:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NATION/260140173/1002

Either side has a fair amount of candidates flipping to McCain, which should worry the Dem's. However, it is only March and I imagine/believe a lot will be done between now and the general to minimize the defection no matter the candidate.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree with the assumption that Puerto Rico should be a Clinton state. Clinton's advantage among Hispanics may be only among Mexican and Cuban Hispanics. Obama won the Hispanic vote in CT, MD, and VA, three states where the Hispanic vote is decidedly non-Mexican and non-Cuban. In fact, CT's Hispanic population is heavily Puerto Rican, and Obama cleaned up in Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford. Puerto Ricans may well vote more like blacks than like Hispanics.

Posted by: novamatt | March 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."

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

oh zouk, you're adorable in pony tails!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"Referring to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) repeated false claim that that Iran is training Al-Qaeda, last Sunday on Meet the Press, NBC political director Chuck Todd said the "stumble" won't hurt his presidential candidacy because McCain has "enough" credibility "in the bank with media that he can get away with it." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum takes a closer look at McCain's media "cred":

Let's recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. "Man of conviction" cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Drum asks: "Remind me again: where does all this cred come from?"

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

To wpos, jnoel-
Check Google headlines re the new polls-
And it seems decidedly more of the flippers to McCain will be Clinton people than Obama people, by a wide margin (but that's only logical because Clinton voters, to pick McCain, have to move less far to the right from where they are than Obama voters would).

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Polls are showing that a very large percentage of Clinton voters will flip to McCain and not Obama- and a valid reason would be the nasty misogynistic tone of Obama's supporters.

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

I haven't heard a single misogynistic remark from Obama supporters. Nor is there anything to prove that such is the cause for the poll results.

The same poll reveals a nearly equal number of Obama supporters will not vote for Hilary, should she get the nomination. I suppose you would say, all unsubstantiated charges being equal, that this is because of the racist tone of Hillary's supporters?

You'd be equally wrong.

It all means nothing til August. That's a million years away in political time.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said "don't be fooled" by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.

"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."

The New York senator said that moments after the "so-called little girl" presented her with the flowers, she revealed what the bouquet had been hiding: "a tiny semi-automatic weapon."

"Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to use some of the Tae Kwon Do techniques I had learned in preparation for the Northern Ireland peace talks," she said.

Defending his wife against charges that she had yet again fabricated her exploits while First Lady, former President Bill Clinton told CNN's John King that "Democratic voters have a clear choice this election: do they want a liar or a plagiarist?"

"Hillary tells some real whoppers, but at least they're original," he said.

In response to a question about whether he believes his wife's account of the events in Bosnia, Mr. Clinton said, "All I have to say about that is Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright."

drindl, If you insist on the Hate-ington Pest, at least use their good stuff

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/hillary-says-8yearold-b_b_93485.html?view=print

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Not only were there no bullets flying around, there was no bumblebee flying around," Retired Colonel William "Goose" Changose said.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/68124.html

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Polls are showing that a very large percentage of Clinton voters will flip to McCain and not Obama- and a valid reason would be the nasty misogynistic tone of Obama's supporters.
Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 03:18 PM

What polls? Do you have a link?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

What I find most amazing in the harsh tone that I hear from the Obama supporters (yes, I know you think it's the other side that is harsh, sigh) is your lack of concern that you have alienated Clinton voters to the point that they have decided to direct theeir ire towards Obama. Polls are showing that a very large percentage of Clinton voters will flip to McCain and not Obama- and a valid reason would be the nasty misogynistic tone of Obama's supporters. But don't fret- like Nader voters, you feel the results of the general election and the fate of the nation is not what's important, it's the principle of the thing, right?

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

*sigh*

A more dispassionate reading of the polls reveals an equal amount of alienation on both sides of the Dem divide. To argue that either side is somehow innocent is patently false and, more importantly, only continues to widen the divide.

But I suppose you have convinced yourself that by insulting Obama supporters, as you have just done, you are somehow not alienating them from your candidate.

A strange logic indeed.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

In the long run, the sharpest weapon of all is a kind and gentle spirit.
-Anne Frank


drindl is therefore, unarmed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

drindl, why don't you just post a link to the huffington post. then we don't need you around here anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Oh look, there's your last post right on the front page. all that hate is teeming from your pores.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

'The things Chris left out are our local issues. Green is big among Montana Democrats, especially in Missoula. We also have regional issues, water, land use etc.'

