Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

More Thoughts On Nevada and South Carolina

The Fix NEVER stops thinking about politics. But, after a good night's sleep and a rustle through the exit polling numbers we feel a little bit better equipped to analyze the events of yesterday in the broader context of the race for each party's nomination.

These thoughts are not meant to be comprehensive. Rather they are a few of the key points we believe should be taken from yesterday's votes.

*Although Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) campaign did a wonderful job spinning the results of the Nevada caucuses ("She won the popular vote, we won the delegate fight") the truth of the matter is -- for the moment -- the race stands two states for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, to one for Obama. As the race gets closer to Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, the delegate counts are certain to matter more. But none of the first four states (including South Carolina next Saturday) were EVER cast as a battle for delegates in the campaign. They were momentum builders and early organizational tests. In that regard, Clinton won yesterday.

*The idea that South Carolina is now a "must-win" for Obama is overstated. Because of the strong African American vote in the state, and Obama's success at coalescing them, the Palmetto State should be a win for the Illinois senator. But, even if he loses -- a long-shot proposition at the moment -- the campaign will continue through Feb. 5. Organizationally and financially, Obama is equipped to battle Clinton for the long haul.

* John Edwards doesn't seem likely to get out of the race anytime soon. In the short term, that should help Obama in South Carolina as Edwards likely splits the white vote between himself and Clinton (N.Y.) while Obama consolidates the black vote. But, if Edwards stays in the race through Feb. 5 -- and in an interview this morning with CNN's Wolf Blitzer he certainly sounded like he was planning to do just that -- he could well fracture the change vote, making it easier for Clinton to wrack up states and claim victory on Feb. 6.

* Perception matters hugely in politics. SUNY Buffalo political scientist Jim Campbell notes that when McCain lost to then Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, he received 42 percent of the vote and roughly 237,000 votes. It was painted as a crushing loss. Eight years later McCain took 33 percent of the vote and 143,000 votes. It was cast as a triumphant win. Now, in 2000 McCain and Bush were in a one-on-one contest while in 2008 there were four viable candidates running -- McCain, former governor Mike Huckabee (Ark.), former senator Fred Thompson (Tenn.) and former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.). But, Campbell notes that even if McCain had pulled in only 75 percent of those voters who supported him in 2000, he would have neared 40 percent of the vote share this time around.

* McCain is being cast in this space and elsewhere as the front-runner for the nomination following his South Carolina victory. But, exit polling shows that McCain is still vulnerable to a consolidated attack from his ideological right. Among self identifying-conservatives, who made up nearly seven in ten voters in the Republican primary, McCain lost to Huckabee, 35 percent to 29 percent. By contrast he won moderates by 30 points and liberals by 27 points. McCain also lost Republican voters -- 80 percent of the South Carolina electorate -- to Huckabee by a single point (Thompson and Romney took a combined 32 percent among Republicans) while winning independents by 17 points. Ultimately the identity of the Republican nominee will be chosen by rank-and-file Republicans. McCain still has yet to demonstrate that if the contest narrows to a one-on-one fight with someone positioned to his ideological right (Romney perhaps) that he can win.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 20, 2008; 2:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nevada/South Carolina: Winners and Losers
Next: Democratic South Carolina Debate Preview

Comments

bnwkuax rqhwepmov bigmhz lernoc pxmsyl kewayi bqdejhnw [URL]http://www.gvxnsblyp.xrgc.com[/URL] izdcl ekysjz

Posted by: uvqy srjec | April 27, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

sacroi vgdokix xvkmbqf nvcuplr tixao hfutixv pyacz [URL=http://www.cqalos.oqmt.com]klcs jrnvzouiq[/URL]

Posted by: afscpxg hbpns | April 27, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

dqgpkbhvr ngwxauhj klhjqincx yqtpuc mfndg jhmtfrb rbocgy bpcutmvd bvxwhqi

Posted by: gcxlfr agxnsjie | April 27, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

igzqpd prsqw wzrlxq dblmkfps lzxin eagbr kcqdyiweu

Posted by: icnfh gfwunxqst | April 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The thought of McCain at the helm give me goosebumps... I saw a trailer for a new independent movie that's coming to DVD where a guy moves to Canada in response to Kerry's defeat in '04. Any takers if the GOP takes capital hill again?

For more who knows, maybe the movie will inspire a whole new breed of border jumpers if the country goes red again...

You can check out the trailer at http://www.bluestatemovie.com

Posted by: info | January 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This election's slew of republican candidates scare the crap out of me... Its the extremely religious views they harbor that gets to me. Not sure if I can stick around if they manage to take the white house again. I saw this trailer for an independent movie called "Blue State" where the guy moves to Canada after the '04 defeat of Kerry. Who know, if the GOP takes the hill again Canada might have to brace for an immigration influx... Any takers?

Links for thought:

The movie is called "Blue State". Trailers, etc @ www.bluestatemovie.com

Canadian Immigration Office http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp

Posted by: info | January 24, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The majority of the comments here reflect one thing - most of us do not want another Clinton in the White House. We understand how polarizing Hillary is ~ my questions is: Why are we the only folks thinking rationally? I am a white 50 something female Dem and am not interested in another nasty Clinton/Repub debate, Clinton/Bush dynasty and another 4 years of a Clinton gridlocked congress. Where have all the rational people gone?

Posted by: claudiam1 | January 22, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I have seen you on television many times. Surely enough to recognize you without a turbin or other garment, but I do take issue with you over not even giving the smallest of coverage to Ron paul and what his supporters said. Second place in a field of several is notable no matter who it is, so why the rub--on me. You see Chris, You need to know that I believe Ron Paul is the Only candidate to talk about the U.S. Constitution that I really like that!. www.theradioavenger.com

Posted by: abroadventure | January 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Soylent Green is people!

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 21, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Budlikavian says:

"I wouldn't make too much of the idea that Bill Clinton is 'fighting (his wife's) battles.' He's a campaign operative, performing classic campaign operative moves. It may not always be pretty or heroic, but we'll forget how it's made when we finally get to eat the delicious sausage."

That book, 'To Serve Man'? IT'S A COOKBOOK!

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 21, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"Calling for a revolution, Reagan chose those words from the writings of America's first great radical, and our first best selling writer. His name was Thomas Paine. Over two centuries ago this month, Paine's most famous book, COMMON SENSE, sold what today would be fifty million copies. Farmers in the fields stopped to read it."

Who did jefferson look up to? How did we get the constitutiona nd declaration of independance? Where did those ideals resinate. GOp (clinton included)! you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and ask you selves what you are fighting for. Are you fighting for the past ro the future. Are you fighting for this great nation or something else?

If you believe what you all say gop. If you are patriots like you claim. You need to take a long hard examination on what you have done to this country AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO TO FIX IT. Or not. But choose wisely. this is not play time.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Bill Moyers is one of my favorites. I suggest taking a look at some of the work done by another Wisconsinite, Senator Proxmire, know for his "Golden Fleece" Awards. Th "Cold War" was but another tactic used by Repubs in their "Fear" strategy, when in fact if either the USSR or US would have launched a Nuke, both sides had enough sense to KNOW it would mean the end of our world.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for analysis.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"Poll: More Americans think U.S. ready for black presidentStory Highlights
Nearly three quarters of whites believe U.S. is ready for a black president

Nearly six in 10 blacks believes the country is ready

Four in 10 believe Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has been fulfilled
"

Sorry gop (clinton included). for all your efforts. Keep trying though. please show your faces and continue to use the race card, and say it is impossible. You show yoru hatred of this great nation. Move elsewhere gop. But where cna you be free? South america? Leftists. Africa, you wouldn't last a week. Europe. socialist you hate. Canada? Perhaps they will acconmidate you fascists. Perhaps not.

think about it gop. for all you rnonsense. Where can you get away with your racist fascist tactics elsewhere? Move there then.

BEtter to bring america back to what it was supposed to be. Not alter it to something it never was disgened for (money capitalism)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Since this entry is done for today, I'll post this regarding the regan comment :

"Bill Moyers Clarifies Reagan and MLK comments by Obama and Hillary
by cherbear
Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:37:23 PM PST
Barack Obama Ebenezer speech Jan 20,2008

Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.

cherbear's diary :: ::
Obama really hit the nail on the head with this speech and we should take heed as we plunge deeper into this election for President. The last week has seen us very divided in this country and judging by the polls after NV the damage might have already been done regarding dividing us further.

There has been alot of fuss about what Clinton said about MLK and now what Obama said about Reagan.

I just viewed Bill MOyers Journal online and he has clarified it all. Hopefully, this diary will help to put us back on track to what really is a very important time in our country. We are at a crossroads and if we take the wrong turn we might not be able to get back on track to do what is right for our children and their futures.

We must stop being guided by establishment think and MSM spin to cut to the core of what is real and what is not; what is fact and what is not fact. We must not be led like sheep recognizing that everything is politics and that the powers that be do not want to see change.

WE MUST THINK FOR OURSELVES AT THIS CRUCIAL MOMENT.

I am not for Clinton but he made me see that she was in fact correct in what she said. I have alot of disagreements regarding Mrs. Clinton but credit needs to be given where due. I now see on that specific statement she did not mean to be indifferent or insensitive. She just could not convey her thoughts in a 30 second soundbite. I fault the media. It was how she said it that left room for the MSM, pundits and others to stoke the already simmering fires of race within the collective.

Tensions are riding high and people are divided. In this democratic party the pc environment has pushed alot of the problems we have with race, class, gender etc underground because people in this party are so careful about not hurting each other's feelings by not saying the wrong thing that the negative space is rife with unsaid things that are better off being said. Isn't it better to acknowledge that there are problems than to push them under the rug and act as if they are not there? Maybe we need to rethink this 'pc' thing in our party.

If nothing else this whole dustup with race, gender and now the Reagan comment should teach us something. We really need to step back and really listen and really hear before we jump on each other's backs. Do we really want to go to the other extreme and behave just like republicans? Have we not had enough of the rancor and strife that their type of politics has pushed upon this nation? Shouldn't democrats treat each other with respect knowing that we have the same goals and visions for this country. Why are we tearing ourselves apart and calling each other names? Isn't this usually what republicans do to us? Why are we now doing it to ourselves? Look in the mirror! Do we like what we see as a party from, President Clinton's behavior recently, on down? Please view Bill Moyers and come back to a sense of self and place.

See Bill Moyer's excellent take on this here:

January 18, 2008
MOYERS ON CLINTON, OBAMA, KING AND JOHNSON: A Bill Moyers Essay
http://www.pbs.org/...

BILL MOYERS: If William Shakespeare were around I suspect he might describe the recent flap between the Obama and Clinton camps as much ado about nothing or a tempest in a teapot. Senator Clinton was heard to say that it took a president - Lyndon Johnson - to consummate the work of Martin Luther King by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Almost no one in the media bothered to run the whole quote. Here it is:

HILLARY CLINTON: Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done"

BILL MOYERS: There was nothing in that quote about race. It was an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious. But critics pounced. THE NEW YORK TIMES published a lead editorial accusing Senator Clinton of "the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change." Suddenly we had a rhetorical inferno on our hands, with charges flying left and right, and pundits throwing gasoline on the tiniest of embers. Fortunately the furor has quieted down, and everyone's said they're sorry, except THE NEW YORK TIMES. But I can't resist this footnote to the story...

The Reagan comment, if you really listen to it, was not meant to say that Reagan was a good President. Obama could have been more artful but in essence he was acknowledging that Reagan did bring about radical change. He did not go into how he felt about that change he just made a statement. He was not wrong in what he was saying but when Democrats hear Reagan they just close down and are not willing to hear. I can understand that but isn't that how the Republicans have behaved towards us for the last 8 years? Look at how Bush has run this country and our foriegn policy. Do you think if he listened instead of forcing his ideas down the world's throat we would be in the position we are in today. We do not have to like or agree with an opponent or our enemy but should be not at least hear what they have to say? Isn't it better to 'know your enemy' as the saying goes? Many of you might not like what Obama is saying but credit needs to be given where due and Reagan did transform this country with big ideas. Whether it was for the good or bad depends on where you stand. Nevertheless, transformation is transformation and fact is fact and it needs to be acknowledged even if it cannot be be respected.

STOP BEING RULLED BY EMOTION ONLY AND TRY TO SEEK CLARITY AND ASK TO BE CLEAR IN THOUGHT. For difficult times are upon us and we will have to work together to get through them.

Moyer's helps to clarify Regean's role here:

January 18, 2008
Bill Moyers talks with Harvey J. Kaye
http://www.pbs.org/...

BILL MOYERS: Back in mid-January of 1980, another race for the Presidency was underway. As it is now, many Americans were worried about the economy and a failed policy in the Middle East. They hungered for change and hope.

Along came a former California governor named Ronald Reagan. He rallied his party at the Republican National Convention with these patriotic words: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

Calling for a revolution, Reagan chose those words from the writings of America's first great radical, and our first best selling writer. His name was Thomas Paine. Over two centuries ago this month, Paine's most famous book, COMMON SENSE, sold what today would be fifty million copies. Farmers in the fields stopped to read it.

Other influential works followed including THE AMERICAN CRISIS which proclaimed, "These are times that try men's souls." George Washington took those words to heart when he ordered his troops to be read Paine's passionate call for liberty as they went into battle.

Thomas Paine's extraordinary life was both glorious and tragic. He was not always revered by some of our other founding fathers. You can read the story in this book by Harvey J. Kaye, THOMAS PAINE AND THE PROMISE OF AMERICA. Harvey Kaye teaches history and social change at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay. He has dedicated much of his life arguing for Paine's decisive influence on the American experiment in democracy. Harvey J. Kaye was in town this week lecturing on Tom Paine. And he's with us now. Welcome...

'None of our hands are clean' Obama said yesterday in his Ebenezer speech. This is truth spoken to power.
We have a collective responsibility to be honest about who we are as a people. There are so many problems to be fixed that we cannot afford to waste anymore time with trivialities. I am in no way saying that issues of race, class, gender etc are not real but we need to begin to address this issues honestly and in a forthright way. How are we ever going to get the big things done if we do not find a way to rise above the complex issues that vex us?

To me it goes back to Obama's quote above we have to unite around the things we have in common and work from there. Yes! it will be difficult but we can do it. Look at our history and the examples set by those who worked their fingers to the bone for this country to be realized. Yes! they could have build this country up in a better way but what is done is done. We cannot go back. We have to go forward. So lets put our slights behind us and figure out a way forward through dialogue and mutual respect of our differences while acknowleging that the thing that joins us together immigrant, citizen, woman, man, child, brother, sister, black, white, asian etc is the common goal to rebuild this country brick by brick for the good of our children.

