Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Camp: Clinton Tactics 'Damaging to the Party'

Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) campaign manager asserted in a conference call this morning that the tactics employed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in regard to the fight for Democratic delegates has the potential to fracture the party heading into the November election.

"This is a disturbing pattern," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe after the Politico's Roger Simon reported that the Clinton campaign was preparing to woo pledged Obama delegates if the nomination fight lasts until the convention. He decried such tactics as "trickery" and added that this sort of "grasping at straws is very harmful to the party."

David Wilhelm, an Obama co-chairman and former Clinton official, was even more vehement. "Sometimes nominations are not worth having [if they come] at the cost of ripping the party apart." he said.

The Clinton campaign immediately pushed back on the Politico report. Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman, insinuated that it is actually the Obama camp that has designs on delegates pledged to another candidate:

"We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions regarding our pledged delegates."

During the conference call Plouffe was asked directly whether the Obama campaign had plans to go after Clinton's pledged delegates. Plouffe would only say that his team is focused on winning as many elections as possible in order to accrue the most delegates.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor later said the campaign is not going after Clinton's delegates:

"We would absolutely not use these sorts of tactics. Senator Obama is focused on winning contests and earning the support of pledged delegates."

With the nomination headed into March 4 -- when Texas and Ohio vote -- and likely to last all the way through the Pennsylvania primary (April 22) and perhaps to the convention in late August, the two sides are battling over the ground rules going forward.

The fact that the rules are debatable means that we are entering a realm of ambiguity when it comes to how a candidate properly competes for the nomination. Why?

(1) No race in the modern era has ever been as protracted as this one.

(2) As signaled in today's back and forth, pledged delegates may end up being up for grabs (see Simon's piece for an explanation of how "pledged" delegates aren't actually pledged to anyone).

(3) "Super" delegates -- which are now being courted by both sides -- are a relatively new creation within the party rules (the idea was developed after the 1980 election).

[Check out a quick primer on super delegates and view our entire list of all 796 of them.]

In spite of the latest salvos over pledged delegates, by far the biggest buzz and controversy surrounds super delegates and their proper role within the process.

The Obama campaign has argued -- and did so again today -- that super delegates must heavily weigh the will of the people when making decision about which candidate to back. Wilhelm said that following the will of his or her home state should not be the only consideration for an undecided super delegate, but it should be one of the main factors.

The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, points out that super delegates were created in order to allow an independent analysis of who would be the best representative for the party -- not simply to follow the preference of voters in individual states. (While that argument is technically true, in practice it may become difficult for super delegates to follow it due to their own local concerns, as we explained earlier.)

The contest over delegates is the ultimate process fight and, therefore, not a concept that naturally appeals to average voters. That fact should be seen as a warning to both Clinton and Obama. While their campaign staffs continue to hold conference calls in order to fight over what the correct procedures are regarding delegates and super delegates they must also make sure that they are out on the stump talking to voters about things like health care, the economy and the war in Iraq.

If one of the campaigns falls into the trap of focusing too much on process, voters are likely to turn off.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 19, 2008; 1:17 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: What Will Happen in Wisconsin?
Next: Wisconsin Primary Prediction Time

Comments

Posted by: lexapro 10mg tablets | August 20, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro 10mg tablets | August 20, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: is effexor a ssri | August 18, 2008 5:47 AM | Report abuse

benl wgmsb jpnx
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/effexor-side-effects-choleteral.html effexor side effects choleteral

Posted by: effexor side effects choleteral | August 18, 2008 5:36 AM | Report abuse

ptmsqwf caqz oswlqby jflvm
http://loangov.envy.nu/risperdal-invega.html risperdal invega

Posted by: risperdal invega | August 17, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

ptmsqwf caqz oswlqby jflvm
http://loangov.envy.nu/risperdal-invega.html risperdal invega

Posted by: risperdal invega | August 17, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

jmhsq xngye
http://loangov.envy.nu/drugs-similar-to-zyprexa.html drugs similar to zyprexa

Posted by: drugs similar to zyprexa | August 17, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rogaine facts | August 17, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

bfngzwt zijpb
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/wellbutrin-sr-and-side-effects-duration.html wellbutrin sr and side effects duration

Posted by: wellbutrin sr and side effects duration | August 17, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

moty noltgjm
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/alcohol-interaction-with-paxil.html alcohol interaction with paxil

Posted by: alcohol interaction with paxil | August 17, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

gzqpuy jbvmrlw ydvleka
http://internal.digitalzones.com/effexor-sr-drug.html effexor sr drug

Posted by: effexor sr drug | August 17, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: queen levitra | August 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

wodth qgxz xiyjoa thlsvx
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/paxil-causes-atrial-fibrillation.html paxil causes atrial fibrillation

Posted by: paxil causes atrial fibrillation | August 15, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

wvyr
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

jwqirf hnokve svme lnghk
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589 ultram order cheap

Posted by: ultram order cheap | May 11, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

wuvidsath uoxcbrw jnubqvyls hocenlky uqevx pilmzrc nuasbr http://www.mvsixcew.shnrzma.com

Posted by: rqhkdya jndpcweam | April 16, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

vnrtyl vabcprqx dflso vchr nzgtyqkb fjxrnuvd hudgn

Posted by: zkuyi tsgpo | April 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

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

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

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

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON.

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

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK.

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

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

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

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno6 | March 6, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse


Though it isn't conventional thinking, this race captures America's hearts and minds. Let it play out and remember, delegates have minds of their own. They can't be stolen, so relax. You will win on your merits.

There is NO WAY Republicans can even get any attention or traction with the spotlight on the Democrates this way. It makes Republicans seem boring. But there is NO WAY that this race is tearing apart the party. It is elevating Democrats to super stardom! So what if the race is getting under the collars of a few campaign managers. They can take it, and we all know they can sure dish it out!

Posted by: thinktank | March 4, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse


Though it isn't conventional thinking, this race captures America's hearts and minds. Let it play out and remember, delegates have minds of their own. They can't be stolen, so relax. You will win on your merits.

There is NO WAY Republicans can even get any attention or traction with the spotlight on the Democrates this way. It makes Republicans seem boring. But there is NO WAY that this race is tearing apart the party. It is elevating Democrats to super stardom! So what if the race is getting under the collars of a few campaign managers. They can take it, and we all know they can sure dish it out!

Posted by: thinktank | March 4, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

When Presidential candidates are talking about issues only not smear tactics

It is time that a responsible candidate talk about what he/she can do for the country, what can be accomplished. How can he/she improve our country to benefit its citizens?
How to improve the economy, how to overcome Washington's political shenanigans and pass/enforce some laws and statutes that benefit the citizens as a whole instead of special interest groups.

Defaming and degrading the opposing candidate does not promote more votes but voter apathy. Showing the public what you plan to accomplish and how you plan to accomplish it is the theme - and once in office pursue those promises.

Any candidate who promises to accomplish his promises while in office and those promises were not accomplished, must resign from office for a better man.

We are a great nation with great people - we can do better than what has been done.
We have the knowledge, technology, resources and manpower - let us utilize it as a unified nation.

The American public is sick and tired of promises they say talk is cheap "show me - and I will believe".

Jay Draiman

Posted by: renewableenergy2 | February 22, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Considering what all has come out in books, newspapers and magazines and the news media, paper and TV, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running for office since right after they finished their educations in the 1970s. Neither one has ever had a job where they actually had to do manual labor. They have spent their lives in politics and have lived of the efforts of others.
It is time they both were sent off the political field onto the cotton patches where they can see how other people live.
Hillary Clinton as president can only bring more of the same misery that her husband Bill brought upon himself and the country during his two administrations. The country can not stand another Clinton nor another Texan in the White House.
John McCain is too old for the job of President of the United States, he would only become another President Reagan asleep throughout half his administration.
AT this time we need a man: younger, fresh and ready to be president from Day one of his administration.
We do need a change. We do need a prospering United States. We do need to get employment for United States citizens. We do need to put an end to immigration until after every lawful citizen has employment.
Those who arrived after 2000, do need to return to their country of origin and then apply for the privilege to come to the United States.

Posted by: richardcolonel | February 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

To mjo1:

I see you points.

1) I agree that it would be so nice if all candidates actually write their speeches. But that this not my point. My point is that plagiarism is a horrible thing (stealing other people work without credit)for an author and it should not be shrugged as 'no big deal'. I see this as a statement of integrity and honor. This is not his first 'shrug' over a big mistake - I remember reading about his taking money from Rezko and now said that it was just a bonehead mistake. He is a lawyer, so there is no excuse.

2) on the difference between really proud and just simply 'proud'-- Words are such a core component of his campaign, Michelle is a lawyer, so again, she knows the value of the words used - for me, it is just another window to a person's view of the world. For all that is broken in this country, I think that she still has plenty of reasons to be 'really proud' of what this country has done for her. There has been so little scrutiny over Mr. Obama comparing to the other candidates so what she or he said are the only tangible things to look at.

I don't have any problem with Mr. Obama being a politician; I would rather him be up front about it, just like McCain or Clinton. We can then compare him against other candidates in an objective manner instead of trying to hide his politician's color behind all the preaching and put down everything that is good in this country.

I guess that I am still idealistic enough to feel disillusioned that Obama is just another politician, and a worse one by deceiving people at the most basic level, their emotions, vs. at the policy level like McCain or Clinton.

thanks for listening, Mjo1

Posted by: cybervote | February 20, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I am happy the networks gave Obama so much airtime last night so that people around the country can get an idea of what he is all about.


He just had a laundry list of liberal policies last night -


I am sick of hearing Obama say that McCain wants "100 years of war in Iraq" - that is NOT what McCain said - he was comparing the troops on bases in Germany for the past 60 years - and suggested what if the troops were on bases in Iraq for 100 years - THAT is NOT wanting a war for 100 years.


Sorry Obama.


OK now we know Obama is a liar, just like Bill Clinton. Simple as that.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 20, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

cybervote, it would be OK by me if all candidates were required to write ALL their own speeches. I think Obama would be well ahead on that score.