Alan -- how do local people, especially ranchers and farmers, feel about increased gas/oil extraction in the area?

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

But NC is rather dicier...May 6 is end of semester for many universities. Some will be already out, some in exams. Could have a bigger impact than anticipated.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

What I find most amazing in the harsh tone that I hear from the Obama supporters (yes, I know you think it's the other side that is harsh, sigh) is your lack of concern that you have alienated Clinton voters to the point that they have decided to direct theeir ire towards Obama. Polls are showing that a very large percentage of Clinton voters will flip to McCain and not Obama- and a valid reason would be the nasty misogynistic tone of Obama's supporters. But don't fret- like Nader voters, you feel the results of the general election and the fate of the nation is not what's important, it's the principle of the thing, right?

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

This contest must continue to go on and let me advise you that the Governor of Puerto Rico, Anibal Acevedo has ran a controversial government these past 4 years bringing the economy down and shutting the government for 2 weeks. He has endorsed Obama thinking this would be a ploy to keep him in power but the majority of people see through this. So, do not think yet that Puerto Ricans can be convinced that easily. Obama has never done anything to help Hispanics and I doubt that he would break through our cultural values.

Posted by: Hispana | March 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Bad math on Missoula -- There aren't many college students in a college town in June.

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

On Missoula yes, Montana no. 73% of the students are in-state. And Summer Session will be on.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

staying in iraq forever...

This week the United States suffered its 4,000th military death in Iraq. That number will surely increase, as violence is now exploding across the country. Iraqi forces are clashing with the powerful Shiite militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. As if to offer denial in the face of disaster -- and commit the U.S. to losing many more soldiers and Marines -- the Bush administration has begun negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades, after President George W. Bush leaves office.

The negotiation, set to conclude this summer, will establish the basis for a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Critics in the U.S. and in the Middle East are talking about the impending accords as the fulfillment of a hidden agenda. On Al Jazeera's "Inside Iraq" program, a recent report on the negotiations began: "This firm handshake between President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki may seal what had been predicted all along: that the U.S. has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq." Indeed, for years, the U.S. military in Iraq has quietly constructed massive bases that can garrison tens of thousands of troops indefinitely.

Another line of criticism concerns both the timing and the unilateralism of the negotiations. The Bush administration has less than a year in office, yet it is now negotiating a deal that will commit the U.S. to an open-ended continuation of its most momentous, and controversial, foreign-policy decision.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate, wrote a letter to the president about this in January. The move "suggests the United States will indeed construct permanent bases in Iraq, feeding the perception that we intend to remain an occupying force for years to come," Obama wrote. "It would tie the hands of the next commander-in-chief, decreasing his or her flexibility to confront a dynamic threat environment that has shown Al Qaeda more dangerous than at any time since September 11, 2001."

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Skippy, HeMan of Liechtenstein.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 03:00 PM

If he wasn't a lady, he'd scratch your eyes out.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Bad math on Missoula -- There aren't many college students in a college town in June.

Posted by: glazer | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"Right now, Obama has 4 Kings and Clinton has 3 Aces. "

According to Wolfson & Penn's fantasy camp. For people who live in the real world and are paying attention to this campaign, Obama has a royal flush and Clinton has a ten-high drawing to an inside straight.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"I am waiting on pins and needles for Reids' secret plan. I suspect it involves hillary taking over his job; he can go back to professional wrestling."

Yeah, his pro wrestling name is
Skippy, HeMan of Liechtenstein.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"A Clinton win would rightly be seen as an upset and might give the New York Senator a bit of momentum as the campaign turns in earnest to the battle for superdelegates."

If you think only then is it a battle in earnest, what do you think it is now? Whenever another super endorses Obama, the latest being Richardson, before that Dodd, he/she sheepishly recounts calling the Clinton camp with the news, and that the conversation is ... um, "uncomfortable," to use Richardon's description.

God only knows what sort of cursing and potty-mouthing the Clintons have thrown at "traitors" like Richardson, Kennedy, Kerry. I wonder if she'll have the stones to talk like that to Nancy Pelosi, after Madame Speaker calls to tell Hill to sit down and shut up.