THE TIME IS NOW! NOT TOMORROW NOT YESTERDAY BUT NOW!

Peace and one love to
"

r

u

f

u

s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus, the closer you get to pols, the sharper your elbows must become.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 03:38 PM
"

Old rules. they no longer apply. Like the old "If your not a dem by 20 you got no heart. If your not a r by 30 you got no brians".

old rules. Gop propoganda. May have worked when they held a monopoly of media. No more.

If we lose our soul fighting the enemy, we lose. Like with the gop and terrorists. they have become terrorists to fix them. I, and my movement will not recipracate. That is why we must win.

It's like we're back in high school. Yeah you can cheat on the tests and get good grades. You may have to answer if you get caught. But if you get caught is everything you did and do then corrupted by what you had to do to get there? Yes it is.

Better to keep integrity and soul. It's all we got. If we sacrafice that, we have nothing. everything else is icing, bells and whistles. In the end all we have is our soul/self and intergirty

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. So the Democrats have lied to minorities for so long that now the minorities believe the lies. But now white Republicans, as represented by you, will tell the minorities the truth, and make them realize that they've been enslaved by the Democrats. Who aren't racist, because there's nothing racist about phrases like "enslavement of poor minorities".

And of course those statements are lies. Rich white men oppressing minorities? That's crazy talk! Never happened! Except for when the Democrats oppress minorities, which apparently they do all the time.

Race relations are complicated!

Posted by: Blarg | January 21, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"Are these minorities so stupid that they don't know which party better represents them?"

If you're told that your conditions are not your fault - that the government can help you - that the rich white man has oppressed you - for long enough...

And I didn't say D's were racist (try reading what I wrote, rather than responding to what you think I wrote). I am merely saying it's laughable for Claudia to get on her high horse and call R's racists, when it seems to me that D's are no better in their enslavement of poor minorities for the pursuit of power (through votes).

It's kind of like Vitter talking about family values -- it's especially hypocritical.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 21, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Breaking:

Larry Sinclair alledges Barack Obama of using cocaine with him and having homosexual relations with him, in 1999, while Obama served in the IL legislature.

Sinclair offers to take polygraph.

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

Posted by: dpand1 | January 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

For your viewing pleasure, the TX Lege violating its own voting rules willy-nilly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask

Rufus, the closer you get to pols, the sharper your elbows must become.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - "'That the USSR ended without a shot is due to Gorby and Reagan.'

exactly. gorby had a big part in it."

Liberals keeps telling me that taking half a quote out of context and twisting it to support your point was supposed to be the sole dominion of republicans.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I should add that Blacks were a majority D from FDR's time, before which they were mainly R.

But LBJ cemented the kind of 9-1 split Blacks give Ds today.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I know you are not asking me, Blarg, but here goes my $.02.

The obstructionists to Civil Rights were the dixiecrats in combination with the most conservative Rs from 1948 - 1964.

In 1960, blacks walked out of the DNConvention b/c of JFK's softness on Civil Rights.

Then, in 1964, Blacks were excluded from all southern delegations to the RNConvention for the first time, and George Romney led a liberal R walkout on the Conv.

MLK reacted by announcing his opposition to Goldwater; daily.

Black voters were welcomed by the Ds. LBJ called in every
card he had, to pass the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '65.
He told his press sec., Bill Moyers, that he had lost the south to the Rs for their lifetimes, but it was a price worth paying.

Blacks have been heavily D, since.

I do not think the roots are deeper - today the Rs are not institutionally racist and the Ds are not institutionally buying black votes.

Welfare always had more whites than blacks on its rolls, depite the stereotypes. And that kind of welfare is dead, and those who were on permanent welfare did not vote in large numbers anyway.

The Army is still the best place for blacks to advance in America. Black vets are likely to support McC against HRC. The ones I know would split on BHO, if McC were the R.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

so one guy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Right blarg. Why does no on go on fox? they use ann coulter to talk about the democtaic/liberal mindset.

they stick a professor next to a comedian and give them equal voice. "global warming is a myth". "Barack Obama is a terorrist".

you lost gop. Try and save your party. As you can see by the elections, the fox and rush mode of thinking is over. do not cling on to it. It can't vanish fast enough imo

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Zouk: Ever heard of Strom Thurmond? Are you going to argue that he was a liberal Democrat in 1948 or 1964?

Mike: When did I say anything about white extremists or Jane Fonda? Please try to respond to what I actually say, not your imagination about what a liberal would say. While you're at it, answer my question. Why do minorities vote for racist Democrats, instead of the non-racist Republicans who were behind civil rights? Are these minorities so stupid that they don't know which party better represents them?

Posted by: Blarg | January 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

gorby had a big part in it.


Just like Jefferson Davis had a big part in it. Ohh, Lincoln too. a little credit for the tall bearded guy with the stovepipe hat.

I wonder why hillary or Obama haven't spoken to the NRA? why they won't go on Fox?

could it be the Lib super-sensitivity about Political correctness is backfiring on them now? talk about Karma.

fight amongst yourselves.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

oops forgot the link

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/mlkvideo

r

u

f

u

s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Your living in the past go. Decades if not centuries in the past. If you fear the future, you risk eliminating it. Change is at hand. Either embarce change, or get left decades if not centuries in the past. I could say that is where you belong, bu tI am a christian man. i love my "enemies" and want to bring them along. that is what seperates true chrsitianity and true american ideals from the gop. and why the gop are party loyalists about to render themselves irrelevant. If the president is their king and they his subjects. If they do not represent america, who and what do they represent? the represent business. The represent fascism. Tehy represent ecomin slavery. Everything that america was made to fight against. They are sabotuers who play divide and conquer for profit. Their time is done america. do not pity the fascist. They made their bed. To not force them to sleep in it does not help them, or anyone. Force them to sleep in the bed they made.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

'That the USSR ended without a shot is due to Gorby and Reagan.'

exactly. gorby had a big part in it.

'WASHINGTON -- Three of the four leading Republican presidential candidates turned down invitations to a PBS debate this month at a historically black college in Baltimore, leading moderator Tavis Smiley on Thursday to accuse them of ignoring minority voters.

Smiley told USA TODAY the rejections are part of a pattern, noting most GOP candidates declined invitations to address several black and Hispanic groups, including a Univision debate for a Latino audience.'

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

To anyone that doesn't know. Zouk is a fascist. Admits it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike - it is interesting to look at Detroit as an example of Liberal policy run amok, and its consequences. In the 50s it was the richest american city, now it is 66th. the culprit - high taxes, large bureaucracy, powerful unions, liberal policies, bad education, weak on crime, ineffective government - in short the Lib utopia.

Let the Libs rule the land and we can expect the same results for the rest of us.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"If you listen to liberals, there is no place for God in Government and that religious groups are nothing but narrow minded bigots. However, the facts in this case show just the opposite to be true. I guess you could say the Religious Right " imposed their moral will " on society to help pass The Civil Rights Act.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 02:20 PM

"

It's not liberals who are trying to remove religon FROM POLITICS. It was the founding fathers. If you hate this country move to south america. Or africa. Or some place you feel is better. If you love america they you love the seperation of church and state. Why do you hate america? And what are you going to do about it? Sabotage until it is no more. What do you get out of that?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Racist*

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 21, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

What does the term liberal really mean? Progressive?

the gop is done. do not humor them. Lincoln freed the slaves centuries ago. What has teh gop done for not only black asian latino, but poor people, since? Other than mock them. Other than tell them it's their fault their poor, and the sysem is fair.

The system is fair, where you put money in banks and it grows. If yo have no money you open an account and they suck you dry with fees. Someone's got to pay those interests rates to the top?

The system is not only tilted, but criminally so. Where the ceo's take hundreds of millions OF THEIR EMPLOUYEES MONEY.

I told you if you don't stand up to the gop then their actions are presendence, if they are not held to account. Even if they are held to account, enron, soemtimes they still set the presedent. Crimes are not presendant, due to the gop. Treason is now presednet due to the gop.

If we do not hold the criminals to account and change the game and rules, we allow the past gop criminality to set presenednce. don't allow you rmoney to be taken and your brothers to be killed. this is a nation controled by the people. Time to make the gop and soem sell-out moderate dem's remember that again. Bribery and treason and punsihable by thirty years each. Throw the criminals in jail. break the chain

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Blarg -- sure, the white extremists tend to be R's. But to say that they represent the party is like saying Jane Fonda and moveon.org represents your party.

I would argue that would be worse.

But my point was, it's no *less* raccist than to create a class of people permanently dependent on the tit of the government, in effect buying their votes.

Yes, they vote Democratic. What has it got them?

My wife grew up in South Side San Antonio.

Strongly Democratic for living memory.

Is, has been, always will be, a slum.

What have their Democrat leaders got them? Handouts? Because it's definitely not jobs.

Or, education. But I blame both parties for that.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 21, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Let's not even talk about the Party of Lincoln who freed the slaves. what party was that again, I keep forgetting?

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Those people then left the Democratic Party to become conservative Southern Republicans.

Like who? more liberal mythology meant to torture facts to tell them what they want to hear.

Under normal circumstances a bill such as this sent to the Senate would be reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In this case however, the whole Senate voted to bypass the Democrat lead judiciary committee and take it straight to the full Senate for immediate consideration. Senate opponents of HR 7152 lead by

Al Gore Sr. ( D-TN. ) and Robert Byrd ( D-W.VA. ) made repeated attempts ( via " motion to table " ) to have the bill sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Sen. James O. Eastland ( D - Mississippi )

where they would have then killed it.

Robert Byrd's Filibuster:

Just before the Cloture vote ( vote to end debate ) was taken, Sen. Robert C. Byrd ( D-W.Va. ) set the record for the longest speech of the 1964 filibuster. Byrd began talking at 7:38 PM June 9 and continued speaking all night, winding up at 9:51am the following morning.

********************

Responding to attempts by Democrats to gut the bill, Minority Leader Everet MicKinley Dirksen ( R - Ill. ) warned that Republicans would reject the bill if it were gutted by Senate Democrats.

Notable quotes from Republican Minority Leader Dirksen:
" Civil Rights - Here is an idea whose time has come. let the editors rave at will and let the states fulminate at will, but the time has come and it can't be stopped. "

" Stronger than all armies is an idea whose time has come. "

" this is an idea whose time has come. It will not be stayed, it will not be denied. "

" Members of the Senate, we are confronted with a moral issue. Face the issue and approve cloture. "

********************

Much credit was given to the influence of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish groups in The Republican Party.
So what we have here is the so-called" Religious Right, " the most demonized and hated group by Liberals today actually having influenced Republicans to vote in favor of The 1964 Civil Rights act.....

If you listen to liberals, there is no place for God in Government and that religious groups are nothing but narrow minded bigots. However, the facts in this case show just the opposite to be true. I guess you could say the Religious Right " imposed their moral will " on society to help pass The Civil Rights Act.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Stay on topic people.

Who's more racist? Klu klux klan or skin heads? Who cares, they're both racists. And they're both republcains

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Mike: You claim that Democrats are racist, and that Republicans are actually the party that supports minorities. So why is it that minorities overwhelmingly support Democrats? Clearly they're supporting racists who secretly hate them. Are they brainwashed? Are they stupid? And why is it that only white Republicans can see through this conspiracy and tell minorities what's REALLY best for them?

Posted by: Blarg | January 21, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Living in Nevada, I always heard and thought that the rural areas always backed conservative republican candidates. This being the case then Obama was victorious in winning these hard core conservative republicans.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 21, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"Likewise I retract the actual votes from 1964 that paints an unflattering view of Liberals."

Actually, it painted an unflattering view of conservative Southern Democrats. Those people then left the Democratic Party to become conservative Southern Republicans. Republicans conveniently forget that every time this topic comes up. Remember, one of the Democrats in that unflattering view was Strom Thurmond. Which party did he associate with for the last 50 years of his life?

Posted by: Blarg | January 21, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Creating a permanent helpless class dependent on government [aka, buying a permanent voting bloc], is neither freedom nor equality. It's exploitation, and it's morally repugnant.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 21, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Claudia seriously trying to imply R's are raccists.

Who's more raccist

The party who freed the slaves, passed civil rights legislation, and promotes equality of opportunity in this country?

--or--

The party who exploits poor minorities, buying their votes with government handouts, but who never actually lifted a finger to help them?

Actions are louder than words.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

claudialong,

The USSR was not a perceived enemy, it was a real enemy (unlike say, Syria). If you think that Gorby would have just up and dissolved the USSR and let Eastern Europe become free without being driven to it by Reagan/Thatcher/and several other leaders and their policies and words, your looking at history through the DNC prism. That the USSR ended without a shot is due to Gorby and Reagan. That it ended when it did, is mostly due to Reagan/Thatcher et al.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Likewise I retract the actual votes from 1964 that paints an unflattering view of Liberals.

Instead, I will begin chanting that "All Republicans are racist bigots". by the time you sing this the 100th time, you get into a trance like state and it begins to resemble the truth to the victim.

Ooops, did I say victim, I meant newly enlightened progressive individual.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Gordon's girl wrote:
"Story idea? It seems to me that, outside of metropolitan areas, Obama is having no problem at all winning white votes. The reason he pulled ahead in Nevada delegates - and did okay in New Hampshire- is due to white, rural voters. I'd love to see this fact addressed and explored."

I think that this can be explained by examining the nature of the campaigns. The Clinton campaign is a top down organization filled with many long time party loyalists who know how to operate the levers of their political machinery which works best where people congregate more densely. In cities, it is easier for campaigns to influence voters. A top down organization goes for numbers. Cities are the low hanging fruit. Low density areas require too much effort and diminishing returns.

A bottom up organization, on the other hand, has a different dynamic. It grows organically, at the grassroots. It can flourish where a top down organization gets bogged down. It isn't crushed by power brokers or saturation advertising. There simply isn't enough money or manpower for a top down organization to compete with a grassroots movement in the low density areas.

I think this pretty much explains it. I don't think it has anything to do with race or gender.

Posted by: optimyst | January 21, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

" sour economy"

hahahaha

yOUR RIGHT DITTOHEAD.

HAHAHHA.