As far as voting present is concerned, you do realize that this is simply a tactic used in the Illinois state legislature to actually get things done. No problem with Obama there either.

I think Michelle Obama said she was "really" proud of her country. As opposed to just being proud. What's wrong with that?

As far as hiring a person based on eloquence, well, yes, I would, if eloquence were important to the job. It's a pity the American people didn't require even a semblance of eloquence when they gave the job to George Bush. Experience? Well I always think of another Illinois lawyer who held the job who was short of national experience and long on eloquence and yet managed to do quite well.

Posted by: mjo1 | February 20, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

the new America that Obama has created so far:

1. it is ok to plagiarize
2. it is ok to not show up to work and collect salary by his record of voting 'present'
3. it is ok to not be proud of your country unless you or your spouse are directly benefited from it
4. it is ok to hire people for a job based how eloquent a candidate is speaking instead of experience.

I wonder what else will come from the eloquent Mr. Obama.

I guess it is time to consider Mr. McCain's America, it starts sounding better every day! The republicans must be laughing to see, yet once again, the democrats self-inflict a real risk of loosing the general election.

Posted by: cybervote | February 20, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

First it was Bill that put his foot in it and make such big mistakes, then Hilary took over with her ARROGANCE towards the Voters, then in a desperate effort she sacks the two top staff in her campaign team, why does she not see the problem is HILARY HERSELF!

Now sadly all she has left in the tank is petty personal attacks on BARACK OBAMA, Hilary will have to be dragged crying and screaming from the nomination race, what a disgrace to the Democrats but some of the Grand and Superdelegates must carry some of the blame.

It is time for Action now from the Grand of the Party tell Hilary she must go and save the Party, then BARACK OBAMA will be PRESIDENT! in November the People want CHANGE!

Posted by: jaybs1 | February 20, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Hillary and her campaign will tear the Dem party apart. Why? Because it's all about her!

Remember how the country was when George W. Idiot was handed the job in 2004?

Whether Sen. Obama used words from his friend in a speech, or whether he is all talk and no action, or whether he has no experience (some say)............. he must be respected. Who has accomplished what he has this campaign season? Who has brought out so many young voters? Who has given people a reason to believe that america can do and be a better place? Who has the intellect that GWB does not?

Hillary should concede. She will not only ruin the country and the Dem party but also ruin herself even more.

Step aside.

Posted by: claytonpf15 | February 20, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

wpost4112 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers to you!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 19, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse


Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy!

thinker,

We all know you are a paid shill. But, you know, I like it. It has the same effect that Hillary's negative ads had in Wisconsin. 66% felt that Hillary was unfair to Sen. Obama, while only 33% felt Sen. Obama was unfair to Hillary.

So, keep up the good work lad...

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 19, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

A plant?

Hahahaha....

I wish I was a plant...maybe someone would bring be coffee...

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 19, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

trace-sc,

Obama never said he'd solve all of our problems...in fact he's telling you to wake up and take this country back by being responsible and getting involved.

Hillary is the one that keeps saying she's got the plan, and the experience and all the answers.

Posted by: bernardcallands | February 19, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

482 thousand people have voted for Barak Obama so far. More people voted for Obama than the combined votes of the Republican candidates. Why would you think things will change in the general election?

Posted by: bernardcallands | February 19, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse


wpot4112 -

Does anyone notice wpost4112 has been here ALL DAY LONG? I think he is planted by Obama.

Hillary isn't going to work for Obama. She already helped him get his Senate seat. He loved Bill and Hillary for all the help they could give him.
Shows how much he values his supporters. So get ready.

He's a thankless crap.
You'll all be getting the Michael Jackson gesture.

trace sc - you know, those folks who drank the kool-aid never woke up.

get ready for a big surprise. not matter who wins.


Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

"Well guys, I guess that after learning that Obama packed the Presidency tonight, the best thing to do is go to sleep knowing that tomorrow we all be united because "we had a dream", not only words.

Sweet dreams and keep on the wishful thinking until the Prophet makes our dreams come true!"

==================

You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need!


Oh! Forgot...plagiarizing again.

My bad.

Doh!

Did it again!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Well guys, I guess that after learning that Obama packed the Presidency tonight, the best thing to do is go to sleep knowing that tomorrow we all be united because "we had a dream", not only words.

Sweet dreams and keep on the wishful thinking until the Prophet makes our dreams come true!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

""I'll be puffing for the next 8 years"

I bet you will!"

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

kumbayyah baby! :)

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

"She has been totally rejected by Wisconsin now will you please leave. You are not wanted in the white house."
-----------
not true. If I were Bama, I'd make her Secy of Health and let her get the universal health thing done.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse


gkarcher - go awaaaaaaaaay. obama is a consummate politician. savvvvy. are you kidding. wah wah wah.

you know, hillary and bill supported him in his campaign for the senate.
what a thankless ass. all about obi. watch out. all about his followers, too. some of them.

strong arming right now black super delegates who are with hillary. they are threatening these folks. telling them their political futures are over. (these stories are here on the post online site)

nice guy. sounds like TOM DELAY OBAMA

and tom delay hijacked my government by threatening people in the back room.

he's no uniter. he's a determined opportunist.

you're an idiot if you can't read and see through him.

Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

ASSOCIATED PRESS HAS AS THEIR LEAD ...

BARACK OBAMA WON NINTH CONTEST AGAINST A "FADING" HILLARY CLINTON ...


martin edwin "mick" andersen

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Shrillary should quit now.
She has been totally rejected by Wisconsin now will you please leave. You are not wanted in the white house.

Posted by: stanjax3 | February 19, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse


goofey -

if only you were over twelve. wait and see what a jimmy carter we're looking at. and while you're at it. get ready for the world to change in such a big way that you won't know who you are in it.

mr. obama has no idea about economy. i challenge you to watch his next speech about it. see how he reads EVERY word from the paper in front of him. not like his float speeches. he can't even look up. that's how uninformed he is. he needs it fed via teleprompter or paper. you are duped. trust me. you will learn so much from this experience of inexperience... if mccain doesn't stop him before that. he has plenty of time to expose obama - and there's plenty of nothing to expose. the republicans are getting excited. and his running mate could be condoleezza . won't that create a dilemma. there's a qualified vp.

michelle obama said they can catch up "it's not rocket science". wow.
dumb.


Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"Russert says John Edwards white men have dramatically shifted to Obama.

Who exactly does Clinton have left?

Oh yeah, Bill."

==========

I'm not sure I'd count on him either.
You know his proclivities.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

afgoofey - you've been duped. by the magician pied piper.
good luck. america is not in good hands at this moment. dumb children.

Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse


wpost4112 -

Oh how falsely demure of you. I am a Dunkin Donut Democrat. That's a Hillary Democrat.

Mr. Obama's claimed the "Starbucks latte" crowd.

Mr. Obama is a hip hop, rappster cell ring tones guy - thump thump dirty talk those women kinda guy. Hangs with the gangster rappers. John McCain and Rove are going to play that and play that over and over. They are going to use it for the mid-terms they are going to take back the house and senate. Obama is an idiot. What's next? he'll be doing a Michael Jackson gesture?

He'll do anything.
And his followers will believe anything.

Good thing it will only be four years -- if he even gets that.

Are you still there at Obi's office? Don't you ever go home?

Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"I'll be puffing for the next 8 years"

I bet you will!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

afgooey74,

Hold your horses! Don't toll the bells so fast! The better part is yet to come!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"wpost4112,

are you still puffing?"
------------

I'll be puffing for the next 8 years.
Ya man.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Russert says John Edwards white men have dramatically shifted to Obama.

Who exactly does Clinton have left?

Oh yeah, Bill.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 19, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

It's time for Hillary to do the tough thing and admit that Obama will win the nomination, and that every day she stays in the race is a day that we get farther away from an end to the war, respectable economic policy, a Supreme Court that protects the right to choose, access to health care for everyone, and a cleaner environment.

Posted by: davestickler | February 19, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Shameless Hussein Obama, thief, liar and druggy. You stop stealing other people's words, then pay all of your traffic tickets, and then quit from cocain. Then think about what you can do.

It's so unbelievable so many shallow and stupid people vote for him, and wait for him fixing your soul.

Posted by: hgogo | February 19, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Well, congats to all the Dems who vilified Senator Clinton and chosen someone who will lose by a landslide in the General Election.

In a year that Dems could have walked into the Whitehouse with any creditable candidate, they managed to pick "The One" candidate who thinks he is going to be running against Bush or Alan Keyes.

I will strongly consider becoming an Independent - It's like being a Cubs fan, and I don't know if I can take a lifetime of this.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 19, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112,

are you still puffing?

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey, is Thinker the same guy that used to post as "Teacher"?

You call Americans who are engaged in the political process "dumb." Just because people are not voting for your loser choice (you must suck at poker), Hillary, that does not imply their choice is dumb.

People who work with you must not like you.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 19, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

He just plagerized the Potomac Victory in Wisconsin!! Did you see that! What's next, in two weeks he will plagerize this victory in Ohio and Texas!! This Barack guy, he fights so unfair!!

Posted by: hddque27 | February 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

"wpost4112.
I'm sure American's like to be referred to as the Dunkin Donut Lunch Bucket Democrats by Mr. Obama. "


Why, what you got against Dunkin Donuts?? Not as good as Krispy Kreme, to be sure, but damned good in its own right.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

12thgenamerican. That is SO funny and true.

obama's economic plan will kill this country so fast and hard that an air bag will pop out of it and we'll all feel like crash dummies.

It would be even better if Obama HAD a plan. He's an idiot. His wife said all these things they need to catch up on "aren't rocket science".

What two fools we have here.

Mr. Obama reads every word of every economic speech he makes RIGHT FROM THE PAPER HE'S GIVEN. Because he hasn't got a freaking clue.

This is going to be such smooooth sailing for McCain if this is his target. John is floating. Totally floating. Totally in if Obama is the Dem nominee.