Btw, I know that The Fix orders Kool-Aid by the gallon from the Clinton camp, but the sad news is that Obama is going to take Montana by 20 points. Thinking that those 50,000 (whatever) tickets that could have been sold for the Mansfield dinner is due to Hillary-mania is like saying the Stones sell out concerts all over the world due to their opening act.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I notice some posters here, both GOP and not seem to disrespect our giant piece of real estate that has nearly one million souls spread throughout. Some disrespect South Dakota too. This is typical of the elitism east coast/pacific coast denial that anything of substance happens in between. I would say that it is obvious that Obama and Clinton see Montana and South Dakota as important or they wouldn't spend their time here.

The primaries out here are afterall the last word before the election and with the delegate count so close, I doubt anything will be decided before we vote.

Chris did a pretty good analysis for someone who just did a quick study in the state. No one thinks of Billings, the state's largest city, in terms of a Democratic Primary. But though it votes Republican by an ever nbarrowing margin, it still contains the state's second largest pocket of Democrats after Missoula.

The things Chris left out are our local issues. Green is big among Montana Democrats, especially in Missoula. We also have regional issues, water, land use etc. What the candidates have to say about our issues will be important. The reservations are important in a democratic primary. People there will be looking for something concrete on Indian policy, more than the lip service they usually get.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Right now, Obama has 4 Kings and Clinton has 3 Aces.

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

A cute analogy but false. This is not a game of chance but a political election. Secondly, Obama's "people" are not asking for any changes to the rules. Quite the contrary, it is Hillary who is doing so concerning Fl and Mi. As an Obama supporter, I have no problem with Hillary staying in as long as she wishes. For her to praise McCain while disparaging Barack, however damages the Dem party and anyone's chances to beat him in the general, including hers, should she prevail.

Some are asking her to end her campaign not because they think she will lose but because she is doing so much damage to the party itself.

Understandable.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain - Lady I know sniper fire, I was a friend of sniper fire and you madam.....

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

For those who demand "an end to this":

Right now, Obama has 4 Kings and Clinton has 3 Aces. There is one more round of dealing to go. Obama's people are asking the dealer to change the rules and cut the game off before all hands have been dealt, because he knows there may be another Ace coming Clinton's way (ie. majority of the popular vote, which would be a powerful argument to the superdelegates). If such a brazen thing were to happen, trust me, Hillary's friends and supporters, millions of them, would be much more likely to give up on such a crooked table and move to the next table, ie. vote for McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes, you have heard this speech before.

On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain delivered a "major" foreign policy address, in which, as part of his defense for a continued presence of U.S troops in Iraq, he positioned himself as a "realistic idealist," someone who is acutely aware of the cost of war.

"The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die," McCain told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. "Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us... we cannot wish the war to be a better place."

It is a repackaged graph.

Six-and-a-half years earlier, McCain used the almost the exact same language to drum up popular support for military action.


Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

drindl cites a two year old article about 4 year old data. not exactly what gets published in journals now is it Dr drindl? Maybe that is why your publications are so sparse? but it does leave you plenty of time to blog, I presume. and that is a skill commensurate with your abilities of cutting and pasting mindlessly.

no amount of evidence to the contrary will be permitted by these gorebot loons. where I come from, that is called religion.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

It was either last year, maybe the year before, when the big South Dakota news item - this made nationwide news - was about how they planned to demolish the tallest building in the state. Apparently the charges did not detonate properly, turning the GRAIN SILO into a South Dakotan parody of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. C'mon, any state where the Corn Palace competes with a drug store for the 2nd most popular tourist destination (I'll give credit to Mt Rushmore as worthwhile) - and where the tallest building was a grain silo - isn't worthy of the designation. (that being 'state')

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

oh yes, here's a copy of the report --Correction to 'Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean'


http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: thecrisis | March 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Mark--
I was speaking of cooling in the immediate area.. however, it seems that the issue is moot anyway, because as it turns out, the data was faulty:

"A lot has been made of a paper (Lyman et al, 2006) that appeared last year that claimed that the oceans had, contrary to expectation, cooled over the period 2003-2005. At the time, we (correctly) pointed out that this result was going to be hard to reconcile with continued increases in sea level rise (driven in large part by thermal expansion effects), and that there may still be issues with way that the new ARGO floats were being incorporated into the ocean measurement network. Now it seems as if there is a problem in the data and in the latest analysis, the cooling has disappeared.