What is a dittohead anyway? does it mean you give yourself to another man? HAHAHAH.

foot tappers :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Dave, I regret to inform you that the facts you cite interfere with the pessimism of the NYTimes and the Liberal party in general. they will be hard pressed enough to win a presidential election again this century much less with a clinton as the candidate. therefore, please refrain from any facts when debating with Dems or Libs. It is an unfair advantage that will certainly cause them to lose their wits. With the war going well now, the " sour economy" is the only talking point left to convince gullible Lib voters to come out from in front of Oprah to vote.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris C, when you say that Edwards will fracture the 'change vote' (siphoning off delegates from Obama), it's probably more accurately described as the 'anybody but HRC' vote.

Also, how sad that this doesn't apply in SC, if your supposition is correct that it's Obama vs two people 'splitting the white vote'. If so, this reflects very poorly on SC (and, by implication, blacks, since you said that this is due to the heavy black presence there).

What happened to voting for the best person for the job? I know that that is anethema to the Democratic party's principles, but such racism (on MLK day) is so unnecessary.

Posted by: JD | January 21, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter - 'Reagan and Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy have only "trickled up" while middle-class wages lag behind inflation, employment growth and job creation flounder and the national/personal debt load strangles the economy.'

With posts like this, you are going to need to change your nom de plume...

Per capita gross domestic product has increased by more than 65 percent since 1979 -- growth that translates to $26,000 per household. If all that money had gone to the richest 10th of the population, it would now hold more than 60 percent of the national income. That's nearly twice as much as the super rich actually have, according to the best census surveys available.

The 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, which does not include business debt, showed that 54 percent of households had no credit card debt after paying their monthly bill and that the average household credit card debt was just over $2,300.

Mortgages, which represent 79 percent of all debt, are the more pressing concern. But even according to the most pessimistic estimates, only 1 to 2 percent of homeowners will be forced into foreclosure in the next few years. Assets have grown faster than debts for most middle-class families. Median net worth has grown 35 percent since 1989, according to the Federal Reserve Board, and only 15 percent of households have debt payments worth more than 40 percent of their income or are 60 days late on any debt payment.

"Even this Bush administration's own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of the real economic boom to 1995 during Clinton's first term."

Wouldn't that be the year after R's captured Congress?

Somewhere, though, the sky is falling...

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

fringe on the left.'
aka drindl

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Whatever - ignore the facts:

The Vote 1964 civil rights act

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

D)Yes - 145 - 62% R) Yes - 137 - 78%

D) No - 90 - 34% R) No - 38 - 22%

SENATE

D) Yes -42 - 66% R) Yes - 28 - 80%

D) No - 23 - 34% D )No - 7 - 20%

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

'The real division is between red-white-and-blue America and a fringe on the left.'

LOL. as usuall. so now we have our answer as to where the mccain haters will go -- draft newtie.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

regarding the obama reagan remark. Republicans! I know your living decades in the past, but reagan is not running. No candidate can speak for reagan.

Take the obama statement as nothing more but an olive branch. Look at the words he said. It had nothign to do with the policy as edwards and clinton have spun. It's bigger than that. How many people call themselves reagan foot soldiers? Why?

It's a cause, a movement, change. It's not abou tregan's policies. the gop (clinton included) is spinnign out of control. I told you they are done for a generation. You are witnessing a dying fish flopping around on land. Clinton would take the dem's down the same rabbit hole to save her party (gop). do not let her america. Not just democrats. Independants, do not let her destroy the democratic party. If she succeds we will have new parties as both will be destroyed by 2012. Are you ready for that america? I'm not. You think the change obama is bringing is to much? If we get new parties, and we will, think of the chagne then?

Better stop sabotaging gop (clinton included). You would not like what replaces the current

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

India for clinton. I feel you , looking out for our interests."

Looking our for your interests (india) that is

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

legan00 learns water is wet....

"kingofzouk, You're in denial."

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

India for clinton. I feel you , looking out for our interests. But in america we like candidates to represent america. Anyone putting other countires over their own, like clinton does, is not a patriot. choosinf another countries benefiet over the nation used to be called treason. Clinton will not and can not win. Even if she wins the nom, she loses. She is now a republcain in the mold of george bush.

He serves sadi arabia, she serves china and india. in 08 we elect a president that serves america. not india or their own interests. She sabotages not only her party but her nation for you. I hope your gratful india. I doubt it. Without the money you will hate us the next day. This is why it is better for OUR candidates to represent us, not you. No disrespect inteneded.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Go Newt:

As a first step, Gingrich busts the pernicious myth that America is divided between conservative red states and liberal blue states. As Gingrich points out, the American people are united on almost every important issue facing our country--including immigration, taxes, defending America, and freedom of religion. The real division is between red-white-and-blue America and a fringe on the left. Red-white-and-blue America believes overwhelmingly--by majorities of 70 percent or more--that we need a change in course. But our politicians aren't listening. Gingrich reveals why the Democratic Party can't deliver real change and why the Republican Party won't. He provides answers and a step-by-step, issue-by-issue toolkit for building a better America--the safe, innovative, and dynamic America we all want. What will take us from the world that fails to the world that works? Real change--the kind of change that happens when politicians drop their own agendas and respond to the will of the people. Newt Gingrich shows us how we can make real change a reality.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

dave, i do commend Reagan for doing what none of the current R candidates say they will do -- which is talking to our perceived enemies. Gorbachev had thousands of nuclear weapons trained on our cities and Reagan still talked to him. But you have to give Gorbachev have the credit, as everyone did at that time:

'In 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to end the Cold War. "Time" Magazine named him Man of the Year and Man of the Decade. Former President Richard Nixon believed the Soviet leader should have been named Man of the Century for "risk[ing] his power...to save his reforms."

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,


You're in denial. First of all, the dixiecrats became Republicans following the civil rights movement. Secondly, the Republican party has had its lowest turnout in years. The most Republicans to vote in the Iowa caucuses was 115, 000 in 1980. They received 114, 000 this year. The Democrats received 115, 000 new voters. And this pattern has played itself out in each state thus far. So tell me, are you going to reiterate Sean Hannity's talking points and put forth ideas of your own.

Debs

Posted by: legan00 | January 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting to read the distorted and often completely out-there reasons people use for marginalizing Ron Paul- 'putting women in jail for Abortions, putting people out of Social Security, etc...). It merely shows how little people read and research these days before forming (?) their opinions. Most rely on either 30-second soundbites, offhand (and innaccurate) comments form print reporters (who also need to learn basic research), and (god help us) other posters' comments.

Let's put this in crass political terms first: The fact is, Ron Paul has demonstrated not only a wide and deep fundraising base, but also a steadily climbing increase in new and diverse voters rallying around his already solid 7-15% base in most states. All this with a concerted effort to marginalize and bury him (thanks, FOXMSNBCCBSNYTIMESWSJNEWSCORP!). WHile others blow thier political wad looking for the killshot early, ROn Paul is building momentum (and funding) for the long haul. His base is not merely a coalitio of splinter factions like evangelicals, women, minorities or the like- he has a broad-based support. Again if anyone did the research instead of taking pundit's invalid assertions of 'fringe' support, they would find a diverse group of all ages, races, ethnicities, gender and income levels, not to mention an ability to reach out across the political spectrum to unite diverse philosophies. BUt it is much easier to dismiss offhand rather than actually INVESTIGATE his support base!

When people actually LOOK at and read for themselves (not being spoon-fed innaccurate media blather) not only the actual policy positions Ron Paul takes (and has held for longer than one election cycle or primary!) but also the basis for these positions, and the plans for implementing them, they come to realize that his ideas are based in Rock-Solid economic and political models that the country USED to use as a basis for governing. They also will see that it is the abandonment of these principles of smaller government, fiscal restraint, dedication to individual liberties and resistance to corporate welfare and a governing nanny-state that has led us to the abyss of economic, social and moral collapse we now find America facing.

If people truly want to 'Change' the political, social and economic climate we are now trapped in, putting liptick on one of the same old political pigs now running for President will do nothing to change anything but the cosmetic facade on a crumbling system. Look deeply at 'your' candidate and ask yourself: 'how long has he or she held these positons, is their voting record reflective of the positions they now hold, and (most importantly) what special interest group(s) are they beholden to by virtue of fundraising and previous political patronage?'

The Doctor says that if your patient is not responding to treatment, if you keep applying more of the same treatment, you'll end up killing the patient. Listen to the good doctor! Why vote for someone who merely wants to tweak the failing system while leaving the rotting core to collapse? Ron Paul's ideas will cure the patient with some badly needed hard medicine, and will restore his patient 'America' to social, economic and political health once more.

But don't take MY word for it (or anyone else's for that matter!)- READ and RESEARCH for yourself, without the filter of punditry and mass media to sugar coat and castor oil the actual facts. Make up your OWN mind... After all, it's about who's best to lead- not who's ahead or who's winning! America is interviewing for the job of President. Sometimes the person most recommended by the mob is the absolute WORST person for the job, while the best candidate often comes in unheralded and without fanfare.

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted by: xtrabiggg | January 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama Also Surprised to Learn Water is Wet

Barack Obama seems genuinely surprised to learn that Bill Clinton isn't always honest, particularly when it comes to describing his opponents.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4162996&page=1

Welcome to our world, Barack. We've been here since, oh, 1992 at least.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term."

On the one hand, its not an entirely inappropriate factor to consider. On the other, his mother was at his SC victory speech, so at least half his genes seem to produce longevity.

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

An appeal to Democratic Party voters in caucuses and primaries.

I appeal to all my democratic American brothers and sisters who are voting in the caucuses and primaries to select their presidential nominee. This appeal comes from a person from India, the biggest democratic nation.

Destiny awaits you. The greatest day in American history awaits you. The annals of history wait to be rewritten, provided you choose Hillary Clinton as your presidential nominee. Thus, for the first time in your history you won't have to say Americans never had a chance to elect a woman president. It doesn't end here.

I also appeal to Hillary Clinton to request, choose and declare Barack Obama as her vice presidential candidate. And I also appeal to Barack Obama to accept it in good faith, for better and not for worse. Thus, again for the first time in the history of this great nation you won't have to say we never had a black vice president.

KILL TWO BIRDS AT ONE SHOT! I wonder which Republican combination can challenge such a great duo.

Even in India we had woman prime minister and now president. And prior to as a nation, we had Queens like Rani of Janshi and others. Who have said that women are bad leaders or politicians? Why Americans have to shy away from electing a woman president? I know Americans are good people and they will all unitedly rise up to the occasion to elect a woman president and a black vice president, thus creating a new history in the history of this great nation.

From:

Ivo Oscar Faleiro.
Goa - INDIA.

Contact: ivofaleiro@gmail.com ; ivofaleiro@yahoo.co.in

PS: Please pass this appeal to all your American friends without fail and especially to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. God bless you all.

Posted by: iofaleiro | January 21, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - "during reagan's second term, he was increasingly afflicted with alzheimer's and nancy increasingly not only spoke for him, but made policy decisions."

All that and he still managed to hold his own with Gorby and bring about the end of the cold war. Just imagine, he might have been successful if he had all his faculties...


Proud,
Nice article. I wholeheartedly agree the GOP needs to stop looking for the next Reagan and perhaps focus on learning the lessons of the original. I have not yet decided who I will be voting for and have eliminated none of the top 5 republicans. And in the FWIW, I took that Pick a prez quiz where they asked you a bunch of your positions on various things and then tell you how you line up against all the candidates. According to that, I should be voting for McCain.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

--"Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, [in that way] [ so] you will know what you are doing." That is a little thing I use to teach youngsters about politics, and believe you me, it really works.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2008 01:06 PM

"

We know it works pink. We see it in nevada. doesn't make it right or even legal. The cacues locations they were complaining about went for clintons. they scared teh culinary workers away. the clintons complained about to many voting booths then procedded to sign up illegals on the day of cacues. They ruan the whole cacues site I was at. AND SHe STILL LOST IN TERMS OF DELEGATES. She can't even win cheating. This is not over. Say wha tyou will. We just need to catch her gop suppression tactics one time to end her carrer, and her sell-out husbands.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

claudialong,

Worse than that: George H.W. Bush voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And all these people getting wet for Reagan on this blog need to pick up a book. This country has to clean up the mess Reagan left before we can get the mess the Bush ilk have left. If you earn less than $200,000 per annum, keep voting for Republicans. Tell me how that works out for you. $650 Billion annually for white, well-fed Republicans to play war with your neighbor's children. By 2012, according to the most conservative estimates, each of you will have spent $4,000 killing brown people. Tell me if it's as much fun in four years. Bravo! Always the thoughtful party. If Jesus Christ did come back, Republicans would be the first to castigate him for being brown. It must feel really good getting those tax cuts, huh? Keep it up! It's your conscience, not mine.

Free Debs

Posted by: legan00 | January 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

drindl, voters in AZ rejected MLK Day at the polls through '91, at least, but around '93 voted for it.

An AZ Senator would have not been repreenting his constituency in the 80s if he voted for it.

A holiday is in no way a matter of principle or clean government and a representative should represent his voters unless principle or issues of clean government dictate otherwise.

In a democracy the representative leads on principle and clean government, but should follow on most stuff.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

So drindl tries to throw some mud up on the wall and make it stick.

Instead, let's examine the actual votes on the civil rights act. Anyone want to guess who was against it and who was for it?

Hint - they are an extinct species called dixie-crats. the other branch soon to be extinct is similarly called Democrats.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

claudia, you left these out:

Republican President Ronald Reagan declared the day in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

(Robert E. Lee's birthday has been celebrated as a Virginia holiday since 1889. In 1904, the legislature added the birthday of Stonewall Jackson to the holiday, and Lee-Jackson Day was born.

Virginia, who since 1978 had celebrated King's Birthday in conjunction with New Years Day, made the change and simply tacked him onto Lee-Jackson Day. Thus Lee-Jackson-King Day was born.)

In January of 2000, Virginia's Republican Governor James Gilmore asked the Legislature to move Lee-Jackson Day to the previous Friday, which would give Martin Luther King, Jr. a holiday of his own.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I got an email from senator obama siting stories and irregularities. Even though he won the delegates this is abotu principle. this is not over yet. What clinton did here in nevada will not go unrecognized. Not if I have anything to say about it.


Think about it pink and clinton supporters. Obama won more delegates. Why then would peopel be speaking out if it isn't true? It would be moot, would it not? Illegals and old ladies. They ran the entire cacues's unjustly. NExt time we need peopel runnign the show that are independant, meaning for neither candidate. Dodd or biden supporters?:)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

anyway, i'm sorry but huckabee looks like freakin Howdy Doody, i mean, seriously, look at him...