Another stupid, failed Democratic election. Rove can't get the smile off his face at the thought of Obi won nobrian.

It's only demographics. Blacks, our children as they sit in their classes (and their Dunkin Donut Lunch Bucket parents pay for it) - and he goes to preach to them that he thinks he's JFK and MLK. And let's see, all he had to defeat after that were women.

He's a politician and a trickster.

Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Thinker,

It was Mrs. Clinton's guru Mark Penn who came up with those foolish "Dunkin Donut Democrats" and "Starbucks Democrats" labels. They're the ones who like dividing Americans up into a million little demographic sub groups, as if that is how we actually live our lives in the real world.

Posted by: xango | February 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Thinker said:

"afgoofey - you've been duped. by the magician pied piper.
good luck. america is not in good hands at this moment."

Thanks for your wishes of good luck. We'll need it. But I haven't been duped. You don't give enough credit to people. You are such a cynic.

NO ONE EVER ERECTED A STATUE TO A CYNIC.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 19, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112

I find to many white folks in key positions. I guess you are playing the middle class dunkin-donut vote card!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"What are you smoking?"

Hawaiian gold! LOL.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

DRUDGE REPORTING ...

Wisconsin Exit Polls:
Obama Won:
Women (51-49)
All age groups under 65
All education levels
All regions of the state -- urban, suburban and rural
Voters without college degrees (50-48)
Democrats (50-49)
Whites (53-46)
White men (59-38)
Voters who decided in the last week (58-42)

Won or tied voters of all income levels
Tied among white women
Tied among union members
Tied among union households

MARTIN EDWIN "MICK" ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 19, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

"So the oracle has spoken and everybody should go home to enjoy change and start guessing who is going to be in Obama's cabinet. Better yet, why don't we start discussing Obama's reelection strategy."
-----

Excellent suggestions!

Colin Powell for Secy Defense.
Biden for Secy State
Edwards Attorney General
Hillary Secy Health.....

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112.
I'm sure American's like to be referred to as the Dunkin Donut Lunch Bucket Democrats by Mr. Obama. I'm sure it will get him far. He can take Obama la la latte land children and dumb others right along down the path to McCain and the shredder.

Another dumb loss for the Democrats if he's the nominee.

Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

"Bush out, Barack in. Happy day!"

What are you smoking?

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

obama's economic plan will kill this country so fast and hard that an air bag will pop out of it and we'll all feel like crash dummies.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | February 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Dear lemmings, I mean obamites:

Thank you for hijacking the party. Just because I have worked for the democrats and liberal causes my whole life doesn't mean that you, who possibly voted for Bush twice or have expressed no interest previously, shouldn't have the right to chose my nominee. Great process...open primaries:that's like me, as an agnostic, going into your church, synaogague or mosque and choosing the priest.. great idea! Caucuses- where the upper crust 10% get to decide everything. Whatever. Well, it does look good for Barak- but let me tell you- if he loses this thing- which he is much more likely to do than she is- that is it for the country. You all have followed the rhetoric very well. Drank the Kool-ade. Now let's see how a 2 year senator who doesn't win the working class or latin vote does against another insurgent candidate who has a habit of picking up democratic voters. Let's see how he does in the red states, because they really are red, not purple- for all of our sakes, I pray (and am still an agnostic) that you all are right- it's just that experience tells me different. And the first one of you to feed me the new century line or other rhetoric should really consider: what is your opinion? Not his (or whoever wrote them) clever words- but what is your opinion based on facts? What are this guys policies? How is the "change" going to happen? College is nice but life is pragmatic.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | February 19, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 wrote:

"Tonight was an important night because he won that crucial white middle class dunkin-donut vote...it's done."

So the oracle has spoken and everybody should go home to enjoy change and start guessing who is going to be in Obama's cabinet. Better yet, why don't we start discussing Obama's reelection strategy.


Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

" you've been duped. by the magician pied piper.
good luck. america is not in good hands at this moment."


Aw, Thinker, you're a poor loser too, huh?
Keep thinking, you'll come up with a better idea some day. We'll be here. We'll save you a spot.

Bush out, Barack in.

Happy day!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

to proudtobeGOP.

Cudos for a very clever comment. I am a Republican and I must still be delirious because I like Obama and what he stands for. I love watching the Clinton Campaign stumble. Are we suppose to believe that a woman who has litterally run her campaign into the ground can possibly run a nation? Is this the same Golden
Girl that less then six months ago had the momentum of a jet aircraft? Is this the same woman who had millions in the campaing fund, numerous celebrity endorsements including the star of "As The World Turns in the White House" her very own Bill Clinton out campainging for her. Is this the same woman whose Democratic supporters read like the Who's Who of democratic politics? Wow! She's making history with probably one of most disastrous Presidential campaigns of this century. And all you Clintonians thought she was ready to be president Day One? I think she needs to go back to the chalk board and write "I will not make a fool of myself!" one hundred times. I'm embarrassed for her and everyone who has been supporting her. You're all on the wrong horse!

Posted by: hopeful08 | February 19, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

afgoofey - you've been duped. by the magician pied piper.
good luck. america is not in good hands at this moment. dumb children.

Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"No, it's just been obvious since Feb 5 that no one was taking home the nomination based on pledged delegates. Wisconsin will net Obama +9 maybe? They're going to both end up between 1550 and 1700 in pledged dels. Unpledged dels will decide who the nominee is. And as you said "thems were the rules"."

-----
Hey, of you need to believe that to get through the day, bless you!

Momentum is Barack's...right to Texas and Pennsylvania.

Tonight was an important night because he won that crucial white middle class dunkin-donut vote...it's done.

Now all of america knows how dirty
Hillary plays the game and still loses.

Her day is done.

The future is here...his name is Barak.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

afgoofey - you've been duped. by the magician pied piper.
good luck. america is not in good hands at this moment.

Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

``Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.''

Michelle Obama

First of all, she qualified proud. "Really proud" she said.

Secondly, it is clear she is referring to the changing mood of the country - a new mood she has not experienced in her adult life. She was a child in the sixties.

And third, if I may say something about race relations, one has to be made out of stone not to realize how good it feels, given this country's history, to see tangible evidence that white Americans are not the racist bigots they are often made out to be outside and inside this country, by the liberal and conservative intelligentsia alike - witness Ed Rendell's comments recently. I love you America!

Posted by: xango | February 19, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

What media HYPE. They just about split the 75 or so delegates from Wisconsin - that's not a "WIN". The media is controlling the American elections - because it's money and advertising to them. They reduce it to a horse race. Very unAmerican.
In any case. Obama 37 delegates, Clinton 33. Big freaking deal. She doesn't lose.
And now - we have Obama land cry babies. They are strong arming black super delegates (who have spoken out about it) in back rooms, telling them they will lose their political futures if they do not change their endorsements from Hillary to Obama.
Oh yes, this is a new kind of government, new kind of candidate, new kind of Washington. Mr. Obama is classic, consummate politician. He ran this year because of demographics - not because he wanted to lift people out of anything - just himself UP. He saw a woman running, a great year to run, his half blackness being a benefit to him and the youth of America sitting in their auditoriums waiting for him to channel JFK and MLK, Duvall Patrick - who they never even saw alive - and to put on his show. He's a total phony from speech to policies.

Obama 37 delegates
Clinotn 33 delegates

Strong arming black delegates behind the scenes. Telling ALL BLACK PEOPLE TO THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM?
I guess segregation and racism is ok if it's working for him.

He is an imposter. He is no MLK.

Rove will eat these two alive. In front of the world. It won't be pretty.


Posted by: Thinker | February 19, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the arena where Barack is making his speech looks like the Democratic Convention. This man and his movement are awesome. I'm glad I'm on board!

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 19, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

What's so impressive is the number of democrat votes compared to republican is over 2-1. This is the untold story.

Yes We Can!

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 19, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I was a Clinton supporter...and now I feel that she will split the party apart because of the popular vote...however as much as I try to be positive about Obama it is difficult to see what it really is that they will do to make this big change...and unity.
Michelle is an angry woman...I have sensed that before in her speeches...and now my feelings appear to be validated.
And the change I fear will be ...we whites will be "getting it" now.
Well, that may be tit for tat...but don't call it unity or what Martin Luther King or Corretta Scott King said they were for.
Maybe I am too old and too white. I think I can understand Michelle's anger, but on the other hand she has a pretty good career. Yes, she worked for it...and so have lots of white women...also against great odds.
I think the Democrats need to look for another candidate altogether...how about Gore?

Gore and Nancy Polosi.

Posted by: hartfordcity | February 19, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

No, it's just been obvious since Feb 5 that no one was taking home the nomination based on pledged delegates. Wisconsin will net Obama +9 maybe? They're going to both end up between 1550 and 1700 in pledged dels. Unpledged dels will decide who the nominee is. And as you said "thems were the rules".

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

" I won't vote for a Republican, but I am not sure I will vote for Obama."
-------------

I understand your feelings, but i cannot think of a graver injustice to women than to allow MccCain to win so he can put another one or two Alitos on the Supreme Court and further restrict a women's right to control her body or even overturn Roe vs Wade.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA WINS WISCONSIN - CRUSHES CLINTON IN ALL CATEGORIES (except middle aged white women).

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 19, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama has the largest "astro-turf" effort in the history of the internet.

As time goes on, more and more will come to light about just how sophisticated his misinformation campaign has been.

The bottom line is that the guy is a "slime-dog" that will do anything to get elected.

I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher.

He doesn't stand a chance in a general election.

Hopefully people will wake up before its too late.

Posted by: svreader | February 19, 2008 07:38 PM
______________________________________

This, from someone who posted not that long ago:

Comment on: Clinton, Obama Seize on Killing at 12/28/2007 5:23 PM EST
If we want to elect the best president we've got to focus the debate on the issues.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden are all excellent. They're all good choices for president, and they beat the Republican candidates hands down.
___________________________________________
So, in less than two months, Obama's gone from VP material to not worthy of being dogcatcher. Whatever.