Ocean heat content changes are potentially a great way to evaluate climate model results that suggest that the planet is currently significantly out of equilibrium (i.e. it is absorbing more energy than it is emitting). However, the ocean is a very big place and the historical measurement networks are plagued with sampling issues in space and time. Large scale, long term compilations globally (such as by Levitus et al, 2001; Willis et al, 2004) and regionally (i.e. North Atlantic) have indicated that the oceans have warmed in recent decades at pretty much the rate the models expected.

Since 2000, though, ARGO - which is a network of floats that move up and down in the ocean and follow the currents - has offered the potential to dramatically increase the sampling density in the ocean and provide, pretty much for the first time, continuous, well spaced data from the least visited, but important parts of the world (such as the Southern Oceans). Data on ocean heat content from these floats had been therefore eagerly anticipated.

Initial ARGO measurements were incorporated into the Willis et al, 2004 analysis, but as the ARGO data started to dominate the data sources from around 2003, Lyman et al reported that the ocean seemed to be cooling. These were only short term changes, and while few would confuse one or two anomalous years with a long term trend, they were a little surprising, even if they didn't change the long term picture very much.

The news this week though is that all of that 'cooling' was actually due to combination of a faulty pressure reading on a subset of the floats and a switch between differently-biased observing systems (Update: slight change in wording to better reflect the paper). The pressure error meant that the temperatures were being associated with a point higher in the ocean column than they should have been, and this (given that the ocean cools with depth) introduced a spurious cooling trend when compared to earlier data. This error may be fixable in some cases, but for the time being the suspect data has simply been removed from the analysis. The new results don't show any cooling at all."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

tetris asks
"why all the South Dakotan hate?"

Because its overrated as a state. Dakota Territory should be combined into one political unit, stripped of statehood & reclassified in the same category that contains Puerto Rico, Guam and Washington DC. Maybe toss Nebraska in with them.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Bush Pardons 15 Convicts, Commutes 1 Prison Sentence President Bush has issued 15 new pardons and commuted one prison sentence. All 15 pardons were for men who were convicted of non-violent and mostly minor offenses

No money changed hands as a result of this transaction, breaking the tradition set by the clintons.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Tetris, Speaking for myself, no hate intended here, even for those living to the south.

carabis, sounds like Obama's going Brokeback! yeehaw.


spec, sorry to disappoint. Cold and flu season has business humming right along, and if the snow ever melts it'll be time for seasonl rhinitis to kick in. (Thank god for OTC zyrtec; now avaiable at a low-cost generic at a drug store near you) Illness is good business, as they say. and FWIW, I never really thought you were a girl, I was just messing with bondo. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"The delegates and Superdelegates will have put an end to the nomination process long before Montana has its say."

That's what they were saying about PA too.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Proud, if you continue your "decline" and find a way to have over 3/4 of your intelligence removed, then you can take up a conversation with LOUD and DUMB.

Try to keep your posts to no more than two lines and be sure they are only insulting and pejorative. Otherwise the communication will fail.

"Now Howard Dean is in serious contention with Reid and Pelosi for Loser of the Year.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 01:53 PM


not sure about that, the competition is fierce. I am waiting on pins and needles for Reids' secret plan. I suspect it involves hillary taking over his job; he can go back to professional wrestling.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll be surprised if Obama does not handily win MT. Some time ago, a rival paper reported that mountain state Dems were particularly concerned about a Clinton candidacy as perilous to down-ticket state Dems.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Montana would be a cake walk for Obama, but it is irrelavant. The delegates and Superdelegates will have put an end to the nomination process long before Montana has its say. When Hillary had the whole race all to herself for most of 2007 and still couldn't top 50% approval, it was preordained that another candidate would eventually emerge as the viable and ultimate alternative.

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

spectator -- proud's brain has apprently shriveled, as does anyone who listens to rightwing hate radio. look at the pathetic zouk, for chrissake. they all turn into terry shiavo at some point.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey! What about South Dakota? Why all this analysis on Montana? They are both small midwestern primary states on June 3rd! Its not like New York and South Dakota or something! Even Clinton emphasized Montana by calling it the "last" state in the primary... why all the South Dakotan hate?

Posted by: Tetris | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

now dingbat drindl is a modeling and physicist PhD. Must be hard with all that economic knowledge up there crowding out the buffonery.

do you have any idea how large the ocean is and how much ice it would take to alter the temperature by even the most minimal amount? this is by far the looniest idea I have seen by the junk scientists on this blog. It is clear no fact, no datum, no concept will move you from your wacked out theory. hence the sheer ridculousness of calling it science.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

proud: your posts used to display a decent amount of intelligence. You now sound like a poor man's KOZ. Why the decline in post quality?