Very american, I guess, but not really the sort of image we want to project, i should think.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Those who tout Reaganomics must live in a different universe. Reagan's 1981 tax cut and credit-card spending led to the exact dismal economy we're again facing.

Even this Bush administration's own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of the real economic boom to 1995 during Clinton's first term.

Reagan and Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy have only "trickled up" while middle-class wages lag behind inflation, employment growth and job creation flounder and the national/personal debt load strangles the economy.

Clinton didn't do everything right, but he did reverse the burgeoning national debt and grow the economy regardless of what the GOP Reagan-myth spinners want you to think. Can Hillary do the same?.... the jury's out.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | January 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

satire, mark, satire. i agree, is funny.

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term.'

huckabee is getting pretty down and dirty too, he's not the squeaky clean guy he's projecting either. got some really questionable/loony big supporters.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I notice a lot of Obama supporters are taking my advice--"Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, [in that way] [ so] you will know what you are doing." That is a little thing I use to teach youngsters about politics, and believe you me, it really works.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, that is the funniest post of the day, whether true or invented.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

It's been interesting to see republicans co-opt MLK today. Did you know--

'McCain voted against the 1983 law to make King's birthday a national holiday?

Ron Paul published a newsletter that referred to the holiday as "Hate Whitey Day"?

18 of the 22 senators who opposed that 1983 law -- including Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch -- were Republicans?

Vice President Dick Cheney, as a congressman, voted against a 1979 measure to make King's birthday a national holiday?

The red states of Arizona and New Hampshire, didn't recognize the King Holiday until 2000?

It took until 2000 for Willard's beloved Utah to finally change their "Human Rights Day" to officially honor Martin Luther King?'

does anyone have mccain's explanation of why he voted against it? he may have had a good reason, but i have never heard it.


Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Good insight there Chris, If Obama has any chance in defeating the Clinton Political Machine then Edwards NEEDS to get out. A shame it won't happen, who ever said he was "toast" up there was right on I believe.

http://theghostofedmuskie.blogspot.com

Posted by: srg5007 | January 21, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Story idea? It seems to me that, outside of metropolitan areas, Obama is having no problem at all winning white votes. The reason he pulled ahead in Nevada delegates - and did okay in New Hampshire- is due to white, rural voters. I'd love to see this fact addressed and explored.

Could it be connected to the message already being sent from mostly-white states like Missouri, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, who've said that Clinton on the ticket would only hurt their states Democratic slates. Senators from three of the those four states have already endorsed Obama.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | January 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Brett Childers, a 48-year-old executive at the BMW plant outside Spartanburg, S.C., said he's been an Edwards fan since he first saw the former North Carolina senator's photo featured in a sample book of men's hair styles at his local salon. He voted for Edwards in 2004 and plans to do so again this year.

"I think it's really important to tell the special interests that pull the strings in Washington that we're not going to let them have their way with us anymore," Childers said. "John Edwards is the only candidate in either party who's willing to stand up to the power elite that really runs this country, run his fingers through his silken auburn locks, gaze at them disarmingly for a moment, then pout at them in a very meaningful way."

In Charleston, S.C., a small group of white men in Banana Republic and J. Crew clothes planted Edwards signs in a low-income, racially mixed neighborhood.

"We would normally never come here," Jonathan Winslow, 28, of Charleston, said. "There's not even a Starbucks in this neighborhood, if you can believe it. But these are the people who really ought to be voting for John Edwards and we're here to see that they get that message. And if they happen to see that we're all color coordinated, then that might impress them even more. I think the fact that we chose cranberry really makes us stand out. You don't see a lot of cranberry on this side of town, I can tell you that right now."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12607

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Mark,
You might have an argument with Ike. As he was before my time and my history classes seemed to skip over the part between WWII and Nixon, I can't really argue that well. Any thoughts JimD? Ford by virtue of politics at the time could not be one (but I would agree he had the disposition). The inspirational speaker list is accurate. I am in the process of slowly reading Reagan's Diary but nowhere near finished. From that account, however, he seemed he wanted to work and in fact liked to work with Congress, especially Tip. It's just that Congress and Reagan had farther to go to reach a middle ground.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, Reagan's optimism, and the end of 20% interest rates
overwhelmed the esoterica of mounting debt. Totally overwhelmed it. Also, Reagan had a terrific personality and Mondale had very little - like a dour Wisconsin pastor.

I heard Reagan speak on his GE tour to my "college" at Rice in 1961. He was just terrific as an engaging speaker. The mike went out during is speech and he never missed a beat - projecting without the mike he quipped
"You can be sure if it's Westinghouse".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

'Good question. To the adults who remember, was the landslide about Mondale's policies, Ferraro being on the ticket, or something else entirely?'

he was a lousy candidate... reagan was very good. he was an actor, after all. he played an affable regular guy better than anyone. my dad was a union guy all his life and switched parties to vote for him and stayed a republican until 2006 when he switched parties because of the war and his only grandson being 18. he was in WWII --and he said to me -- 'seems like all i've ever seen is war. we never should have started this one.'

reagan also played a war hero in several movies-- though he never served -- as well as a cowboy, and was as appealing to american men as the marlboro man was at the time. you have to thing about our national stereotypes and unconscious desires/aspiratons to get a better sense of why candidates won at a partiuclar period in time, because hte process isn't logical.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I've been thinking about something and I must share it. I don't hate Hillary, and I don't love Obama, but I'm leaning towards Obama. The Republicans are just a silly people, anyway. My concern is that I don't think Bill Clinton ought to be able to campaign as vigorously as he currently does, until the Democratic nominee has been determined. Obama has to run against Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Clinton. For this to be a fair fight, Jimmy Carter has to be on the stump everyday for Barack Obama. Granted, Bill Clinton is much more popular than Carter, but it's deeply unethical for the former President to be campaigning this vigorously. Besides, everyone with a working brain knew Hillary would win Nevada. But don't let Chris Cillizza, who is basically an unpaid surrogate for Hillary Rodham Clinton, frame this as an upset victory for Hillary. I'll break down the Feb. 5th states:
-Alabama: Obama
-Arkansas: Clinton
-Arizona: Obama
-Oklahoma: I have no idea.
-Missouri: Obama
-Kansas: No clue.
-California: Obama
-Utah: Clinton
-Idaho: Clinton
-Colorado: Obama
-Alaska: Clinton
-Illinois: Obama
-Massasschusetts: Obama
-Delaware: Probably Clinton.
-Connecticut: Clinton.
-New Jersey: Obama can win in Jersey, but I'm not sure if he will.
-New York: Clinton, but it will not be a blow out.
-Minnesota: Obama
-North Dakota: Clinton


Remind me which states I forgot. And count the delegates. I suspect that Edwards will endorse Obama following an unsettling defeat in South Carolina. I do think Obama must take South Carolina.


And to address what someone said earlier, NAFTA was actually put together by George H.W. Bush and implemented by Bill Clinton and the Republicans in Congress. In 1994, Al Gore debated NAFTA with Ross Perot on Larry King Live. Ross Perot earned over 19 million votes in 1992. Clinton & Gore abandoned those 19 million voters by implementing NAFTA and expanding deregulation; and now their apologists blame Ralph Nader for an election, which Clinton & Gore allowed Bush to steal. In that debate in '94 Al Gore claimed that NAFTA would not cost anyone their job(s). If you ever see Al Gore in public, you can remind him that it cost him his.


Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 21, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

dave, Here's an article you might like...

Waiting for Reagan
You fight an election with the politicians you have.

"Conservative editorialists, radio hosts, and bloggers are unhappy. They don't like the Republican presidential field, and many of them have been heaping opprobrium on the various GOP candidates with astonishing vigor.

For example: John McCain--with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3--is allegedly in no way a conservative. And, though the most favorably viewed of all the candidates right now, both among Republicans and the electorate as a whole, he would allegedly destroy the Republican party if nominated.

...So the conservative commentariat should take a deep breath, be a bit less judgmental about these individuals--and realize that there is not likely to be a second Reagan."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/607onvmn.asp?pg=2

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Terrific cite, Dave.

I do remember the actual fight. I was representing the HeadStart program in Travis County and lobbying with USDA about every little bit of food that could be mustered under the budget cuts.

The mastermind of first term budget cuts was David Stockman, now, I think, in prison.

Stockman was gone by '84, as I recall, so that deadlines for economies became more realistic, rather than intentionally fatal.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

'If not, what do you have to say about their tactics? Are they throwing teh democratic party and the country under the bus?'

my husband and i were both clinton supporters during his term. there were things that he did though, in retrospect that we don't think were desirable [trade deals not really favorable to this country for instance]. he was, however, quite active on terrorism and could have done much more had he no been hampered by this entire unnenessary entrapment/monica lewinsky circus.

however, having said that, i haven't liked a lot of what he and hillary have said on the campaign trail. unfortunately, i don't think obama is as clean as he appears to be either. I think --and this to you especially, optimyst, that a system which requires candiates to raise ungodly amounts of [tainted] money is not going to produce ethical candidates.

i honestly think that hill and bill believe that we are at an extremely dangerous nexus [we are, in so many ways] and that they/she would be the best leader for this country. i certainly think they would over any R except McCain. and personally, i don't really see much space between hillary and mccain's policies. after all, they are both good buddies of lieberman's...they are both pretty much what is called 'moderate.'

to your point, mark, and regarding the co- presidency thing, yo u may recall that during reagan's second term, he was increasingly afflicted with alzheimer's and nancy increasingly not only spoke for him, but made policy decisions.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
Good heaven's bsimon, it was because it was "Morning in America"! The simple phrase that won the election was "Are you better off today than four years ago?" A huge majority overwhelmingly said yes.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have intentionally distorted Barack Obama's record on a number
of issues. The American people are tired of politicians who lie and distort
their opponent's records to gain the edge. Our politicians should be held to
a higher standard. We should have politicians who are honest and above
tactics that are unethical, irresponsible, misleading and dishonest -- who lack principal and are willing to do anything to win. After all most of us teach our
children to be honest, ethical and not to lie. How can we have trust in our leaders to be frank with us when they have not
been honest and ethical on the campaign trail. Politicians who intentionally lie, distort and mislead are in all honesty not honorable people, and basically unethical -- not the kind of people we should want to
run or represent our country.

I can only hope that Barack Obama will not stoop down to their level while trying to set his record straight, which he must, against the lies and distortion their campaign are trying to get into the American psychy. These tactics are old time party politics and should be a thing of the past as we move towards the 21st Century, towards cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner politics, towards a more holistic way of living. It is a greater duty and in the best interest of the country for Barack Obama to continue to stay positive and hopeful while attempting to bring this country together and
lift it up from fear an a distrust of one another -- to continue to show the
American people and the world there is another way to run for office other
than smear and fear. That is why Obama and Huckabee are so appealing. They
are authentic and each in their own way are trying to lead the Americans
away from dirty campaigning, lies and tricks. How can a country be blessed
after all that ugly and dirty fighting, it can't be. And too we have to ask
ourselves as a people, why do we allow this behavior to be acceptable and
reward this kind of negative behaviour, when we would not accept it in ourselves.

Posted by: wdsoulplane | January 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"What about 1984?"

Good question. To the adults who remember, was the landslide about Mondale's policies, Ferraro being on the ticket, or something else entirely?

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

NevadaAndy - a minor quibble. It was US FARM POLICY, not NAFTA, which ignited the peasant infiltration from Mexico.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

dave - I thought Ike was a uniter. Nobody since has worked harder with the leadership of Congress - leadership in the other party. Nobody worked harder to speak to the entire country, although he was in no way a good speaker.
--------------------
The ability to speak to all was a grace that JFK and RR and WJC had.
-------------------
Ford had the disposition to be a consensus builder.
-------------------
The perfect candidate does not exist. But a change in direction from guru [Atwater-
Begala-Rove] machinations would be welcome.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

As long as Obama comes out of super Tuesday still within striking distance of Clinton, the nomination will go to the Convention in Denver and we will see a "brokered" nomination where the super delegates and Edwards will be the key players. Since super delegates can change votes, it's important for constituents of those delegates who support Hillary to write letters expressing their concern about the super delegates support of Clinton and expressing concern that this will affect their decision to suppot them when they run for re-election or a higher political office.

JFK overcame attacks by his opponents that he lacked experience in foreign affairs, and about his Catholic faith, and overcame the traditional assumption that a winning candidate had to have the support of entrenched party leaders from states with large blocs of electoral votes. Obama will overcome similar attacks!

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 21, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Without all those illegals they signed up the day of the cauces, I saw it myself, they would not have "won". They had interp.'s signing up new people on the day.

Without clinton what would the gop point to? They are not worth it. the clintons are republcains. Their actions ok them for the gop to use. Without the clintons how would the gop justify their actions? They wouldn't. They would be removed from politics for 30 years. Where teh clintons NOW should be, based on what they are doing. Fricking republcains these days

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"US Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign on Sunday said that it had received reports of voting irregularities in Nevada's nominating caucuses, which were won by rival Hillary Clinton.
Spokesmen for Obama's campaign told reporters that a Clinton party handout urged registration lines for the caucuses Saturday to close at 11:30 am, whereas state party rules said anyone in line until 12:00 pm was to be allowed to participate.

"Despite clear rules and timelines laid out by the Nevada Democratic Party that caucus doors should remain open and voter registration should continue until noon, the Clinton campaign encouraged their operatives to close the caucus doors at 11:30 am, a half hour before that deadline," said spokesman Bill Burton.

"

Now is not the time to stand downa nd let the gop (clinton) steal another election. They can say whatever they want. What are they doing. the old days of propoganda not being called or moved on is over. We should validate every single vote this primary cycle. The gop (cliton) is done and will do anything to stop their downfall.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"it's interesting... i was an adult [well more or less] during reagan's time and i remember it all so differently from the myths and legends on both sides."

I was also an adult, more or less, and interestingly remember it quite different from you! Funny how that works. But your comment that he was not a 'uniter' made me think - who was the last president that was a 'uniter'? I think we can all agree that post 1992 needs no discussion. Leaving aside Reagan for the moment, it seems the next likely candidate would be Kennedy but I don't think that, prior to his assassination, he would have been considered a uniter. Ike? Truman? FDR? Maybe FDR but from stories from my elders, they either talk of him with reverence or distain. So my answer is Washington. Since him, I would submit that Reagan was as much a uniter as this country has seen (which is admittedly not much).