I suspect svreader is insane, as per this:

Comment on: The Magnetism of a Message at 1/5/2008 2:35 PM EST

If Superman existed, he'd be a Democrat.

God exists, and is.
__________________________________________

Given this mental state, is it any wonder svreader is a devoted Clinton backer? Or that he has nearly 200 _pages_ of comments in the last two months? I guess the thought process there is (a) have a life, interact with other people, etc. (b) hold down a paying job, contribute to society or (c) post shrill screeds in a little-read section of the WaPo, influencing no one. We all know what svreader's choice has been. At least in a few months, this will all be over.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 19, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

"No one is winning based on the state primaries and undemocratic caucuses... only based on the undemocratic superdelegates!"


Sounds like a sore loser to me. Thems were the rules before we began. She just weren't smart enough. Assumed too much. Got caught napping. Hope she can lose with greater grace...her future depends on it.
We'll see what kind of character she really has...we all reveal it when we lose more than when we win.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I would feel a lot better about voting for Obama if he hadn't allowed his surrogates to be so nasty to Hillary and if he had ever stood up for treating her civilly. I resent that he hasn't said a thing about equality for women. His followers have written horribly sexist articles about Hillary Clinton and he hasn't said a word.
If any white person had said a single racist word about Obama there would have been hell to pay. Yet, he doesn't seem to worry much about the mistreatment of women.
I won't vote for a Republican, but I am not sure I will vote for Obama.

Posted by: bghgh | February 19, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Fired UP:

9:24pm: OBAMA WINS WISCONSIN.

Call *that* plagiarism.

Now the Clinton camp can most *assuredly* use: Ready to go.

If you haven't been to a rally, or have, and want to take it with you, you can get the entire Obama rally setlist--all the way from U2's "City of Blinding Lights", to which Obama takes the stage, to the Obama victory anthem "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" at ITunes, here:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewIMix?id=273868596&s=143441&v0=575

Posted by: caraprado1 | February 19, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

This was a Hillary state. HUGE loss for Hillary.

Guess those negative ads just don't work!

Just words!!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

No one is winning based on the state primaries and undemocratic caucuses... only based on the undemocratic superdelegates!

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

LOL.

It's really simpler than that. just logic really.

Doesn't matter.

With the Wisc win and Texas soon to come, it all doesn't matter.

Writing is on the wall. And it starts with an O....

Sorry!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader I reject that -

These are both excellent candidates, and the majority of us will support either one. I truly hope that people maintain focus here and vote for the Democratic nominee even if not their first choice - both are very worthy of our support.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112-
I think you've coined a new oxymoron!

"Implicit agreement"

I like it! It's making a promise without actually saying anything! On that count, you're right - Hillary didn't say anything on seating the delegates in her pledge.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

You're printing whines from the Obama camp as if what they say is fact.

It could just as easily be said that Mrs. Pbama was fracturing the party by campaigning in south Carolina : "...it is our turn now...". An obviously racist statement.

Plus Mrs. Obama "just now loves her country..." is not going to endear her or her hubby to a vast majority of Americans including most Democrats. Most of the fighting and dying done to defend this country have been by Democrats. You can see by the Bushies that Republicans avoid harms way.

Posted by: wj_phillips | February 19, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

The only remaining demographic for Hillary are white women over 50.

Not really a cross section of America.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama has substantial lead in MSNBC exit polls as well.

of course, proof is all in the pudding...or pabst blue ribbon in this case.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"Don't crap where you sleep."

Is that like "don't crap where you blog?"

Time to practice what you preach.

Way past time.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

UH-OH!

If these exit polls are correct, it's BAD NEWS for Hillary:

Among Democrats

Women: Obama 51%, Clinton 49%

Families with income under 50,000: Obama 51%, Clinton 49%

Independents: Obama 63%, Clinton 34%

Seniors: Clinton 60%, Obama 39%

Top quality -- experience: Clinton 95%, Obama 5%

Union households: Clinton 50%, Obama 49%

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

kemurph...

yes. The candidates refused to actively campaign in states found to be violation of the Democratic National Committee's delegate selection rules.

that is, they acknowldged ..by not campaigning... that Florida and Michigan and Florida were in violation to the delagate rules...and thus implicitly agreed that the delegates should be stripped as the DNC delegate selection rules so stated.

if HC had not agreed that the delegates should be stripped, she would have not agreed to the pledge and would have campaigned.


in other words, the "not campaigning" was contingent upon first recognizing that the states in question were in violation of DNC rules and subject to loss of all delegates.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets elected, he'll make Carter look like Lincoln, but his chances of getting elected are so close to zero it almost doesn't matter.

With all the money Obama's raised, he and his supporters still can't buy a clue.

Obama and his supporters chose badly when they decided to base their campaign on trashing both Clintons.

No Democratic candidate can win without the votes of Clinton supporters.

At this point, we'd vote for Richard Nixon before we'd vote for Barry Obama.

Thanks to his choice of campaign strategies, he's toast.

Don't crap where you sleep.

Posted by: svreader | February 19, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Amazing - there is no way the Democrats can lose this year with any kind of decent qualified nominee. So we have Obama - 2 years in the Senate (so scratch the qualified part) and Clinton (scratch the decent part). The one reminds me of Jimmy Carter and the other is the wrong Clinton (they're both sleazy, but he's competent and Hilary certainly isn't - I remember the Health Care Plan farce well. Since this first thing isn't working out with women and African-Americans, why not try a Jew - I'd vote for Robert Rubin in a heartbeat. But you folks would probably come up with Ira Magaziner. Guess I reluctantly vote for the other folks again.

Posted by: Labbymalone | February 19, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I read it again. It still says that the candidates pledged not to campaign and the DNC vowed to take away the delegates. You posted it yourself. The first line of the article YOU posted says "Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog," and it doesn't contradict that afterwards.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is wise and more professional than her adversary."


-----

well, if blowing 140 million in months, hiring people based on loyalty and not competence, making no plans past Feb 5, alienating half the democrat base, losing more primaries than you win, breaking the rules and avoiding a crucial vote in the Senate is more professional and wise...heck, she's all yours!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

correction to post should read: promotes and prefered, sorry the keyboard as my computer is old.
Anyway may the best candidate win!

Posted by: tainian2000 | February 19, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

kemurph...sorry, you got it wrong.

read again.

the four=state pledge means NO delegates.

ZERO.

has nothing to do with campaigning, although that was a separate part of the agreement.

read again.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

the fight is on! Yes, democracy prootes competition even in selecting your own preferd candidate.
Polls do not win elections, however Hillary is wise and more professional than her adversary.
A good number of voters are voting by association of racial origins,but if this was good for winning then we could have had a New York Hispanic mayor not of the kind of actual one.
In reality the hispanic vote decide this time for Hillary.
This sector is not that easily convinced to vote for others agenda.

Posted by: tainian2000 | February 19, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

OK, here's the logic -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ex=1346385600&en=e280c05ad36488d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

All news sources clearly state that the candidates "pledged not to campaign". Nothing more, certainly nothing regarding how the delegates would be seated.

The rules shown in the link you posted, and repeated fully here showed some key points -

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

1) The penalty for a state being earlier than Feb 5 was to lose 50% of its delegates.

2) The penalty for a candidate campaigning in a punished state was to lose all delegates from that state.

3) The rules defined campaigning as "includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances, etc..."

Since Obama admits to making a national ad buy, which clearly is in violation of that, he should lose all his delegates from Florida. But HC would retain hers, as her appearance in FL was at a private event.

Of course the DNC changed the rules again and took away all of FL's delegates anyway, but that would have been the case under the original rules. See my loong post above for more on that.

BTW, I don't mean to sound snarky on this... my only point to make to you starting out was that the pledge was simply not to campaign and had nothing to do with seating the delegates. I was actually genuinely intersted if there was a different report out there, but I was relying on the NYT link above, and even the Nation's coverage said the same thing.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

For the benefit of kemurph, who seems confused, or anyone else in denial about Hillary's agreement to unseat the Florida delegates, here's the info about the "four-state pledge":

September 2, 2007
Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States
By JEFF ZELENY

PORTSMOUTH, N.H., Sept. 1 -- Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida's 210 delegates -- and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 -- if it does not come up with an alternative plan.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Democrats and Republicans alike keep forgetting that a third or more of us voters are Independents and the majority of Independents are conservative-former Republicans. Put a rhetoric rich, speech thieving candidate up and despite the dread of another 4 GW like years, McCain will take the election.

Who wants a president who can't originate his own speeches and offers nothing of substance to show what he means by 'change'. A JFK he is NOT!

Posted by: rrau22 | February 19, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

In a country where people STILL in 2008 say they can't vote for a "Black" man for pres, I can understand Michelle Obama.

Given the history of this country and racism, many Americans may finally be proud of this country. I am starting to think that America is finally coming around. Anyone that won't admit this country has not been very NICE to many of it's citizens don't know the history.

I'm proud to be an American. To all my fellow Americans, Thanks for making this the Best Country in the World.

Yes We Can, prove to the world that we are one people.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 19, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Cut the woman some slack. Bill has stuck his entire foot and leg down his throat a number of times already and with years and years of political experience he has no excuse! Michele Obama is a relative newbie when it comes to this stuff. I'm giving her a hall pass. I've said much worst things; thank God I don't have themedia following me around all day long!

The Clinton's are so desperate they are going to pounce on anything and everything now, the gloves are off. Clinton is showing her true self. Just wait til she starts manipulating the system to steal votes from Obama's Super delegates. She's going to make the 2000 election look like a cake walk compared to what American's are going to have to face with her trying to get into the White House in 2008.

Posted by: hopeful08 | February 19, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"In an emergency conference call with reporters over the weekend, USDA undersecretary Richard Raymond said his agency didn't know how much of the meat was left."
-------------

Talk about "Where's The beef?"