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

dave, I'll go read that while I finish lunch.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

When asked about guns, MT Governor Schweitzer's response was, "I've got more than I need, but less than I want." While Tester was the liberal democrat, liberal in MT is not the same thing as liberal in CA or NY. Like any Western state, voters have a natural attraction to the maverick/independent. I have a friend from Eastern Montana (the part without the mountains) who claims the only reason he was suspended for three days by his principal in high school for discharging his gun inside the school was because she had it out for him. In case you're wondering, he went out to his truck to get the gun to kill the snake in the metal shop (it's not like he was carrying it on him). While Eastern MT is sparsely populated even by Montana standards and the more conservative half, it kind of gives you an idea.

As for an economic message, MT is doing quite well. Grain prices are strong and so are commodity prices for the extraction industries. There is a labor shortage in MT. The economic message that works well in OH, MI and PA, is not necessarily the message for MT. Besides no one lives in MT because they want to get rich. So while a good job and nice home are important, they may give more weight to the principled part of a candidate.

Posted by: caribis | March 26, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

dave, I think BHO should have addressed CPAC and McC should have addressed the move.on crowd. If they are not officially D or R Party operatives, they should be fair game. And maybe the candidates would gain some perspective from going outside their comfort zones.

Why not?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"In light of the fact that we're here arguing about who wins and gets momentum from MONTANA (!!!) it is clear that the current leadership of the Democratic party has got to be called the most incompetent, addle brained bunch of idiots ever to enter public life"

LOL!!! The fine Dem style of leadership on display for all to see!

Now Howard Dean is in serious contention with Reid and Pelosi for Loser of the Year.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Mark_in_austin,
FWIW, along with jac13 and novamatt, I (belatedly) put my 2 cents in on the VA Gov thread.

Posted by: dave | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

off topic-jreno should be banned and his ip blocked. seriously its really getting annoying having to scroll past his cut and paste remarks.

montana-the democratic party in that state should send both obama and hillary,a nice thank you note for making their primary important. i wouldnt be suprised if montana becomes a battleground state in november. the math doesnt look good for the RNC if they have to play defense in half of the country.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | March 26, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"But, these same strategists note, if Obama makes a visit to the reservations, which he has yet to do, he could well fight Clinton to a draw or even beat her out due to the potential resonance of his message in that community."

What part of Magic Man's message has such great potential for that community? Is the Obama campaign starting to actually believe that all BHO has to do is simply speak to a community and they all of a sudden start voting for him? If that is the case, he should have went and spoken at CPAC and the primary as well as the election would have been over.

Posted by: dave | March 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Georgie:

"It's going to take a while for the economy to feel the effects of this good law that I signed."

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

How the h*ll giving away money to folks is going to help the economy is beyond me. Sounds like a waste of money to me, not to mention cultivating a sense of victimization and entitlement and dependency.

Now, where have I read that before?

Meanwhile Social security oid facing a 50 trillion dollar deficit in the next 75 years.

Mission Accomplished!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

crt12 --thanks for the post. that nice nigerian fellow contacted you too? my, what a coincidence.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

'Assuming it is accurate, would not the melting of enormous volumes of ice slightly cool the water temperature of great bodies of water into which the ice melted?'

exactly. the air temperature and the currents also have to be taken into account.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

jreno please stop spamming the comments section. If your arguments don't get through the first time, you should analyze why people think you are an idiot instead of just spamming the forum again.

Obama should take Montana, but I agree with the second poster. It seems that when Obama won the Potomac Primaries by insane margins, 20+ points in each, it got relatively glossed over by the media. After all, there's nothing exciting about a landslide.

But when Clinton wins Ohio by ten points or Texas by what, 3-4 points? The media acts like it's the greatest comeback of the century. Completely insane.

The media has fallen right into the Clinton playbook. They set up Obama's wins as expected and Clinton's wins as "come from behind" or "upset" victories. She was ahead in Nevada by 20+ points in every poll for all of 2007, yet somehow when she won it was a huge upset. Same in Texas and Ohio where she always polled ahead. Same in New Hampshire where she was up 15+ points in every poll until Iowa, where Obama received an artificial boost of support resulting from the momentum from his Iowa win. But again, all of 2007, Clinton was leaps and bounds ahead of Obama in New Hampshire. Yet surprise, she won by a tiny margin. How was this anything other than a predicted win?