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -- Well written stuff today. I tend to agree. I wouldn't write off a R winning '08 because of what you said about the D's deep desire to stick it to us.

lylepink writes "Mark: I think Reagan won mostly because Carter was not a good Prez"

What about 1984? Your Hillary fixation is showing again.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

""To the extent that it implied that Sen. Clinton was trying to suppress Hispanic votes, I think that would be absolutely incorrect and unfair. I think that they were concerned about the fact that the Clinton ad -- that Clinton supporters, not the Clinton campaign -- the Clinton supporters had filed a lawsuit in the eleventh hour to try to change the rules of the caucus in the way that they thought would advantage them. And this happened right after the union endorsed me. So understandably, the union was upset," he added. "

the clinton strong arm tactics worked, for all my anger at it. They succesfully suppress the union vote. While at teh same time signing up and bringing in illegals themselves. They play the gop game of "I know you are but what am I".

slick WIlly indeed.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I thought Reagan's first term was a near disaster, for the reasons you cite [ketchup as a food group, enormous deficits, etc.].

But he had a much better second term, unlike GWB. Really, much better.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

""I understand him wanting to promote his wife's candidacy," Obama said. "She's got a record that she can run on. But I think it's important that we try to maintain some -- you know, level of honesty and candor during the course of the campaign. If we don't, then we feed the cynicism that has led so many Americans to be turned off to politics."

"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4162996&page=1

r

u

f

u

s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

What's up drindl? What say you on my nevada cacues post? Are you turning to clinton? If so why? Maybe you can help me.

If not, what do you have to say about their tactics? Are they throwing teh democratic party and the country under the bus? For what, hillary cliton? Is she more important than the democraic party? Is her winning more important that the will and good of the nation? choosing party or self over country used to be called treason. it will be once again. And lobbyists will go down for bribery. We just need to break the gop chain once and for all. Clinton should be running as an r. She is the best republcain in the feild.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

bdoughtel and optimyst - great posts and I agree whole heartedly with what you both said.

I voted for Clinton. Since he has been out of office, we can really evaluate the impact of his decisions and leadership. At the time of his first election the economy was the big issue. He turned it around and balanced the budget. However, he left a legacy of "contracting out" services, and did little to combat the threat of terrorism which left us wide open for 911. Leaving the door wide open for Bush-Cheney to capitalized on these things. His creation of NAFTA only increased the flow of illegal immigrants into America. NAFTA did not uplift the lives of Mexicans. Falling wages, forced peasants off the land, small businesses were liquidated, and growing poverty explain why so many Mexicans crossed the border illegally to provide for their families. In 1995 there were 2.5 million mexican illegals since then 8 million have crossed the border.

The Clintons had a chance in the early '90s to improve health care. They failed, especially Hillary since she led the charge. What makes people think that they can do a better job this time round?

They had a chance to leave America a better and safer place in the '90s. Why should we give them another opportunity? It's time to end the dynastic approach to the White House. The Bush's have set the precedence. Don't let this year's election continue the precedence because precedence is hard to break - there are a lot more Bush's out there.

After attending the NV caucus and seeing and hearing the Clinton supporters (the vast majority of whom were elderly women), I understand that they have waited a long time for a female president. But some of them will not be around to see and feel the legacy of what a Hillary Clinton will do to this country. This should not be the reason they vote for Hillary. They should vote because they want to leave America a better place than the America they grew up in and lived in. If Hillary were elected and fails, it will be a long time before America will elect another female president.

I'm for real change and stand with Obama. He will inspire the nation to set high goals and to achieve those goals, much like Kennedy did when he inspired us to reach for space and to put a man on the moon.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

'swiss-army-knife (that I used as a keychain), so I slipped it into my sock.'

yeah, coz that didn't make you look suspicious or anything...

it's interesting... i was an adult [well more or less] during reagan's time and i remember it all so differently from the myths and legends on both sides. one thing he wasn't tho, and that's a 'uniter' -- the country was just about as polarized as it is now. in fact, i remember his policies as being pretty much like gwb. big tax cuts, and program cuts to education especially,, .followed by big deficit he left behind.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

""You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Obama said during his first morning television interview since coming in second in Nevada. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.

"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate," Obama added.
"

Bill, the ex president, managed to lower himself to the level of dick morris

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

If any of you go to the website I just posted, be sure to listen to the audio clip attached.
---------------------
and the sock wasn't even uncomfortable if it was the Right Kind of Sock.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"EXCLUSIVE: Barack vs. Bill: Obama Hits Ex-Prez Over 'Troubling' Attacks
Vows to 'Directly Confront Bill Clinton' Over 'Statements That Are Not Factually Accurate'

aBOUT TIME. Nice time is over. How long can obama stand back and allow the clitnons to muddy up the feild? Eventually he is going to have to cal them out. The clitnons cannot be allowed to do what they are doing without being called on it.

the old rules no longer apply. They may get more old ladies, but the youth/future is not buying it. The clitnons are sabotaging the democratic party. Any real democrats and americans for that matter should see this and stand up agaisnt it. Do we want another four year of GWB? If clintin wins that's what we get. We may get health care. that's about it. Everything else the clintons do is gop. "we're in this together", my as*.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, we always carried our secret stuff in our sock, because painful as it was, it beat the crotch for comfort.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, recalling that in late '06 the word was that if it came down to "Hillary against not-McCain" Bloomberg would spend his big bucks on himself, I have noticed that he is not only keeping his powder dry but stockpiling ammo.

http://www.kut.org/items/show/11318

TX is the first state to close its ballot to the Indies, so Bloomberg was in Austin last week.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Minor trivia: in 1980 my grade-school class left school to watch Reagan arrive at the nearby Billy Graham center for a speech. GHWB came to our high school for an address. I recall being worried about the SS taking away my swiss-army-knife (that I used as a keychain), so I slipped it into my sock. Its not clear, to this day, why I thought that would be less suspicious than leaving it in my pocket. Of course, they never checked anyway.

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"bsimon, how old were you when reagan was prez?"

You're calling me out! I graduated HS the year GHWB was elected.

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I wasn't going to blog today. Just wanted to give you fix locals the scoop on how it went down.


you know I don't lie. Misinformed or ignorant once every decade. :)

But I never lie on purpose. I am a real christian. Good luck and God Bless. Everybody. See you later. Hopefully I don't come back here until after sc. Hopefully I won't need to. :)

Tesla, did you do your homework (read the archieves)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

""Imagine my rage on saturday. you people know me pretty good. imagine me at the cacues run by hillary supporters. do you think I put up a stink at all?"

rufus, Did you, at any time, feel it necessary to shout "Don't tase me, bro"?


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 11:46 AM
"

all the hillary signs and stickers by the people running the cacues made me feel as though I was tazed, emotionally. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Imagine my rage on saturday. you people know me pretty good. imagine me at the cacues run by hillary supporters. do you think I put up a stink at all?"

rufus, Did you, at any time, feel it necessary to shout "Don't tase me, bro"?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Or they don't vote because they are not represented. Most americans don't vote. Why? Because most americans are not represented. Is that the american people's fault? Or the political establishments fault? If they are not representing american , who and what are they representing?

I told a girl there I had never voted. why? the youth has never been represented in my lifetime. That is quite a statement for a country that is supposed to be run by the people.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

'they're thinking they don't need some bleached Beltway book writer '

i think you're far too kind, proud.. bleached, botoxed, nipped, tucked, enhanced, rebuilt and re-engineered would be more like it. meooow...

'Pocket change compared to what has been said about the Clintons...'

yep, clinton derangment syndrome is quite amazing in its intensity.

'What makes you think that right-wing talking heads have any integrity at all?'

why i don't, blarg. none at all. that's why it'd hard for me to beleive they would support someoe with even a modicum of integrity themselves.

'How appropriate we have this conversation on this day, but alas, how inappropriate it is that the language of fear and cynicism holds grip in American hearts at the same time.'

indeed, optimyst, indeed. i enjoy your posts. you would be well-liked in my little community.

dave, i'm pretty puzzled about the kerry edwards bumper sticker here phenom here too. overwhelming dem community, so it wasn't surprising 4 years ago, but now?

bsimon, how old were you when reagan was prez?

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"Rufus, I believe your description in every detail, because I remember that same scenario when the TX caucuses were split between the forces of Connally and the forces of Yarborough - and whichever side got the enforcement power screwed the other.

A good argument for primaries, and against caucuses.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 11:11 AM
"

Yeah. It seemed a waste of time. Also, the process was not fair in the slightest. If everyone went under the hood, rather than given hillary or obama stickers at the door, then obama would have done better. No obama supporters I saw were pressured. At all. I can't say the same thing about the clinton supporters.

Like with the gop (clinton included) and religon, like the gop and democracy overseas. Trying to force their will at the threat of violence or other factors (econmic), is not freedom. It is slavery. I wish we had a system were everyone HAD to vote. Free to vote for whoevr they choose with no external influences (media, the campaigns). If that ever happens. The gop (clinton incldued) would be wiped away from politics. The will of the people would be done. We can get there one day. This is the internet age. How easy would it be to have locations were people can vote?

The problem becomes when the people feel their vote doesn't matter. Or their vote won't get through. as is now. Imagine my rage on saturday. you people know me pretty good. imagine me at the cacues run by hillary supporters. do you think I put up a stink at all? :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"BHO's kind words for Reagan, historically perceptive in my view, were treated with disdain by Ds."

Not just disdain, but a bit of misrepresentation as well. Obama's comments about Reagan were that he was able to take advantage of a unique opportunity in our history & build new coalitions. HRC characterized the comment as being supportive of Reagan's policies, which it was not. That says a lot about her, in my opinion, though it does little more than confirm what I already think.

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

dave writes
"Not to dampen your parade, but McCain is light on immigration, campaign finance reform and some would argue national security. Some of that might play well in the GE but it will not rally the troops and draw out the base."

What I wrote last night about the Dems is equally applicable to the Repubs. They have apparently forgotten what kind of leader Reagan was. He was light on immigration, for certain. Publicly, he was anti-Iran, but privately he was willing to deal with them. After cutting taxes too much, he raised them again. He even dealt with Gorby - the evil empire.

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Mark,
On the way to work this AM the one bumper sticker I saw was a Kerry/Edwards on a newer model car! It has to be a protest thing or something. I just don't know. No other signs or bumperstickers.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Claudia,

I'm a 54 year old Orlando CPA who has never lost his progressive idealistic values. I'm treasurer of my Episcopal Church, fighting against conservative forces trying to split from the national church over the gay bishop issue. I'm also treasurer of a not for profit counseling center and a museum.

I voted for McGovern as a 19 year old and last week's vote for Obama was the first time since 1972 that I've had a chance to vote for a candidate with as much excitement.

I'd like there to be (at least) one election in my lifetime where I can vote in the general election for a progressive candidate who wins. It hasn't happened yet in my voting lifetime. It is a long dry spell. Do republicans even understand how long they have shut progressives out of the White House? They think Carter and Clinton were liberals, so they don't even understand the pent up frustration we progressives feel.

I see the chance for 2008 to be a return to the path our country was on when in 1968 assassins took from us the best leaders our country had to offer in Martin and Bobby. How appropriate we have this conversation on this day, but alas, how inappropriate it is that the language of fear and cynicism holds grip in American hearts at the same time.

No, I am not a professional writer, just one in touch with his idealism and passions. May hope win this day as well as this election year.

Posted by: optimyst | January 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

dave, thanks for your replies.

I am very hopeful that McC will survive this process and be the R nominee. I also hope that he will pick a VP I could support in case the worst occurs.

But I am continually frustrated by hearing that nobody seriously dislikes McC more than "conservatives."
---------------------
BHO's kind words for Reagan, historically perceptive in my view, were treated with disdain by Ds.
-------------------------
I just do not know how anybody builds a working coalition without independents and I am always frustrated by the parties, as reflected in my two points, above.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Rufus - "Oh, and I got obama some delegates. The edwards supporters were undecided. A couple went undecided. I got a few with my "YES WE CAN" shout. Turned the tide. I made a small differance."

Sounds like you had fun and made a difference. Won't you feel good if it comes to the convention and Obama wins by a delegate or two?

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Ruf, there is plenty of stuff for you to comment about without engaging tesla2 and ruining a perfectly good thread.

I appeal to your better instincts here.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I think, on balance, the JRE vote nationally would be strongly BHO's, but I do not know about the southeast. Would like to hear from a D in AL or MS or LA about that.

But, on balance, if I were running BHO's canpaign, after SC I would make a serious behind the scenes totally private run at the JRE campaign folks and JRE himself.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: I think you're giving Limbaugh and Hannity too much credit. They'll just change their minds and support McCain, if McCain is the Republican nominee. And they'll say that they've always supported McCain, because McCain is a good Republican. What makes you think that right-wing talking heads have any integrity at all?

Posted by: Blarg | January 21, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

" Ironically, it looks like the hard-core Democrats aren't interested in building new coalitions, they are interested in sticking it to the GOP. While such a mentality is understandable - given the recent (decade and a half) political environment, it still seems somewhat shortsighted. Look over at the befuddled set of GOP candidates - they're fighting to bear the mantle of Reagan. They want to be the 2nd coming of the guy who won a couple landslide elections, not by appealing to the party base, but by building new coalitions - including those Reagan Democrats"

Excellant diagnosis simon. Sorry I'm going thorugh the old post before blogging for you tesla. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"Edward helps Obama both in SC and beyond.
Edward splits the "Walmart" crowd (which is Hillary's stronger base) not the Starbuck's crowd (which is Obama's base and the majority of the WAPO readers). I think the reason Hillary Clinton won Nevada is because people that would have voted for Edwards went for Hillary."

Not ay my location. At my location their were only four edwards supportes, the cacues at my location was split in thirths. Two of those four went undecided, two went for obama. For those doing the math at home, none went for hillary. I doubt this would happen, as edwards is runnign agaisnt hillary as the establishment.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"it would amount to eating a big fat crow sandwich, after all the nasty things he's said about McCain over the years."

Pocket change compared to what has been said about the Clintons...

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The Rush Limbags and Mann Coulters of the world will soon realize that Republicans of all stripes do not follow lockstep with what they say!

After witnessing Coulter's abusrd multi-channel Mitt-tainment crusade yesterday, one has to wonder...how much money are they paying her? At one point she said "I just don't know what Rs are thinking if they're voting for John McCain".