The sooner the imcompetent Bush administration is out the better.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has ordered a recall on 143 million pounds of beef from a suspect California processing plant. About 120 tons of the meat was sent to Minnesota last year. Twenty tons of it went to St. Paul for use in school lunches.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/18/recall/?rsssource=1

The recall dates back to meat packed in February 2006.

An undercover investigation by the Humane Society last fall found the meatpacker had been improperly using sick or injured animals that couldn't walk.

In an emergency conference call with reporters over the weekend, USDA undersecretary Richard Raymond said his agency didn't know how much of the meat was left.

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

"4112-

Awesome, thanks for falling in to the covered hole... your link shows that Obama should receive 0% of his delegates from Florida, but combined with the info that I posted earlier, that HC should receive 50% of hers!! LOL."

-------

Sorry..you're losing me here. be kind and explain as if to a child.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

I meant keep her off the news.

Posted by: mul | February 19, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

BethesdaMD writes: "Thank you for sharing your narrow minded views with us. The majority of the Democrats disagree with you as evidenced by Obama winning more votes, states, AND pledged delegates.
Being the Hillary Clinton minion you are, you probably lack the intelligence to understand any of this. I hear Hillary Clinton calling. Her Majesty probably wants you to go and wash her feet or something. When you see her, tell her that she is loosing the election and not to steal the election unless she wants to be the Ralph Nader of the 2008 election."

The only time that I ever met Hillary Clinton was when I was deployed to Bosnia as part of IFOR, and she came over on a diplomatic mission to visit a hospital were victims of land mines were recovering, to meet with the troops and thank them, and to deliver school supplies for children in that war torn country.

As far as my being narrow minded or lacking in intelligence, I can only make a case that I am pretty open minded, that I was an early supporter of Sen. Biden because having been to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq I believed he was the best candidate to address the crises in our Armed Forces, State Department, Intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice, and so many other governmental institutions that need repair and a shared sacrifice from this nations citizens to fix. I have asked over and over for any sustenance accomplishment that Sen. Obama has made, and as a resident of IL, I am all too familiar with the lack of 'change' in the corrupt political environment that Obama has never fixed.
I am a life long Democrat who would vote for Clinton in a general election (mostly due to her service on the Armed Services committee) but I will not vote for Obama in a general election because he doesn't merit the Presidency.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 19, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

As I have said all along, a Wisc win for Hillary is expected. An Obama win would be an upset.

This is her demographic.

Add her dirty play using the false plagiarism charges and misleading health care mailers and it is not surprising at all.

Depends on how dupe-able or dupe-resistant the cheeseheads are in the dairyland.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse


'10] The Taxless Party. Because I inherited it and its mine. Because I earned it and its mine. Whaddya mean no air traffic controllers? Let Southwest pay for them.'

Hey Mark, that's the republican party already. Who needs food inspectors? Who cares if 143 MILLION POUNDS of meat from cows who were too sick to stand up gets into the food supply? And is already eaten by the time the recall comes?

I try to imagine a slaughterhouse yard filled with thousands of cows on the ground, in various stages of dying. Well, that's what comes from underfunding the USDA and not having enough inspectors to EVER visit a lot of slaughterhouses. Have a nice dinner, folks.

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes if we want to bring the party together in the Fall a lot of the Crazy SOBs need to stop blogging an go on Ebay.

Posted by: mul | February 19, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

4112-

Awesome, thanks for falling in to the covered hole... your link shows that Obama should receive 0% of his delegates from Florida, but combined with the info that I posted earlier, that HC should receive 50% of hers!! LOL.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

mul - What are you thinking?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 19, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Not sure but it sounds like (MSNBC) Hillary is doing well with the cheese heads.

Again they did not say anything -- that leading -- but the subject (how would Hillary have pulled off a win)and tone of their rantings sound good for Hillary and they have the exit polls in front of them.

Perhaps the adults are taking the party back from the brink.

If Obama does get the nod he needs to put Michell in the same room with Bill until November.

Posted by: mul | February 19, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, points out that super delegates were created in order to allow an independent analysis of who would be the best representative for the party -- not simply to follow the preference of voters in individual states."

Thanks, Clinton camp. Yeah, we're all too stupid to vote for a president. Maybe there should be superdelegates in the general election as well, just to make sure.

Posted by: grimmix | February 19, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"4112-

I've done the research. Have you? I'd like to see your link to something that shows that HC agreed to not seating the delegates from FL and MI."

---------

Nothing could make me happier.
You can start here:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Dear_Karen.html

or here

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/edwards-obama-sign-four-state-pledge/


Have fun!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama has the largest "astro-turf" effort in the history of the internet.

As time goes on, more and more will come to light about just how sophisticated his misinformation campaign has been.

The bottom line is that the guy is a "slime-dog" that will do anything to get elected.

I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher.

He doesn't stand a chance in a general election.

Hopefully people will wake up before its too late.

Posted by: svreader | February 19, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Until this week I was leaning toward voting for Hillary Clinton. However, her pettiness and polarizing character has completely turned me off. She has begun to find little meaningless things to to say about her opponent. She is desperate and I no longer trust her character. I wanted to hear from her more substantive messages about her and how she is the better candidate. Instead I get pettiness. I find it a turn off that she is now doing and saying anything just to get in office. It makes me question her character and her the willingness to serve the people for the people and not just for the sake of Billary. I see too much Bill in who she has become and I don't like it. If she wins, I WILL NO be voting for her in the general election. I will become a DEM for McCain.

Posted by: friendlyfire | February 19, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Until about a month ago I was for Hillary. Then the Clintons showed that their moral fabric is cut from the same bolt as G. W. Bush

Posted by: rcc_2000 | February 19, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

More damaging to the Democratic party is putting forth a candidate with borrowed substance and stolen words.

At the end of the day, if Obama authentically inspires (as he claims), no amount of trickery can lure his delegates from him. But if he is as guilty of the same accusations he levels on another -- lack of credibility and full of hypocrisy, it would be no wonder if delegates switch their votes.

Posted by: readingbetweenlines | February 19, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Until this week I was leaning toward voting for Hillary Clinton. However, her pettiness and polarizing character has completely turned me off. She has begun to find little meaningless things to to say about her opponent. She is desperate and I no longer trust her character. I wanted to hear from her more substantive messages about her and how she is the better candidate. Instead I get pettiness. I find it a turn off that she is now doing and saying anything just to get in office. It makes me question her character and her the willingness to serve the people for the people and not just for the sake of Billary. I see too much Bill in who she has become and I don't like it. If she wins, I WILL NOT not be voting for her in the general election. I will become a DEM for McCain.

Posted by: friendlyfire | February 19, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Bbussey writes "I wonder how many of the people on these boards that are disparaging Michelle Obama actually heard the speech in which she said this? I saw complete footage of her Milwaukee speech and her Delaware speech. When you hear this one phrase within the context of her entire thesis, there is no narcissism or criticism or anger of any sort. The woman is as equally gifted as her husband at presenting the case.
If you have heard the ENTIRE speech, then you have a right to complain. But it's foolish and irresponsible to take one quote out of context and attempt to distort her views, as it leaves you with absolutely no credibility with those who actually heard the entire speech.
And to those still harping on the Rezko land/house sale issue, that was put to bed this weekend when the original owner of the house came forward and revealed that the house was sold to the Obamas at current market value (actually slightly above). Dead issue."

Sorry to inform you that the speech that Michelle Obama is being 'disparaged' on occurred in Madison, not Milwaukee. And it wasn't just one line she is being justly criticized for - here is what she actually said:
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction. And just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic, common issues and it's made me proud."

And as far as the Rezko relationship, the recent revelation that Barack and Rezko toured the property prior to the purchase raises many questions about how honest Obama has been about that real estate transaction. Rezko's federal trial is only just beginning, so much more may come out about the extent of Obama's involvement in the corrupt political culture of Chicago and Springfield (a political culture that Obama was not an agent of 'change' in, but a beneficiary of). Hardly a dead issue.

Both are very gifted at presenting 'their case' of their disappointment and frustrations, that I agree with you on, but neither presents a case on why Obama should be President, or how he is qualified to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. Perhaps they believe that his community organizing qualifies him?

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 19, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama 66%
Clinton 33%

"Cheeseheads board the O-train. Next stop Texas and Ohio. ALL ABOARD!"

McCain 50%
Huckabee 49%

"McCain just scrapes by the hair of his chinny-chin chin."

Posted by: chopperoni | February 19, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Bbussey writes "I wonder how many of the people on these boards that are disparaging Michelle Obama actually heard the speech in which she said this? I saw complete footage of her Milwaukee speech and her Delaware speech. When you hear this one phrase within the context of her entire thesis, there is no narcissism or criticism or anger of any sort. The woman is as equally gifted as her husband at presenting the case.
If you have heard the ENTIRE speech, then you have a right to complain. But it's foolish and irresponsible to take one quote out of context and attempt to distort her views, as it leaves you with absolutely no credibility with those who actually heard the entire speech.
And to those still harping on the Rezko land/house sale issue, that was put to bed this weekend when the original owner of the house came forward and revealed that the house was sold to the Obamas at current market value (actually slightly above). Dead issue."

Sorry to inform you that the speech that Michelle Obama is being 'disparaged' on occurred in Madison, not Milwaukee. And it wasn't just one line she is being justly criticized for - here is what she actually said:
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction. And just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic, common issues and it's made me proud."

And as far as the Rezko relationship, the recent revelation that Barack and Rezko toured the property prior to the purchase raises many questions about how honest Obama has been about that real estate transaction. Rezko's federal trial is only just beginning, so much more may come out about the extent of Obama's involvement in the corrupt political culture of Chicago and Springfield (a political culture that Obama was not an agent of 'change' in, but a beneficiary of). Hardly a dead issue.

Both are very gifted at presenting 'their case' of their disappointment and frustrations, that I agree with you on, but neither presents a case on why Obama should be President, or how he is qualified to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. Perhaps they believe that his community organizing qualifies him?