Posted by: thecrisis | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Jreno,

Thank you so much for posting that link, as well as your reasoned and thoughtful response to the topic of the post. I might not have noticed its genius had you not posted it several dozen times. I am enamored, first and foremost, with this incisive take you have on conversation--don't participate in the actual subject matter, and say the same irrelevant thing over and over. Eventually, people will realize you're the smartest person on the whole internet. Trust me, it just takes time. Keep working over that control-v button.

I am also impressed with your ability to prove a vast and evil conspiracy with factual support. Not only do you never make an unwarranted leap in logic, you've provided a proprietary website and some quotes from opinion pieces to support your Socratic reasoning. My only problem is, is Obama a conspirator with Dick Cheney and Halliburton, as you suggest, or a mysteriously evil man, a Dickensian villain who lets people "freeze to death," as suggested by your equally brilliant cohort, svreader? I guess it doesn't matter--perhaps he's both.

In any event, keep up with the posts. If you'll excuse me, I have e-mail to respond to: some nice Nigerian fellow says he has a million dollars with my name on it.

Posted by: crt12 | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

very nice follow up article on the BIG SKY state of MT.... one thing to remember about 92 election, yes Bill C. did carry MT... however, with Perot in the race, Perot drew a very large percent of votes that would normally have gone to Bush One, espec. in Western US... so, without Perot in the 92 race, most likey MT would have gone REpub instead of Dem....

Posted by: 1988joey | March 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

very nice follow up article on the BIG SKY state of MT.... one thing to remember about 92 election, yes Bill C. did carry MT... however, with Perot in the race, Perot drew a very large percent of votes that would normally have gone to Bush One, espec. in Western US... so, without Perot in the 92 race, most likey MT would have gone REpub instead of Dem....

Posted by: 1988joey | March 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

A gigantic Antarctic ice shelf is collapsing and global warming is being blamed.

An iceberg 41 kilometres long and 2.5km wide fell off the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula in late February.
That triggered the disintegration of 405 square kilometres of ice.

The entire ice shelf - the size of the Hawke's Bay region - is now in danger of disintegrating.

The destruction was captured in satellite pictures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the United States.
Scientists said a thin strand of ice about 6km wide was all that was stopping the remaining 13,680sq km shelf from collapsing.
Professor Tim Naish, of Victoria University's Antarctic Research Centre, said the breakup was part of a pattern seen for about 50 years. Ice breaks were fully expected.

"They're likely to be a more frequent event."

The Antarctic Peninsula had warmed by about 2½ degrees in the past 50 years - more than other parts of the world. Remnants of the shelf could end up near New Zealand, he said.

In 2006, large icebergs drifted up the South Island's east coast.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Any geophysicists out there? I read the Argo summary at another site and it is as KOZ states. Assuming it is accurate, would not the melting of enormous volumes of ice slightly cool the water temperature of great bodies of water into which the ice melted?

Or is the mass of an ocean so great as to overwhelm the mass of the melting ice, as a heat sink, and make it insignificant?

Either way, ocean temp could cool and Antarctic ice melt, at the same time, right? These are not mutually exclusive possibilities, I think.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget neighboring South Dakota. Obama country-you betcha!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Scientists at NSIDC have found that glaciers around the area of the Larsen B Ice Shelf accelerated immediately after it collapsed early in 2002, and are still speeding up.

The findings, presented at the AGU Fall 2003 Meeting in San Francisco, support earlier hypotheses that the ice shelf acted as a barrier, slowing the glaciers as they pushed up against the ice shelf, and that removing the barrier would cause the glaciers to speed up. This finding is significant, because it provides a smaller scale preview of what could occur if larger ice shelves -such as the Ross Ice Shelf- were to collapse.

The results refine earlier hints that removal of the Larsen A shelf and climate warming may be speeding up glaciers to the north (e.g., Drygalski Glacier). The earlier work was published by H. Rott of University of Innsbruck and P. Skvarka of Instituto Antarctica Argentina. Data for the Larsen B refine the timing of speed-up, and quantify the lowering of the ice shelf. The rapid speed-up at the glacier fronts begins within months of shelf removal, and progresses upstream.