They're thinking they don't need some bleached Beltway book writer who has never served this country a day in her life telling them how to vote, that's what!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Mark - "So I do not know any Rs who would stay home for McC. My circle is obviously too small."

I think that turnout will be key as the country appears so evenly divided. Based on turnout data from the primarys, Dems seem more energized and likely to turnout at this point. For people that normally vote, I don't think that McCain will cause them to sit home. My position is that for R's to have any shot at winning, they will need to get people that are not serial voters to the booth. I just don't see how McCain does that.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, I believe your description in every detail, because I remember that same scenario when the TX caucuses were split between the forces of Connally and the forces of Yarborough - and whichever side got the enforcement power screwed the other.

A good argument for primaries, and against caucuses.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

'We're told many things couched in the language of fear and cynicism. It's so easy to think of politicians that they all were incubated in the mud, but if we really think that, aren't we doomed to the politics of partisan mediocrity?'

you're a good writer, optimyst. very good indeed. idealistic, too. how old are you, and do you write professionally?

'What then - start a write-in campaign for Norquist?'
bsimon, good question. dave, would rush really come around? it would amount to eating a big fat crow sandwich, after all the nasty things he's said about McCain over the years.

and rush, eating crow? well. and hannity, too. it would mean turning their backs on what they consider 'core' 'conservative' principles. so you got me. can true beleivers, zealouts like that be pragmatic? i don't know. it will be interesting to watch.

of course, to stop the person they hate above all others, perhaps a conversion is possible.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Proud,
Not to dampen your parade, but McCain is light on immigration, campaign finance reform and some would argue national security. Some of that might play well in the GE but it will not rally the troops and draw out the base.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

One more point on the hillary compaign runnign the cacues.

I saw them force a obama supporter to take a sign down. Yet clitnon supporters hade signs everywhere and buttons scarfs, all over. Voter suppression?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign is spining because it claims vicotry, in terms of delegates? Is that not a fact? Is it not a race for delegates? HAHAHAH. You show your cheerleading face cc.

In terms of the cacues. It's a testement to Senator Obama, that dispite the dirty tricks and the odds stacked against him he is doing as well as he is.

At my cacues location, for all bill and hillary's whining about the culinary union, half the people there were illegals for hillary in my neighborhood. Many signed up the same day. I saw two culinary workers there supporting obama. At least 40 illegals supporting clinton. So that little dirty trick the clintons tried was misdirection. To Ok their dirty CHEATING TACTICS, I would call it.

Also, the entire cacues was run by hillary supporters. When you show up the check in was with hillary supporters. hillary supporters took the count. hillary supporters allowed people to check in and not. AGAIN ALL OF THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE CACUES WERE HILLARY SUPPORTERS.

One of the two culinatry workers told me there were so many cliton supporters registering and runnign the show, she was scared to show her obama shirt. Is that the way this process is to work? My resolve is now strengthened seeing how curropt the system is. We no longer have democracy in america. The fight is to resotre it. Who stole our democracy? The gop (clinton included).

All she had was old people and illegals. The old people will die out. The illegals will have to go hime, or will become legal. They can cheat and play dirty games all they want. Eventually the people are going to speak. Maybe not this election, as the gop has dug themselves in like ticks. But one day we will get our democracy back.

Keep up the dirty tricks clintonites. You show your face. Hillary cannot win. You hillary supporters are sabotaging the democratic party. Maybe that is the plan. Clinton is gop after all. Continue the yale plan against the will of the people.

Gloat all you want cc and pink. For all the cheating and stackign teh deck , SHE STILL LOST NEVADA. HAHAHHAHAHAHA.

If you can't win doing what you did, how can you win in a leval playign feild?

I now know why so many people are turned off on politics. Why so many people say it's a waste of time. The results are for the most part not alterable. The system IS rigged.

Oh, and I got obama some delegates. The edwards supporters were undecided. A couple went undecided. I got a few with my "YES WE CAN" shout. Turned the tide. I made a small differance. If only there will millions more like me we could give this coutnry democracy again and be a nation governed by the people again. Oh the good old days. Democracy. Lost. We willget it back someday.

Just know hillary supporters. To play these games is to make the next generation of democrats not want to be involved in politics. Maybe theat is the plan. Less is more. I'm shooting for voting to be at around 80%. Is that possible? Only if the american people are represented. When will that happen? Time will tell. You can't lie spin discredit and cheat forever gop. Eventually yor going to have to acknowledge the old rules no longer apply

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 21, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

claudialong,
HRC vs McCain - who does Rush support? Obviously McCain (duh). Vs Obama? McCain due to Obama's policies. He would grudgingly come around.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Repubs would do well to remember who is the most electable general election R candidate. Will social conservatives be inspired to the vote for the pro-choice Giuiliani? No.

Will protestants and southern baptists be rallying around flip-flop Mitt, who ran as pro-choice and anti-2nd amendment in MA? Will his brand of conservatism - the kind where you say anything, including making hugely expensive bailout promises in Michigan to get votes - really cause people to come out in droves in November? No.

Mike Huckabee is light on foriegn policy and liberal on taxes...his evangelical appeal is not enough to rally the fiscal conservatives and the military hawks.

Our Republican coalition can and will rally behind the only viable general election candidate...John McCain.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

claudia, if its McCain v Obama, would he endorse Obama? I can't see him not taking a side. He certainly wouldn't back Clinton, if it becomes Clinton v McCain. What then - start a write-in campaign for Norquist?

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

A few weeks ago I said I'd likely vote for Hillary in the general election if she beats my candidate Obama. It's still early in the process, but I think it is a lot less likely that I could support her if Obama does not win the nomination.

And it isn't because of any differences on the issues. To me, all of the democratic candidates are acceptable on the issues.

I had left the democratic party and registered independent (in Florida where closed primaries kept me from participating.) I left because of my disgust with the nature of party politics and the means candidates of both parties use to get elected and re-elected.

I reluctantly returned because I wanted to participate in my small way in the movement crafted and led by Barack Obama. His campaign is focused on the positive values of hope and change. Left unprovoked, he wouldn't even mention the other campaigns. But apparently, small-bore campaigns find his message extremely unsettling to their plans. So we've had to witness the tactics of deception and smear within our party. We've seen that a top down campaign can rally the troops and bloody a movement of young idealists.

We're told Obama's too black, or not black enough. We're told he did drugs even though he told us that already in his best-selling books where we can get to know who he is and what he stands for. We're told he's a muslim, yet are instructed to visit his Christian church's website. We're told that all the democratic candidates are for ending the war in Iraq, but the one who opposed it from the beginning is too inexperienced. We're told that Hillary funded the war to show her support for the troops, but Obama's identical votes were a repudiation of his antiwar stance. We're told many things couched in the language of fear and cynicism. It's so easy to think of politicians that they all were incubated in the mud, but if we really think that, aren't we doomed to the politics of partisan mediocrity? Is THAT what this is all about? Is this why we flip mindlessly from Bush dynasty to Clinton dynasty as if under the influence of some narcotic IV drip?

We're told that big dreams are nothing but false hopes, and we wonder whether the White House will ever again be home to an inspiring leader who can solve problems that grow more intractable every day. We wonder after our experiences watching the apathy and cynicism grow over the decades whether we'll see the walls of Jericho come tumbling down in time for it to matter to an America becoming too far removed from the greatness of its ideals.

And I wonder if maybe I'll be voting for a third party candidate this fall.

Posted by: optimyst | January 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,
I would not label it "viceral hatred" for most R's, I would term it "lack of enthusiasm". I think the party would come around but there is a difference between coming around and enthusiastically supporting. McCain, as decent a person as he is, does not get the R base excited.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

'Wouldn't Rush, et al, come around to McCain if he were to win the nomination?'

bsimon--i don't think so. i have listened to him [in small bits] on my car radio for years -- the mass pathology is kinda fascinating, like a car wreck--and McCain to hm is benedict arnold. he broke some sacred commandments... like 'thou shall not stifle the ability of corporations to buy an election.' rush is about money, period. huge stock market holdings, particularly weapons and oil. close buddy with grover norquist, et all. hates taxes/government, wants no government, not good government.

So McCain is simply anathema, poison to him.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that main stream media is completely ignoring Ron Paul? Your blog is just one of many sources that make no mention of the fact that Paul beat Guiliani again.
Was the Washington Post bought by Fox and we just weren't informed?

Posted by: donalfitterer | January 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I have spent years defending Bill Clinton, both during his presidency and afterwards. Now, with the disgraceful way he is manipulating Obama's statements, through using incomplete quotes and out-and-out misquotes, I have no more slack to cut for Bill. He has always been a liar, but, somehow, I tried to look past his lying problem because (1) his lies were about personal matters, such as his cheating on his wife, and (2) I believed that he was out fighting for the middle and lower classes. In fact, when I now look back on Clinton's record, I see Clinton as a politician who consistently co-opted the Republicans' issues, such as welfare reform, to remain in power, and that he, in reality, did nothing for me and my economic peers. His presidency was all about himself. Now, in this election, he is doing and saying ANYTHING, including OUTRIGHT LIES, to get his wife elected. It's about his wife, but, mainly, IT"S ALL ABOUT BILL TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE. BILL CLINTON IS A DISGRACE, HIS WIFE IS EITHER 100% COMPLICIT OR CAN'T CONTROL HIM (EITHER WAY SPELLS BIG TROUBLE). BILL CLINTON WILL GET NO MORE SUPPORT FROM ME, HIS LEGACY IS NOW PERMANENTLY TARNISHED, AND I AM NOW GOING TO POUR 100% OF MY SUPPORT TO BARACK OBAMA, a modern-day DAVID going against the tag-team Clinton GOLIATH!!!

Posted by: bdoughtie | January 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I am thinking my R friends and acquaintances are businesspeople and lawyers and doctors and engineers and technical and insurance salespeople and brokers - and one Pentecostal Minister.

Issue by issue, save abortion with the minister, I can talk to all of them. In fact, I have a harder time talking to
my most liberal friends who are
faculty at UT, issue by issue.
The law school, business, and engineering faculty members are
not included in this defamatory statement, of course.


So I do not know any Rs who would stay home for McC. My circle is obviously too small.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

NOW it is Obama v. Bill Clinton - doesn't that marginalize hillary? doesn't that elevate Obama?

this is too much.


Bill has to get out and let Hillary take the center spotlight, I think they were messing with the election in New Hampshire, demanding the polls close early in Nevada - what is going on - they must be so desperate - these are desperate desperate moves - they are really really worried about Obama's momentum coming out of South Carolina

It's going to be like the movie "No Way Out" - can you make the recount in New Hampshire go slower?


Please, Please............

Posted by: Miata7 | January 21, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

claudialong - "why do people who dislike obama call him 'barry'?"

My guess is for former DC Mayor Marion Barry who had some, shall we say, drug issues. Having been a resident of the DC area my whole life and getting a front row seat to the soap opera that was (some would argue is) DC politics when Barry was mayor, I can tell you that comparisons with the former DC mayor are hugely unfair. Mayor Barry is in a class all his own. Youthful drug indescretions (assuming that is the extent) do not compare in any way, shape or form.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

dave writes
"Voter turnout for R's has been troubling to say the least, a McCain nomination does not help that."

That surprises me. I still don't understand the visceral hatred held for McCain by so many GOPers. Wouldn't Rush, et al, come around to McCain if he were to win the nomination?

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

dave is right that McCain has serious enemies on the far right. rush llimbaugh hates him even more than he does huckabee. he is pushing hard for romney -- baad sign for rudy, as he was a major cheerleader before.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Interesting take, Dave, and because I do not know any far right people well I have to take your words seriously.

How big a group of far right voters would react as you suggest?

Do you think the far right in the R Party will kill McC in the first instance by blocking him at the Convention?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Mark writes
"I think McC is not ignoring coalition building. I even think MDH is not ignoring it"

That is true. In my head, I was thinking primarily of Rudy, Mitt & Fred, but didn't bother typing out the distinction. A sloppy post on my part, in that regard.

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

zepol61 - on McCain - "Should he secure the nomination, the far right will step in line. What other choice do they have..."

They can stay home and probably will. Voter turnout for R's has been troubling to say the least, a McCain nomination does not help that. And I am not sure that a HRC nomination would help - a additional group of people might just decide to sit this one out.

Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I think McC is not ignoring coalition building. I even think MDH is not ignoring it - he is going to Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta, today.

WMR and RG have run as GWB extensions until recently, and WMR continues to say GWB "kept us safe".

Sure.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

don't apologize, mark, your posts are ALWAYS interesting. never a dull moment. this site is kind of addictive -- so aptly named. it's good to have a place wher we political junkies can share our dark affliction.

'I wasn't really a history professor, it is what I would be if I could start over.'

thank you for that, jimd. funny, i'm about your age and have the same thoughts too. wonder if we all do?' what if'

i would have wanted to be an anthropologist or linquist. actually i did try to be an anthropologist, but my college conselor said he hoped i had a trust fund, otherwise, don't even think about it...

'What is truly comical, is that they're fighting to be Bush's third term, but call themselves the 2nd coming of Reagan, '

isn't it strange? none of them [except pauliewalnuts] would do anything differently than bush, yet they all say they're reagan... does anyone beleive this?


Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

lyle,

I simply must hope you are incorrect and that the gender
and color issues are not enough to change an election, if all
the candidates are otherwise credible to broad political constituencies.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

lyle says, of W & the GOP
"They surely will put as much distance from him as possible from now on into the GE."

I thought that would have happened already, which it sortof has and sortof hasn't. On the one hand, none of the candidates are advertising themselves as the 3rd term of Bush 43. But on the other, they're stumbling over each other in an effort to be the most willing to torture, to rattle sabers at Iran and to make permanent inappropriate tax cuts. What is truly comical, is that they're fighting to be Bush's third term, but call themselves the 2nd coming of Reagan, while ignoring the coalition-building that Reagan did. They pander the base while claiming to be the man that attracted voters far beyond the base. Its pretty comical, if you can ignore that they actually have a chance of becoming President...

Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Mark: I meant to say that although GW will not on the ticket, he will be in the minds of a lot of folks, because everyone of the hopefuls have backed him almost 100% of the time. They surely will put as much distance from him as possible from now on into the GE. Yes, skin color does make a difference to a lot of folks, as well as gender, but sadly very few will admit it.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I apologize for so much posting - the holiday is idling me and you know who makes work for idle hands.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Jim, I got the point about Southern Ds feeling free to switch parties under Reagan, and I remember it well.