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters just don't "get it"

Your anti-Clinton tactics have backfired.

If you get the nomination, you will lose the election.

The only question left for Clinton supporters will be whether to just stay home or actually vote for McCain.

After seeing all the Anti-Clinton diatribes here, my bet is that pepople will actively vote for McCain.

We love the Clinton's just like you love Obama.

Even more important, we love Hillary Clintons policy ideas, especially her plans for Universal Health Care.

If Obama-nuts win the battle, they will lose the war.

That's a promise.

Posted by: svreader | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

I use to work with guys like Obama. They borrow ideas for their own engrandizement.

I think plagaiarizing speeches inorder to pander to voter emotions is the worst kind of politician there is. Obama sends a bad message to kids and the rest of the country that being a fake inorder to win is fine. Plagiarizing is fine. Lying about the plagarizing is fine.

I use to work with guys like him. They usually get ahead but I certainly wouldnt vote for one of them.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 19, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112: You are missing the all out support of The Media for Obama, as well as the 10 to 15% of Repubs in their effort to stop Hillary from getting the Dem nomination. Several Posters here and other Blogs have pointed out the effort of the Obama campaign to "BUY" some of the Super Delegates, and this goes to my quote--"Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing so you will know what you are doing." This applies to most of his campaign rhetoric throughout the entire time of the Primaries/Caucasus selection of the nominee.

Posted by: lylepink | February 19, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

4112-

I've done the research. Have you? I'd like to see your link to something that shows that HC agreed to not seating the delegates from FL and MI.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"The other thing: I think what the Clinton campaign is REALLY upset about is Obama took the word "Change" from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign. That is the problem."


Yep. "Change" was never used as a political slogan before 1992. What an original guy that Bill was!
Hope he got a trademark on that word. OOPS...i used that word "hope" again...my bad...plagiarizing again.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"To BO: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Stop copying Deval Patrick.
To MO: Stop copying Jackie Kennedy"


If you're trying to reach the Obamas, try emailing them directly. Otherwise, one would think you were just trying to show us how rude, petty and ignorant you could be, and I'm sure that's not what you were trying to do.

Or was it?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

To BO: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Stop copying Deval Patrick.
To MO: Stop copying Jackie Kennedy

Posted by: jaywpat | February 19, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

"UMMMM My first response is simple: What can anyone call Obama's efforts to delegimatize the superdelegates anything less than damaging to the party?????"


-----

Um. Obama didn't try to de-legitimatize the super-delegates, he made the obvious point that if the superdelegates voted to nominate the candidate who didn't have the most number of delegates and popular votes, they would essentially steal the election, as the Supreme Court did for Bush.

It's a valid argument. But he never demanded that it be so.

Unlike Hillary, who demanded Florida and Michigan's delegates bev seated AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED RULES SHE HAD AGREED TO.

Do the research.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, points out that super delegates were created in order to allow an independent analysis of who would be the best representative for the party -- not simply to follow the preference of voters in individual states."
---------------------------------------
If the superdelegates' judgement is superior to the voters', then why hold elections? Why not just let the superdelegates choose the nominee?

Posted by: smc91 | February 19, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

First of all, Hillary Clinton and her husband were the first ones who started using those smear tactics when they saw that african-americans and youth voters wern't favoring them because of her having been the first lady!!!Obama didn't respond to such dirty tricks for a long time but be honest, how long is someone supposed to put up with being verbally abused? thats my reason for not voting for hillary!! I don't want someone in office who will do
ANYTHING at all cost to get elected because once in office they will do ANYTHING at all cost to make firends including exchanging favors with shady CEOS and forgetting about the very people that put them in office. Michelle Obama feels like I do as an african-american in the USA!!! I can finally feel proud to be inthis country because they are even thinking about electing a black man for president!!! Most other counttries look at us in disgust because we aer so racist and divided and can't seem to stop attacking each other because of the color of one anothers skin!!! Racism is alive and well in the good ole USA!!! Lets not be in denial!! Yes, I fell her comments were HONEST and TRUTHFUL and if some people want to TWIST it then so be it! One thing is for sure put hillary and bill back in office and we WILL have more of the same thing that we have had for the past 20 years and the only people who will benefit is The clintons and their daughter and the Bushes and their clan!!! As for McCain be serious this man has been divorced once and has flip flopped on a number of key issues!!

Posted by: terri10960 | February 19, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

According to the rules set by the DNC, here were the primary/caucus delegate rules:
"Delegate selection primaries, caucuses, and conventions will begin on the first Tuesday in February (5 February 2008) and end on the second Tuesday in June (10 June 2008). States are required to complete their process by the third Saturday in June (21 June 2008). However,
• Iowa can schedule its first tier caucuses 22 days before the window (Monday 14 January 2008),
• Nevada can schedule its first tier caucuses 17 days before the window (Saturday 19 January 2008),
• New Hampshire can hold its primary 14 days before the window (Tuesday 22 January 2008), and
• South Carolina can hold its primary 7 days before the window (Tuesday 29 January 2008).

If a jurisdiction begins their delegate selection process before the "window", that jurisdiction's pledged delegate allocation is reduced by 50% and their unpledged delegates are not allowed to vote at the National Convention.
If a candidate campaigns in violation of the "window" that candidate may receive neither pledged delegates nor delegate votes from the state where the violation occurred."

So, essentially, the rules were:
i) Iowa no earlier than Jan 14th. (They ended up on Jan 3)
ii) NH no earlier than Jan 22nd. (Ended up on Jan 10)
iii) Violate the rules and you get docked 50%

Then, FL and MI wanted to set earlier dates and got denied lenience. Iowa and NH wanted to set earlier dates and got lenience (NH despite the fact that it leapfrogged Nevada). To top it all off, the DNC voted for an extra special penalty of 0% rather than 50% of delegates for those going earlier than Feb. 5 without permission. OK, so what exactly are the rules again? We have to abide exactly by the rules! If you break the rules, you get punished, and it's your fault... and maybe we increase the punishment. Or waive it. Our call. Rules are rules.

Not to mention that the Florida Republicans control both houses of their legislature, and saw the perfect opportunity to screw over their opposition... if you saw that they'd be screwed if you set the state primary date earlier than their limit, wouldn't you do the same? The Dems would have had to foot the bill for a later primary themselves, at a cost of >$10M.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The only way I'd vote for Hillary was if she was running against GW by some terrible turn of events. She derides his ability to inspire because she can't inspire. She says he doesn't have plans when their plans are actually very similar. Is there any lie too big for her to tell or trick that is too underhanded for her to use just to win? Dont think so.

Posted by: cmsatown | February 19, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

UMMMM My first response is simple: What can anyone call Obama's efforts to delegimatize the superdelegates anything less than damaging to the party?????


What a joke.


The other thing: I think what the Clinton campaign is REALLY upset about is Obama took the word "Change" from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign. That is the problem.


Posted by: Miata7 | February 19, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"I think I am really proud of Michelle Obama because of her admitting that she didn't like America before the other day. Now, she likes our country. Let's all cheer."

I think any black woman would understand what she meant. As would any woman if Hillary were actually elected. Oh, I suppose if one must take her words literally, she could be faulted a bit, but I find her honesty refreshing, nor do i believe that she has never been proud to be an American til now...that's not what I heard her say...i heard her say something quite different...just as I heard Hillary say something quite different when she made the comment about American housewives,tea and cookies in 1992.

Of course McCain's wife is proud ...what wealthy white bleach blonde heiress wouldn't be proud?

LOL. how silly.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama the person who projects himself onto others. Old saying shall know them by their words.
Role reversal Obama's campaign was wooing delegates-tactics which is trickery and it's him that has to divide the party to get them.
Shame on Obama.

Posted by: squeak61 | February 19, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama the person who projects himself onto others. Old saying shall know them by their words.
Role reversal Obama's campaign was wooing delegates-tactics which is trickery and it's him that has to divide the party to get them.
Shame on Obama.

Posted by: squeak61 | February 19, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I think I am really proud of Michelle Obama because of her admitting that she didn't like America before the other day. Now, she likes our country. Let's all cheer.

How lucky we are if we get the Obama's in the white house.

Time to start praying.

Posted by: ocean73_2000 | February 19, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"I don't quite get what you are trying to say, but LOSER is what Obama is. "


Awfully funny definition of loser.
Let's see.
He's won 22 states.
He leads in delegates.
Top fund-raiser.

and a great 3-point shooter.

What's not to love?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"Right now no Obama supporter I know will support Hillary and vice-versa. The bottom line is...say hello to President John McCain in November."


You know, in 1960, there was great animosity between the Kennedy campaign and the LBJ campaign, and when John Kennedy offered LBJ the VP slot, his own brother Bobby threatened to abandon the campaign.

LBJ got the spot, Jack got the nomination and Bobby stayed on.

Much is possible between now and November. Let's see how it's played out.

Better than American Idol!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112-

And even better, some states count more!!! Every state after 5/1 gets an automatic 30% bump in delegate power due to the same rules that drop your delegates to zero if you go before Feb 5. Go Indiana, it's your birthday, hey Puerto Rico here's 30% extra to help us decide this election (even though you don't know if you'll hold a caucus or primary yet)!

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"You Obama nuts are a bunch of fools."

Oh, I don't think the Obama campaign has a monopoly on nuts. In fact, after reading your post, I'm sure of it.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The only tactics damaging to the party, are the tactics of using other peoples words as your own. It makes the whole party look cheap.

Posted by: autowx | February 19, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

sooku: I don't quite get what you are trying to say, but LOSER is what Obama is. Hillary is, and has been all along, the only Dem that can win in 08. This "Liberal" support for Obama consists of the higher educated and earners, and fit in my "Idiot-Ology" "Factor" category. There is no way he can even come close to winning in the GE. The Repub strategy of stopping Hillary at any price/cost has been very successful so far, but wiser heads in the Dem party are not going to allow this to happen.