Satellite images spanning the period before, during and after the break-up of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in March 2002 show this acceleration in several glaciers feeding into the now-disintegrated area of the shelf. According to velocity data from Landsat images from January of 2000 through February of 2003, Crane Glacier and the Hektoria-Green-Evans glacier system have all sped up. The speeds on the Crane Glacier increased from 1.7 meters/day to 3.1 meters/day in April through December of 2002, and then to 4.1 meters/day between December 2002 and February of 2003. This represents nearly a 250% increase in speed.

The results imply that ice shelf removal has a significant, rapid effect on feeder glacier flow, that the removal of the ice shelf directly affects glacier force balance, and, most importantly, that climate-related shelf removal for other large shelves fed by major ice streams are likely to result in a rapid speed-up of those glaciers and a change in the mass balance of the adjacent ice sheet, with a consequent impact on global sea level.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

well yes Bill C. did carry MT in 92... however, don't forget the key fact about 92 is that Perot took a very large % of votes that would have normally gone to Bush I, espec. in many Western States.... without Perot in 92 race, most likely Bush I would have carried MT.... otherwise a very thoughtful, well reasoned article...keep up the good work!

Posted by: 1988joey | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Just a clarification: the article says most of the western states have held caucuses, but wasn't Utah actually a primary?

Posted by: pjf0226 | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

In light of the fact that we're here arguing about who wins and gets momentum from MONTANA (!!!) it is clear that the current leadership of the Democratic party has got to be called the most incompetent, addle brained bunch of idiots ever to enter public life (no offense to Montana, I'm sure it's a nice place). It has finally become obvious that there is no way on earth these nincompoops will be able to manage a win in the general election. I mean, Montana as a bellweather? C'mon.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

MsnUnitdFan --

There are some good comments on that story, including a link to a paper from "woods hole" about the danger of rapid climate change that could happen in a decade or two.

It also contains a link to a page full of global warming related links from NASA.

Posted by: svreader | March 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see how Montana plays out (as with just about every other state this year!), but I definitely think Obama has an advantage. I know several Montana natives now living in Seattle who are all strong Obama supporters. They tend to be more liberal Democrats, but then, they are now living in Seattle.

Also, I think people in the Northwest/Mountain states are attune to the fact that, until recently, Obama was the only candidate who gave these states much thought. He visited Idaho of all places before Super Tuesday while the Clinton camp was focusing primarily on the "big states". Now that there may be some incentive for Clinton to focus on states like Montana, it's suddenly considered a battleground. I think people will see through this.

Posted by: erimeli | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Zouk:

There was a front-page picture and story not 2 days ago in the Post about a chunk of Antarctica 7 times the size of Manhattan disintegrating. Do you seriously believe global warming isn't happening?

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | March 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win NC, IN, SD, MT, OR, Guam and Puerto Rico

If Montana is considered a battleground, I would say that Puerto Rico is an even bigger battleground. Yes Puerto Rico is mostly latinos, and Clinton has won the majority of the Latino vote. But the Latino base is a wide one, there is a big difference between Mexican Latinos (CA, TX, NM, etc.) and Caribbean Latinos. Puerto Rico is not part of the main land, and I believe has a more internationalist view of things, and would ultimately support Obama over Clinton, on top of the Governor of Puerto Rico endorsing Obama. The media needs to give this more attention.

Posted by: sjxylib | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

al gore - call your office:

Three-thousand oceanic probes -- the "Argo" program -- are a problem for global-warming alarmists. More to the point, explaining the probes' findings should be a priority for the alarmists if science is what drives them, and credibility. Argo shows no global warming over the last five years. In fact, the numbers show a slight cooling. These are merely one small data set, but they cut against the rhetoric, and require attention. Interestingly, though, as one measure of the widespread disinterest, the New York Times has not reported on Argo since its launch in 2000.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/EDITORIAL/907526051/1013

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Montana does not count - No body lives there.

It should within 10 points which is about 10,000 votes.

No one cares.

NC is a big. HRC has to keep it close 7 points or less.

Posted by: mul | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

You say:
An Obama victory in the state is expected. A Clinton win would rightly be seen as an upset and might give the New York Senator a bit of momentum as the campaign turns in earnest to the battle for superdelegates.

Why is it that Hillary continualy gets to claim upsets and when Obama wins were he was not the favorite it is played down? This media need to cinstantly use the 'Comeback Kid' angle with the Clintons has gotten very old. It is just another in MANY ways that the Clintons are allowed to set the talking point and the media skip along behind them.

Posted by: dyork | March 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Alan, do you have the same over-all view as CC?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company