In TX it began earlier, of course - with LBJ's right hand, John Connally. So we saw that movement here in an earlier non-racist light. Connally had served as SecTreas for Nixon, who hero worshipped him, and he led Ds for Nixon in '72. He opposed Tower's run for Senate, but when Tower won again, he switched to the R Party for good. Many TX Ds followed and it was largely a hawk movement out.

drindl, I read that recited post and I wonder if Romney can
become viable among independents by sounding on economic concerns, while he loses conservatives.

Like JimD, I think only BHO and McC have broad appeal - RG and WMR could have had it, too. For me, RG lost luster first because of your posts, but finally because of Podhoretz. For me, WMR lost luster by his oh so bold pandering and then from Blarg and Boko's posts, and finally by saying he wanted to double the size of Gitmo. Seamus did not help, either.

But some people have not been paying attention, and a businessman running on reviving the economy could sound sweet.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

drindl

Didn't mean to send that, wasn't finished.

Thank you for the kind words.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 21, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

drindl

I wasn't really a history professor, it is what I would be if I could start over. I guess I didn't phrase that well - should have said I am a frustrated history professor.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 21, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

why do people who dislike obama call him 'barry'? it was his childhood nickname. so what? i recall there was a guy named 'barry' goldwater and that wasn't a problem for anyone.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

jimd -- military and a history professor? you have had quite a distinguished career. thank you for taking the time to post your 'lessons' -- i really have learned a lot from you.

there were long periods when i was working long long hours and partying long hours -- and then later being a mom-- when i paid little attention to politics or history.

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

A clinton supporter calling Obama a sleazeball is pretty cheeky. Does the country want to see the Clinton soap opera for another 4-8 years? I certainly don't.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

dpand1, your cites are incomplete and provide dead ends. If you want them read, please fix them.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

mark,

I know, I was commenting on the Southern re-alignment from Democrat to Republican. It had actually started in 1948 at the presidential level. But it was Reagan, and the conservative takeover of the GOP, that spurred Southern Democrats to become Republicans below the presidential level. It really wasn't unil the 1980's that party affiliation really started changing and Reagan was instrumental in that.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 21, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

My 9:39A should have read

"...red and purple states where they actually have a chance to gain ground."

In blue states HRC might help down ticket because of energizing new voters among the female majority, presumably largely D in a blue state.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama attacking Bill Clinton? Saying Hillary Clinton won a dirty victory in NV?

Obama can't be trusted after this. He is the sleazy soutside Chicago politician. All his pretty words can't change that. He is corrupt.

Meet Obama's fried and supporter Tony Rezco:

http://www.suntimes.com/stng_article.search?pag...

Meet Obama's friend, mentor and pastor (and advocate and support of Farrahkan):

http://www.suntimes.com/stng_article.search?pag...

Now there are reports that his supporters tried to imtimidate union voters in Nevada who wanted to vote for Clinton. Par for the course for the sleazeball Barry Obama.

Obama isn't different and there is not movement. He is an African American politician that has proven he can't win the latino vote, the union vote, the Catholic vote, the Jewish vote, the female vote, or the white vote. He doesn't transcend anything.

Posted by: dpand1 | January 21, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Jim also said:

"It is no accident that red and purple state elected officials are mostly lining up behind Obama."

The fear of HRC at the top of the ticket has been personally expressed to me by the single leading D operative in TX. I can only guess how afraid Ds are in states where they actually have a chance to gain ground.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

jimd, that was a terrific short history lesson and exactly on the mark.

But the folks we refer to as "Reagan Democrats" were the ethnic and union voters who broke ranks in 1980, although some of them had already followed Nixon on the "law and order" and "national security"issues of that time.

These voters were found in the northeast and the middle west, and to the extent they were Catholic, shared the anti-abortion views of southern evangelicals. But they did not
leave the Ds on race.

The Reagan Ds were the most hawkish Ds, as well. The early neocons were generally former Wilsonian Ds.

I think of Jeanne Kirkpatrick here among the Reagan insiders.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

'Ron Paul challenges the establishment - I always thought that journalists prided themselves in sticking it to "the man" whenever possible. Why not take a hard look at what the man has to say before completely ignoring him?'

I agree with you that MSM is going waaaay out of their way to pretend RP doesn't exist. As far though, as the press 'sticking it to the man' that was over years ago. Now they lick boots to get 'access.' They are pampered and handfed by candidates. the whole idea of a credible and 'free' press, the way the founders envisioned it, passed about 20 years ago as independent papers were taken over by larger and larger franchises. What happens if even a big paper like the NYTimes, publishes a story the admin doesn't like? They get a call from someone in the WH and whimper and apologize declare loudly they shouldn't have done it.

Sorry, CC, it isn't your fault. It's the system you were born into.
I might add that there are a couple good ones lieft, like McClatchy.

here's a good overview they posted of major conservative
bloggers view of how the elction is going:

"National security pretty much dominated the debates leading up to primary season, but now, if Romney's success in Michigan prompts more and more candidate attention to economic issues," Byron York writes at National Review's Corner, "the campaign will take on a new, decidedly post-war-on-terror feel. And if that happens, it will probably go in directions that few conservatives are happy with. When candidates start talking about easing voters' pain, there's no telling what they will promise."

Posted by: drindl | January 21, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

bsimon

Well said!! I would add that neither party has a majority and independent, swing voters will be required to fashion a winning coalition. Obama has far more support among those voters (of which I am one) than Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has far more support there than any other Republican contender. As a centrist, swing voter I can tell you I will vote for McCain against Clinton.

mark - I voted for Andersen too. Reagan did accelerate the formal migration of Southern Democrats to the Republican party. Prior to that many Southern Democrats remained DINOs but voted R for President. He also brought a number of Southern Democratic politicians into the Republican party.

The first sign of Southern defections actually came in 1948 when Strom Thurmond led a bloc of Southerners who bolted from the Democratic convention because the Democrats adopted a very mild civil rights platform. There was also resentment over Truman's order to integrate the Armed Forces. Eisenhower carried several states in the Southeast in both 1952 and 1956.

Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia and Florida all supported Nixon over Kennedy in 1960. 'None of the above' (a slate of unpledged electors) eked out a plurality in Mississippi. Undoubtedly, anti-Catholic prejudice played a role there. Goldwater carried 5 deep South states in 1964 basically because he voted against the Civil Rights Act.

George Wallace carried 5 deep South states in 1968, some with over 60% of the vote. In three others, Humphrey finished third. 1976 was the last gasp of the "Solid South" - for the Democrats anyway. With a Southerner heading the ticket, Carter swept the Southern states.

Throughout this period, Southerners were electing Democrats to almost every single office while usually voting Republican for President. This trend really accelerated in 1964 through 1972 (although Wallace's candidacy clouded the picture). The difference Reagan made is that Republicans began to be elected to Congress and to state offices. Conservative, Southern Democrats began switching their party affiliation, a trend which continued into the early 1990's when the Republicans captured Congress became the last straw for some conservative Democrats. Of course, while this was going on the Republican Party turned much further to the right. The emergence of politicized evangelicals also accelerated this trend. There are far more of them in the South than any other part of the country. The culture wars brought them into the Republican party.

Liberal Republicans (yes young folks there used to be quite a few of them) like Jacob Javits, Chuck Percy, Edward Brooke were defeated or retired. Some, like John Lindsay, switched to the Democratic party. Now I think the Southern-ization of the GOP is turning off many voters, especially in the West. Kansans have started to turn against the extreme social conservatism of the state GOP. There could be a realignment coming. I think Hillary Clinton is so demonized that she would be totally unable to keep this trend going. It is no accident that red and purple state elected officials are mostly lining up behind Obama.

If any of the regulars haven't guessed by now, I was a history professor in a past life.


Posted by: jimd52 | January 21, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Lyle, at 8:50A you made the comparison between the nation' fatigue with the failed presidency of Carter and the failed presidency of GWB.

I agree that the "mood" seems similar. But Carter was on the ballot in 1980, and GWB will not be. That may be a significant difference.

From your comment about racial politics, should I assume that you see BHO as hurt by his skin color in WV?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The press and the Clintons tried to spin it that it would be a cake walk for Obama but, I never felt he would win Nevada.
For one, you have the latinos who are very much a people who like the status quo. the familiar.
You have polling up through friday that never showed Obama in the lead or close to Clinton.
On top of it you have Bill out of control and lying all the time.
Anyone who thought, if they put two and two together, that Obama would win Nevada is not paying attention or relying too much on spin.

Posted by: vwcat | January 21, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee's concession speech here Saturday night dropped some enticing hints that his presidential campaign now has an agenda other than getting elected president.Huckabee's new role: Mitt-killer.

Would a McCain / Huckabee be the kiss of death for Romney, and seal the Republican Nomination?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1597

.

Posted by: PollM | January 21, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Mark: I think Reagan won mostly because Carter was not a good Prez. This time I think it will be a lot like 1980, only the difference being the Repubs have stuck by GW on about everything, and will do the same with anyone the Repubs nominate. The Dems will not back Obama, especially in the south, and that is why I think Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 08.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

The gain of the south as an R base occurred before Reagan.

Reagan brought ethnic working class voters into the R Party, in part because he had a message that was hopeful, simplistic, and not the "same-old same-old".

I thought it was hype in 1980 for an actor to give glowing optimistic speeches promising to get "gummint" off our backs. So I voted for John Anderson.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Mcfield, the reason people talk about reagan democrats is because if you take a look at the electoral map breakdown in 1980 you will see that reagan won most states (43 to be exact). He won the popular vote 51 to 41 vs carter and took every region of the country. The last 2 elections show us that basically a standard democrat vs republican race will split the votes based on geograpy and it will be fairly close. Reagan (to his credit) was able to take enough votes in each state from the base case in order to create a majority that lead to huge electoral success.

Posted by: jhu663 | January 21, 2008 5:55 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is ignored because his ideas aren't fresh, they're Libertarian Party boilerplate. A few Libertarian ideas sound good at first hearing, but any probing at all into them shows the observer that they aren't workable. Unless they finally decide to moderate their platform, the Libertarians (which includes Ron Paul intellectually, if not officially), will never top 5% or so.

I have a seriously difficult time imagining anyone besides McCain or Giuliani winning the Republican nomination. Huckabee is openly running for President of a theocracy, and Romney is a member of a religion that is too secretive about their own beliefs to survive a serious Presidential campaign. Part of the reason McCain is doing better now is simply that he's still standing--he doesn't have as serious a downside as the other major candidates. As for the "Reagan coalition": I have a suspicion that Ronald Reagan would suffer the same kind of attacks were he running today that the current candidates are. He gave little more than lip service to most of the "moral issues" that animate many ardent conservatives. He never made any serious moves against abortion rights, was divorced (not to mention his second wife was 2 months pregnant when they got married). In fact, McCain is the New Reagan in many ways, plus he's a genuine War Hero.

I wouldn't make too much of the idea that Bill Clinton is "fighting (his wife's) battles." He's a campaign operative, performing classic campaign operative moves. It may not always be pretty or heroic, but we'll forget how it's made when we finally get to eat the delicious sausage.

Posted by: Budikavlan | January 21, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

While it MAY be true that Ron Paul will not win, I still cannot understand why his candidacy is often ignored. He is not a bumpkin or a kook; he is a long time US Congressman with an excellent intellect and challenging ideas. His speeches and debates are worth listening to, even if you do not agree. His writing is a bit detailed dense, but his thoughts are complete ones that show that he cares deeply about America's history and future.

I hope that more political reporters will forget the lessons given to them by sports writers back in journalism school. Choosing a leader for the next four years should not be about "front runners", individual gold and silver medals, or momentum in a rigged system. It should include at least a semblance of discussion about ideas and ideals like freedom, liberty, and responsibility.

Ron Paul challenges the establishment - I always thought that journalists prided themselves in sticking it to "the man" whenever possible. Why not take a hard look at what the man has to say before completely ignoring him?

Posted by: rod.adams | January 21, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

Hey Cris,

Often people talk about "Regan Democrats" and how he had this ability to "reach across" to form this coalition. But if my memory serves me correctly, most of these "democrats" were southern democrats whose only reason for voting democratic was a vote against Abe Lincoln's republican party. After the Civil Rights movement, lead by democrats, many of these "democrats" were mad with the party. When Regan in 1980 made his "state's rights" speech, it was code that he was more like them and would roll back some of the gains made by the Civil rights movement (Remember, some schools did not begin to allow African Americans until the 70s and blatant racism existed in both the "south" and in northern states like Chicago).
That is why the south has been mainly solidly republican since then.

My question is did Regan really reach out to democrats that we would consider democrats today?

Posted by: mcfield | January 21, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

I am still waiting for our political representatives to take a more vocal stance on the reduction of global poverty during their campaigns. Just recently Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act in the Senate, but we do not hear him speak much about that type of foreign policy. According to the Borgen Project, 19 billion dollars would eliminate starvation globally.

Posted by: clnygard | January 21, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Hi Chris, great coverage as usual.
I have one issue I have with your coverage and the medias coverage in general.

When you say "The idea that South Carolina is now a "must-win" for Obama is overstated. Because of the strong African American vote in the state," does that mean that you actually believe race is a factor when it comes to African American votes particularly when it comes to Obama?

I think it's more likely that people are voting for Barack Obama because he is a new trusting face that has support across the racial and gender board, and that Democrats
and Republicans are a bit un-trusting of the same old faces in Washington, DC.

In the end I can tell you this about me.
I am of multi ethnicity, many people would call me black because of the color of my skin "ODD", so I wonder if you think my vote for Barack Obama has something to do with my skin color or values i believe he has and Clinton lacks?

Whats the verdict friend?
VB

Posted by: vicbennettnet | January 20, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

lpeter59 writes
"I am sick of hearing democrats (really republicans) declare over and over that if Hillary wins, they will vote for someone else. I say do it and shut up about it. No one cares."

You should care. Ever heard of Reagan Democrats? That's a term historians use to refer to loyal Democrats that voted for Reagan because their party was on the wrong track. Of course, the way the situation stands now, the Democratic party stands to convert boatloads of Republicans in the same fashion - if they nominate somebody who can present a compelling vision to the country and rise above the partisan bickering that we've had for about 15 years now. Ironically, it looks like the hard-core Democrats aren't interested in building new coalitions, they are interested in sticking it to the GOP. While such a mentality is understandable - given the recent (decade and a half) political environment, it still seems somewhat shortsighted. Look over at the befuddled set of GOP candidates - they're fighting to bear the mantle of Reagan. They want to be the 2nd coming of the guy who won a couple landslide elections, not by appealing to the party base, but by building new coalitions - including those Reagan Democrats.