Posted by: lylepink | February 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign manager's comments are a joke. I am a Democrat and let the truth be told. BOTH candidates' tactics are damaging to the party. Right now no Obama supporter I know will support Hillary and vice-versa. The bottom line is...say hello to President John McCain in November.

Posted by: samka | February 19, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

You Obama nuts are a bunch of fools. If Clinton lifted words line for line like Barrack just got busted for, you would be hollaring like crazy, but when your Beloved does it, it is all justified. Even if O sneaks into the general election, he will get exposed even more when the audience becomes the entire country, and not just the extreme left wingers, and when Obama will actually have to talk about ISSUES. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Obama will give us President McCain.

Posted by: jrm700 | February 19, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama, but I think Hillary will win the nomination. Why? Because the past two elections prove that Democrats have a death wish: they nominate candidates who can't win, even when the Republican candidate is known to be stupid and clueless. Hillary will lose to McCain like Kerry lost to Bush.

Posted by: sooku | February 19, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 -- love your enthusiasm. Peace be with all of you.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, let me guess you were one of those who voted for the last 8years of lying, stealing, poll gauging that us Americans had to endure

Posted by: green_eyed_girl1973 | February 19, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

You know there is an amazing silver lining to this election, regardless of who wins.

Every state counts...every vote counts. when did we ever pay attention to Hawaii's primary?

We are all finding out how an election really works...it's like re-taking that US Government class in junior year high school we all slept through.

And we are finding out how flawed it is.

At the very least, we cannot plead ignorance any more, and those who do have no excuse at all.

Don't you all find it extraordinary that few Democrats even understand the very basic rules of their political party?

We are alert!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Proud I have to say your 11 and 12 are friggin' histerical.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Voters in Ohio, Texas and Pen need to wise up, if they hand Clinton narrow victories, or even big victories the whole thing is going to drag on for too long, giving McCain a major headstart in the the General. If they give even minor Obama wins, then surely this marathon contest should be settled at last. Remember what happened to the original marathon runner? He collapsed in a heap after delivering his message and died. Could be an apposite analogy for the Democratic party if we're not too careful.

Posted by: pr8mrh | February 19, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

13. The Rather Sensible But A Little Bit Impractical Party. Platform includes all day bar opening and the breeding of ready pickled fish in lakes.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm gonna try and beat the traffic. I'm supposed to be drafting some serious stuff and I'm screwing around on this thread. So much for billable hours.

Thanks, Mike, bsimon, and proud for your inputs.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 19, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"God help us if that miserable b**ch becomes president."

i officially disassociate such remarks from the Obama campaign.


P.s., God always helps us. We just have to decide whether or not to accept.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has plagiarized Obama's stump speech and no one has said anything. You're reaching. Like I said before, it's called desperation. She should try crying again. Was much more effective. For once she did not look like the robot that she truly is.

Posted by: jjacques1 | February 19, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 05:23 PM

I can't disagree with those predictions. Sadly, your last option isn't implausible.

Mark- I can't add to your list. You took all the good ones!

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"what's the difference between obama's plagiarism and joe biden's harmless borrowing of neil kinnock's line?"

Easy, Joe Biden had hair plugs. How can you trust a guy with hair plugs?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

mark,

11. Obama/Bloomberg 3rd party ticket: The Dork-O-Crats

12. Kucinich/Nader team up for green ticket called "Shorty And The Blowfish"

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, is anyone surprised that the Clintons would resort to stuff like this? Believe me, I am no fan of Sean Hannity at all, but on this score he's 100% correct. Nothing is beneath the Clintons when they feel themselves being threatened.

Wanting to change the convention rules to now seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, even though they fully agreed six months ago that they should not be seated if those states moved their primaries ahead of Super Tuesday? No problem.

Going after the other candidates' committed delegates? Why not? All's fair in love, war & politics, right? (But don't you just know that they would be screaming to high heaven if they were leading and it was Obama who was coming after their delegates!)

And now we have this YouTube video from this hitherto-unknown "Larry Sinclair" accusing Barack Obama of crack cocaine-fueled gay sex in a limousine way back in 1999. Of course, this character doesn't offer so much as a single shred of proof for his allegations (hotel receipts, receipts from the "lounge" where he allegedly met Obama, pictures of the two of them together, a receipt for renting the limo, eye witnesses such as the limo driver, bartender, etc.). In fact, judging from his appearance in the video, I doiubt this clown has ever seen the inside of a limo in his life.

But he has the sophistication to challenge Obama to take a lie-detector test to prove that what he's saying isn't true. If Obama takes the test, even if he passes it will give the allegations credibility they don't deserve. If he refuses, then some people will start to wonder if he does indeed have something to hide. The best thing he can do is refuse to dignify the allegations with any kind of response at all. It will be interesting to see if he's smart enough to handle it that way.

But can't you just see the Clintons' fingerprints all over this one. It's their standard modus operandi: let their slimy paid surrogates sling the mud while they stand back and disavow any knowledge of, or involvement in, the mud-slinging.

I really, really hope Hillary gets her a$$ kicked in Wisconsin tonight.

God help us if that miserable b**ch becomes president.

Posted by: danram | February 19, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The 2 parties defined by Mark's 10 parties:

R's: 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

1's and 7's disagree on how to wage war.
4's and 8's/10's don't have much in common.


D's: 2, 3, 6, 9

They all get along just fine.

Tax our way into prosperity, retreat our way into peace.

Mark - I slandered you above.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

the media whitewash of obama is in full flow. obama's blatant plagiarism is being glossed over by the media as a non-issue. what's the difference between obama's plagiarism and joe biden's harmless borrowing of neil kinnock's line? but joe biden is forever tarnished by that slip while obama is being hailed for his. we're not just dealing with empty words (obama) versus substance (hilary) here. we're dealing with plagiarised empty words versus proven ability. and we're preferring the p.e.w? if it was hillary that used those stolen words, the media lynch mob would by now be out in full force. shame on you all for this egregious injustice. i can see republicans already enjoying their sherry after making mincemeat of this obama fellow. democrats just never learn.

Posted by: johnstclaret | February 19, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting question:

if you had to invest all your assets into a huge international company, which of the nominees would you hire to run the place?

And why?

not that it is an exact match to the presidency, but i find it a helpful way to look at the choices in a more immediate way.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama has used the race card?! We're you paying attention in South Carolina? Rambling idiots should spend their time more wisely and crack a book, take a class, do something to make yourself a wiser person. It's sad and embarassing to see so some American's without the ability to even convey a clear thought. If you'd like to be taken seriously, you need to be understood. And we will have the last laugh when you have to salute President Obama. Or will you leave the country like Alec Baldwin claimed he would. Doubt it, that would take some forethought.

Posted by: jjacques1 | February 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

How is it spin to suggest that the superdelegates shouldn't override the will of the people? Obama's camp has asserted that the pledged delegates should decide the campaign. I dont' see how anyone could find this objectionable. If you want spin, look at Hillary's arguments against red states, caucus states, states with African Americans, etc.

Posted by: BarackTheVote | February 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

It's true that delegates can vote for whoever they wish. But who wants to vote for a loser? Delegates are political animals first and foremost. That's a species that flocks to power and hates to take risks. The Obama tidal wave will overturn Clinton's delegates before the reverse ever happens.

Posted by: sooku | February 19, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Grin. I aim to offend. bsimon and proud, you are good at this stuff. Help.

When the two parties self-destruct, as this thread evidences they must, here is what will emerge. The first ten parties follow:
--------------------------------
1] The National Defense Party. Strong military, National Service Program, great VA Hospitals, infrastructure, public health and fitness, and education programs tied to national defense, sorta like in 1957. UMT. Draft.

2] The Geezer Party. Tax the workers to pay the retired because the entitlements are underfunded. No room for any other programs of any kind. Let SS buy into the world's stock markets. Print money.

3] The Peace Party. Unilaterally disarm. Bye.

4] The Christian Party. Criminalize abortionists. Defend Marriage by amending the Constitution. Pray in the schools.

5] The Know Nothing Party. No immigrants. Period.

6] The We Can Have it All Party. Whatever it is, whatever it costs, by tax or by debt we can have it now.

7] The American Century Party. Conquer the world without expanding the military, by threat and bluster. Speak loudly and carry an itty-bitty stick.

8] The Wall Street Free Traders' Party. Wheee!

9] The Protectionist Party. Raise barriers to free trade because free trade only helps the traders go...wheee!

10] The Taxless Party. Because I inherited it and its mine. Because I earned it and its mine. Whaddya mean no air traffic controllers? Let Southwest pay for them.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Dunno, Mike, I only got one taker on the "lifelong Dem going nuclear".

And if Wash Post comment boards are your sample population the nomination is over - Obama hands down (not exactly a representative sample tho!)

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

The anecdotal evidence from today's blog suggests the following:

McCain Vs. Clinton: McCain wins.

GOP backs McCain, grudgingly, to stop Hillary. Lifelong Democrats, disgusted with Clinton's stealing the nomination, use the "Nuclear Option".

Obama Vs. McCain: Obama wins.

GOP reluctant to back a liberal R default to a "harmless-looking" newcomer who seems genuine. Clinton supporters end up voting with the party, as McCain appears to be the 3rd coming of Bush. McCain can't get ind. votes with inspirational Obama as an opponent, several red states vote blue. A stunning defeat.

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

Most likely scenario:

Clinton, predictable as the eastern sunrise, steals nomination and loses election (partly as a result). John McCain serves as a mediocre policy leader, refuses to run again in 2012, despiate successful results in Iraq. Obama easily wins the nomination, then defeats true conservative nominee, who can't get ind. support after 12 yrs of R rule. GOP is out of the WH for at least 8 years.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

from wpost4112: "But everyone should know that the President we elect is the President who reflects the nation best."

I agree and that is why 2004 was SO disheartening.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 19, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

If Obama has more than 50% of the pledged delegates on June 7, and Howard Dean cannot line up the party behind him, he should quietly change his message to I am a candidate for the President of the United States. Let the rest of the party figure out the word democrat or democratic isn't in his statement. They can come along or not. If he doesn't have 50% of the pledged delegates, he should gracefully bow out.