So, lpeter59, you might want to sit back and think long and hard. Think about the elections of 2000 and 2004, and how the Dems, twice in a row, failed to beat the legacy frat boy. Then think back to 1980 and 1984 and try to figure out what it was that made people cross party lines - in significant numbers - and vote for the other team. And then, at last, sit and think about your 11:04 post, where you tell self-professed Dems to 'stick it' (I paraphrase) when they say they won't vote for Sen Clinton, should she be the nominee.

What kind of election do you think your party is setting itself up for? Which kind would you prefer?

Posted by: bsimon | January 20, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

It's hardly sexist to see big trouble for Hillary in a general election. Just as it isn't racist to understand the challenge that Obama would face.

Personally, I'm for the last Dem standing, but I hope that person isn't damaged goods, because we know the Republicans will show no mercy in personal attacks, lies and innuendo.

Who's the best person to carry the progressive Democratic standard? Who will last?

Posted by: zinger1 | January 20, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

I am sick of hearing democrats (really republicans) declare over and over that if Hillary wins, they will vote for someone else. I say do it and shut up about it. No one cares.

Elections are about choosing the better of the two candidates. It is impossible and illogical for you to know that Hillary, in all cases, would be the worse choice.

The only thing that you can be sure of, right now, is that she is a woman. This is what I believe this is really about.

If your sexist beliefs prevent you from waiting and deciding who the best choice for the country is, your "opinion" to me is biased and worthless.

Posted by: lpeter59 | January 20, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

The irrepressible desire of the so-called "conservatives" who have taken over the Republican Party to reduce this country to a semi-feudal, third world society is so great that they are sure to nominate Romney, Huckabee or Paul. The only question is whether of over the strategy for regressing the country. Intensified plutocracy(Romney), the medieval Fair Tax (Huckabee) or returning to the gold standard and limiting the federal government's operations to hunting down and executing women who have abortions (Paul).
What a freak show.

Posted by: mnjam | January 20, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

"one-on-one fight with someone positioned to his ideological right (Romney perhaps)"

Chris, what are you talking about? Romney to McCain's right? How do you figure? Romney is the most liberal candidate out there, no matter what Rush, George Will, or Hannity refuse to expose about him.

Romney raised taxes $700 million as governor, favored a woman's right to choose, "supported" Massachusetts tough gun laws and the Brady Bill, offered Michigan a $20 billion bailout of the auto industry, lost manufacturing jobs at rate of 14% from 2002-2006 as governor (twice the national average), passed Romneycare in 2006 which socialized Massachusetts' health care system and taxed people $219 for not joining, and of course he just outright lies about it all.

Name me ONE CONSERVATIVE THING that MITT ROMNEY has EVER done in government?

Posted by: donttreadonme | January 20, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

pamela, I wonder if you know about this and can comment.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=261

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 20, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Poli Sci prof Jim Campbell is not the only one to point out that McCain did better in 2000. See
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/20/3476170.html.

"Actually, John McCain got far more votes in South Carolina in 2000 than he did yesterday. He did better in 2000 against George Bush--except for not winning. In 2000, McCain drew 237,888 votes in South Carolina, 42 percent of the total against 301,050 for Bush, 53 percent. In 2008, McCain drew only 143,224 votes in South Carolina, 33 percent of the total."

Also: "Speaking of Dems, nothing has cropped up in 'news analysis' pieces so far about Bill Clinton's effect on motivation and turnout in Vegas and surrounding areas. These being the Clintons, they are smoke-screening their own tactics with accusations--false, it might be noted--that Obama supporters were trying vote suppression against Vegas casino workers.

Of course, the large media outlets are also still saying nothing about the vote anomalies in New Hampshire."

Posted by: margie.burns | January 20, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Christopher-Keane, you're spot-on. Bill Clinton is playing lowball politics in order to move back to the White House. It's a disgrace to his legacy and he's taking his wife down with him.

I wish I could be more optimistic about South Carolina for Obama but I heard that Bill's planning to go door to door in black neighborhoods, just as he and Terry McAuliffe trolled outside casino caucus sites. Well, I hope at least a few good Democrats slam the door in his face.

Another thought - if Hillary's so strong, why is her husband fighting her battles???

Posted by: GordonsGirl | January 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I got a kick out the one silly little poster who claims that everyone but Ron Paul is a "short term thinker", and will "change the facade".
At least Ross Perot got to be a footnote, Ron Paul will not even become that.
I think Obama has the makings of a great man, but I will never vote for a person who campaigns, promising to kowtow to our enemies in time of war. How much hope has he given Al Queda by doing that? How many Americans have died at the hands of Islamicists whose only hope for victory agains the US, was given to them in the campaign speaches of Hillary, Obama or Edwards?

Posted by: kesac | January 20, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Edward helps Obama both in SC and beyond.
Edward splits the "Walmart" crowd (which is Hillary's stronger base) not the Starbuck's crowd (which is Obama's base and the majority of the WAPO readers). I think the reason Hillary Clinton won Nevada is because people that would have voted for Edwards went for Hillary.

While Obama should be considered the favorite in SC, he is not a lock. Many African Americans like Hillary. Also, Whites cannot claim to want to move "beyond race" by electing Obama and still expect African Americans to vote for a candidate because he is African American. And PLEASE do not use the line that African Americans who vote for HRC are "sellouts" or "self-hating" African Americans. In fact, a large number of African Americans see that Obama is racially"

. Because Hillary does better with the Walmart crowd her support will always be underestimated and African Americans tend to be more like the Walmart crowd than the Starbucks crowd, even though I have a Mocha everyday!

Posted by: mcfield | January 20, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

The longer the race remains a multi-candidate affair the more muddled things get. Thompson will probably be dropping out soon - where do his voters go? Although he is a friend of McCain and was a big supporter in 2000, the profile of his voters does not match the profile of the voters McCain is getting.

I wonder how long Huckabee can remain in the race. He is under-funded and doesn't seem to be able to attract voters who are not conservative evangelicals.

Where Rudy goes if he loses Florida is another wild card. He should be in good shape in some of the February 5 states. However, in many of those states McCain is surging into the lead in polls.

SO, if February 5 leaves only McCain and Romney still standing, it could be problematic for McCain unless he takes a commanding lead in those contests. If the race narrows to McCain and Romney, I think Romney picks up most of Huckabee and Thompson supporters, even though I would guess that Huckabee and Thompson themselves would go to McCain over Romney.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 20, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Re-Rudy

There's one important point to remember. There are some winner take all primaries coming up, including in NY. Rudy picks up a plurality of a few big coastal states and he's a kingmaker.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean that Obama isn't a lock in SC? Can't imagine the black vote swapping after Nevada.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | January 20, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA surfaces in FEDERAL CORRUPTION case.www.chicagosuntimes.com

Posted by: sharhut | January 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Profile of Warren Harding: Not particularly industrious, not a particularly effective politician, not a particularly good public speaker, given to mumbled platitudes, to English excrescences that drove H. L. Menken to some of his best written insults in describing them, (but, apparently the originator of the descriptive phrase Founding Fathers), a man who would rather play poker with his cronies than anything else. Not particularly in consideration at the start of the Republican convention in 1920, but when none of the prominent leading candidates could get close enough to a majority of the delegates to be compromised on, mostly because they all had powerful enemies, the nominating committee pulled Harding aside and told him that they were looking at him as an alternative, and they needed to know if there were any particular scandals in his background that they should know about, Harding looked them straight in the eyes and told them a bald faced lie. Knowing that he had a child with his mistress, a fact not overly public outside of Marion OH, he said no.

When everybody with twenty percent or so of the committed delegates turns out to have too many enemies when the process convenes in Minnesota, the actual winner will probably look a lot like the incumbent, who looks amazingly like a WGH clone.

So if you want to know who will be the republican Standard bearer in the fall, find out who best looks like Harding among either the current crop, or among the lurkers in the wings. While you are at it, remember that GWB's VP is a lot like Silent Cal, except a whole lot more secretive.

Given that the Republicans were hugely successful with the combination in 1920, and in 2000, bet that they will go for it again in 2008.

Let's just hope that this time around the disgust with the current Administration that sank Cox and Roosevelt sinks WGH II and CC II. By at least the same landslide proportions. With the same effect on Congress.

Isn't History fun?

Posted by: ceflynline | January 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Interesting, chris, that you failed to note Romneys expenditure in SC exceeded all other candidates combined. He only departed for NV to change the subject. I do not, in any case, quite understand how he can mount a successful challenge to JMC from the right having originally been so far left??

Posted by: forces | January 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Elections yesterday, this morning no Fix. Dude.

Posted by: jennifermcbride | January 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has no more momentum than Mitt Romney (who will *not* get the nomination). Her Nevada win/tie will only serve to energize Obama's much broader appeal with Independents and even disgruntled Republicans. This time around, the Democrats will not shoot themselves in the foot like in 2000 and 2004, which is why Obama will win the nomination.

Posted by: katefranklin | January 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is toast.

Posted by: Bootenany | January 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain should be viewed as the frontrunner, even if he's challenged on the far right. His appeal to independents and moderates is much more important at this stage than winning over Christian conservatives. Should he secure the nomination, the far right will step in line. What other choice do they have? McCain should continue to appeal to the independent and moderate vote. That's his path to the presidency.

Posted by: zepol61 | January 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

imo counting states isn't helpful because there's a difference between a distant 2nd and a close 2nd. One doesn't get a sense of the momentum, or lack thereof. The important point in the Democratic race is that Obama and Clinton are both in strong positions.

Instead of discussing which way to count the primaries, perhaps you could display a running tally for each candidate on the number of:
--> delegates, states, votes
and let everyone decide which method 'counts' more.

Posted by: TomJx | January 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

It looks like to me the democratic party is headed for party suicide in wanting to nominate Hillary for president. I for one I'm not ready to go of the cliff with this party. After yesterday's result I went out and change my party indentification to independent. I've kissed the democratic party goodbye for good. America is not a kingdom, no more Clintons in the white house.

Posted by: lumi21us | January 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

On a day when the most memorable American speech of the past few decades may have been made at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, it is awkward to come back to base political calculation, but it has seemed from the start that a Obama-Richardson ticket was about the only thing out there to possibly counter the very well-entrenched Clinton operation. Obama needs Richardson's resumé and demographic to have any chance of getting through the primary season victorious. I found it very disappointing that Governor Richardson has not been more active since he ceased campaigning on his own behalf. I would encourage the Obama people to try to get him on board pronto. Nevada has to be a wake-up call: the Hispanic vote may be more monolithic than any other "block" in the polity. Obama can be Mr. 47%; flattering perhaps, but it just won't do. Besides, Richardson would be a good running mate. This is politics.

Posted by: rarignac | January 20, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to tell Bill Clinton he is not running for President...

Posted by: cjroses | January 20, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

regardless of whether Ron Paul wins or loses,


he changes the facade.


He brings up points that are obvious, but the stooges of INSIDER WASHINGTON

don't want to bother responding to.

they are short term thinkers that can not think past what is in their pants and their paycheck on Friday.

They pretend to be "ENTREPRENEURS," but they are lower class thinkers that come from connected families....

the dregs of the landed, who care less about their country than the lowest bums in NYC or workers in the kitchens in Dade Country Florida.


IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION, is their chant and mantra.

Ron Paul, like Ross Perot offers intellect and insight in an otherwise bare cupboard of intellect in the Republican Kampe.


Bill Clinton won in '92 because he considered what Perot had to say, and seeing the truth of it agreed. In effect borrowing.


No one owns the truth, however spinners seek to sell what doesn't exist


that is the bulk of the reason that america is tanking

lies
disinformation
collusion by families with foreign internationals to sell the united states out from underit'scitiizens as it marginalizesagreaterthaneverpercentageofthepopulationtoharvesttheirlivesin

an over weening sense of selfishness, in the 1/3 of 1 PERCENT, that pretend to be AMERICAN


when their destruction of AMERICA sayz otherwise.


.ptui.

.

Posted by: tesla2 | January 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul cannot win a national general election. A man who believes Social Security should cease to exist will not win a general election. He came in 2nd in Nevada, big whoop. With as much money as he has raised, if a 14% distant 2nd in Nevada is the best he has...he may as well quit now.

As far as McCain & problems with the conservative electorate: Florida will be a 4 way dance: McCain vs. Guiliani vs. Romney vs. Huckabee. My bet is that McCain will win Florida. That really would boost McCain as the new front runner and doom Guiliani's whole campaign. Huckabee has some states he can win on Feb. 5, and he will likely continue no matter what happens in Florida. Romney has the resources to compete in all 22 states on Feb. 5, so he will certainly continue. McCain now leads in California, New York, Pa & other states Guilini thinks he should win...including Florida. If Rudy loses in Florida, he may as well drop out and endorse McCain. I like McCains chances, alot!

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | January 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

No thoughts on Romney's fourth place showing in SC? Winning in Nevada is all well and good, but he can't rely on Mormons to lead him to victory in Florida and beyond. Are there any Feb 5th states that he can win without first winning Florida?

Posted by: cdlutz | January 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Among the GOP, who won 75% of the self-identified independents in Nevada? Hint: He came in second. Hint number 2: He is the only Republican who could possibly win the main election.

Posted by: jdadson | January 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, who came in second in Nevada in the GOP race?

Posted by: jdadson | January 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,

Great coverage as always. I just want to take slight issue with one of the points you make. You argue that none of the first four states was framed as a fight for delegates and so Obama's slight edge (13 to 12) in delegates in Nevada is not really a victory for him.

It is true that the race in Nevada (and the other early states) was not framed in this way but Obama's delegate victory does tell us something about what we might see on February 5. Most of the states on that day have the same kind of formula for dividing up delegates among top candidates. Hillary lost among delegates in Nevada because her vote was so concentrated in Clark County. A similar dynamic is likely to play out in other states because Obama tends to do well across a state (see New Hampshire and Nevada) even when he loses the state overall.

My point is that it is entirely possible we'll see what happened in Nevada - Hillary wins by a bit overall but loses by a bit or at least doesn't win in delegates - repeat itself in many of these Feb. 5 states.

As you say, Feb. 5 is all about the delegates and Nevada suggests a potential advantage Obama may have in winning delegates even where he loses by a small margin.

Posted by: labecker | January 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company