Obama has the fund raising ability, the oratory skills, grass roots organizing experience and a disgusted electorate to make a true independent run at the White House. The best case scenario would be an Obama win and a critical self-assessment by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Worst case we just have more of the same.

Posted by: caribis | February 19, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I've been reading Posts from several Blogs today and find the Obama supporters are far more against Hillary than even the Repubs. This goes to further my assertion that Obama is a "Tool" being used by Repubs to stop Hillary, and how the race card has been used by him, not Hillary. The highly educated tend to be what I refer to as "Idiot-Ology" in my "Factor" reasoning. This is something that most of us agree on, but sadly, is not going to happen. Race will play a part in the General Election for many years to come, as well as what is generally referred to as "Class". The word "Liberal", having been used for years as about the worst possible thing for a Pol to be called, is now the rallying cry for Obama, A sure LOSER.

Posted by: lylepink | February 19, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"I'm beginning to regret wasting the time to formulate this question."

*chuckles*

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

As a lifelong Republican, I find myself absolutely fascinated by how quickly the Dems have turned on their beloved Clintons! Seriously, what did I miss?

Posted by: kim_reich | February 19, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Like some who posted moments ago, I agree (but disagree with USMC Mike I guess) - they are both spewing bs - they're politicians! Not sure there's a lot new going on these days. Both seem to be playing by the rules these campaigns have always played by, i.e. take the moral high ground when it suits your campaign.

I don't fault them for it, like wpost4112... it's just the way it is! I guess people who can't push and shove and spin things a bit never make it in the political world, so we don't end up seeing candidates who come through unsullied.

Mr. Obama is sullied less than most, but the rate of offenses seems to be there, with a shorter timespan.

Clinton "originally accepted the rules" regarding FL and MI? No, she signed a document not to campaign...

Obama "pledged to accept public financing if his opponent in the general election did"? No, he offered a proposal to do so with the caveat that he would seek an agreement with the opposing candidate.

Everyone just calm down... it's just politics, and they're both very good at it!

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

ststern writes
" He's constantly referring to Clinton as old. "

citation please. He has referred to 'the same old politics', but I'm unaware of him calling her 'old'. Or are you taking offense (implicit ageism?) at 'the same old politics by the same old people' meaning he's calling Hillary 'old'? I'm beginning to regret wasting the time to formulate this question.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"I understand. But where I come from, if you steal a quarter or a dollar you are equally at fault. I don't find what they have done to be significant or necessarily unethical."

I agree, because at the end politics is a game of dirty tricks, but Obama is the kid with the hands in his pockets trying to make us believe that he is Mr. Clean!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

But it is entertaining.....drink more wine.

Posted by: J_thinks | February 19, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"wpost4112
I'm glad you still have a sense of humor!"


Well, it's not like we're electing the President or something...o wait! ..we are! LOL. What is life without humor?

Personally, I think all this fighting is great. Healthy for a democracy. Lord, hasn't anyone read the election battles during the early days of the Republic??

Passion is good.

I LOVE it.

Tough world out there. WE need a fighter..smart, clever, principled, and hopefully witty.

Hope we get one.

But everyone should know that the President we elect is the President who reflects the nation best.

It's an interesting choice.

I'm a Barack man, but my mind is still open. And will remain so until I enter the booth.

Back to the fray...and Hardball with Tweety and the motley gang!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"I don't find what they have done to be significant or necessarily unethical."

Significant? Stealing the nomination is significant.

Unethical? Perhaps you meant illegal. Surely you don't think this "right".

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been going negative for a long time. He's constantly referring to Clinton as old. His surrogates have framed the super-delegates rightful free choice as ripping off African-Americans if they don't vote the "will of the people". He just gets a free ride from the fearful liberal press. Unfortunately the Republican hate machine will give him no such free ride. They will use the very real choices he's made to take him down. Farrakhan's Lifetime Achievement Award will make for some sad but effective advertising.

Posted by: atstern | February 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

JSnapper:

I've done the math.

Clinton can have Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia all by 6% margins.

Obama can have Wisconsin, Hawaii, North Carolina, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Puerto Rico all by 6% (the same) margins.

Obama will still be up in delegates by 100+. Do the math. All of the delegate counts are at realclearpolitics.com.

Based on polls and the geographical results we've seen, I think the states I've given both of them are more than fair, especially considering that Obama will win North Carolina, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oregon and Puerto Rico by much, much larger margins than 6%, and now it's looking (by the polls) that Obama will do better in Texas than we originally thought.

But I wanted to give them small margins to keep it competitive. For Hillary to win this nomination battle, she would literally have to convince the super delegates to overturn the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, which simply won't happen. Good night Hillary.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Freshman senator giving money to democrats in a bid to take back the House and Senate in 2006. He gave money to Hillary for petes sake! That's what you do for your party when you care about your party. Hillary gave less because she was too concerned with her own re-election. No way anyone could have known 2 years ago that they'd be giving to superdelegates who could affect the outcome of the election. It is typical uneducated Clinton supporters who would use this against Obama. Come on people, research before you spout off this regurgitated garbage Hillary and her win at all costs campaign are feeding you.

Posted by: jjacques1 | February 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

JSnapper: If Clinton somehow got a majority of delegates and Obama won by getting the superdelegates on his side, I'd be upset. I wouldn't say that he "stole" the election, because that victory would be entirely within the rules. But I'd be unhappy. I'd rather that Clinton cleanly win than Obama win by some maneuver involving superdelegates. But I'd much rather Obama cleanly win, which looks like the most likely scenario.

Now, if Obama won by convincing Clinton's delegates to vote for him, or by seating delegates that everyone agreed wouldn't be seated, or something along those lines, then I'd say he stole the nomination. But he's not the one trying those tactics, so it's not an issue.

Posted by: Blarg | February 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Repeating another person's lines in speech is not plagerism!! It's called acting.

Posted by: jaywpat | February 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Wait till you see the Superdelegate commercial to be sponsored for America:

SCENE: Football stadium filled to capacity.Two predominantly African American Colleges.

SOMBER VOICE: Everyone was not always treated equal (pan to Whites only restroom)

Everyone's vote did not always count the same.(Black voters being run away from ballot boxes in the 60s)

Did you know that TODAY in the Democrat Party 1 superdelegate counts more than the vote of everyone at this game?(slowly pan the crowd)

And the superdelegates are not even elected.

Superdelegate? Or Plantation Master?

Our votes will count. Either in or out of the Democrat Party.

And the Democrat Party can COUNT on that.

END

Posted by: JaxMax | February 19, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"

wpost4112,

I didn't forget, since I gave you the references where you could check the facts, but Obama is the one claiming he is a political virgin!

If you check the facts, please confirm that Obama has outspent Hillary in almost a 4 to 1 ratio on his efforts to buy superdelegates"

-----

I understand. But where I come from, if you steal a quarter or a dollar you are equally at fault. I don't find what they have done to be significant or necessarily unethical.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112

I'm glad you still have a sense of humor!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

A view from the sidelines BOTH sides of the Dem race are spewing much rancor and stupidity. Neither candidate seems immune to this BS, the high road is now covered in mud, regardless of how it got that way.

What is interesting is how quick this has reached this point, like you all could not wait to form lines along the street and shout back and forth like freaks.

This in my opinion is why the young folks are taking over this process - they do think it can be better. Making statements that hardball politics is just this way, does not make it right. I can recall many things in history that was tolerated simply because thats just the way it is - until intelligence took over.

WOW

Posted by: J_thinks | February 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know if Mrs. Obama has clarified her remarks about being proud yet? I hope we get something better than the usual "taken out of context," "if I offended anyone" sort of thing.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 19, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

It's only 250 readers during the primaries...

On the original topic, I think that the original premise (that HRC's campaign is trying to get pledged delegates) has pretty much been exclusively based on the single article in Politico, and there's some reason to think that it isn't real. Regardless, it isn't an actual issue yet.

I'm guessing that the most likely outcome right now is that one of the two D candidates comes out of the process with a lead in delegates, and the vast majority of supers go along with that candidate to swing the party over.

I think the whole FL/MI issue is a much bigger one at this point, and wish that there was another vote planned for those states. Hopefully that will get settled in some reasonable way before this is all over...

Posted by: rpy1 | February 19, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Bethesda MD,

Thanks for your insights. I agree you are not alone, I have heard others that think like you. I would ask that you consider though that we should "hate the game, not the player". The real issue here isn't the superdelegates, it's that this is a total coin flip.

I felt ripped off in 2000 after the Bush Florida debacle, but in the end, 49.9% of my country voted for the man for a reason. I didn't leave the country due to that, I got more involved to change it from within. Perhaps your energy could go into pushing the party to change the superdeleate system rather than blaiming Hillary? Just hoping to make you think, of course you're entitled to do as you please.

Personally, I happen to like the superdelegate system as I don't believe that the will of the people deserves any fewer checks and balances than the three branches of government. I live in CA with these ridiculous ballot initiatives and keep thinking about the historical failures of pure democracies.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Query to Obama supporters: If, hypothetically, Clinton rebounds in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania and ends the primary season with more pledged delegates than Obama, would you see Obama as "stealing the election" if he is able to get the nomination by convincing more superdelegates to vote for him? Just wondering.

Posted by: JSnapper | February 19, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Don't underestimate Oprah's followers!"

LOL. Hey, I saw how high Tom jumped!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - "no one thought that the soviets would be deterred. that was not a given at all."

Really? I thought that "we shared the same biology regardless of ideology" and that since the Russians love their children too, MAD was an unnecessary deterrent, regardless of the fact that it had been working for 40 years? If nobody thought MAD was working, why was everyone so upset when Reagan changed the strategy?

"the enemy we do face, such as they are, are all in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, the ones who attacked us, so why aren't we fighting them there instead of Iraq? strain your brain on that one."

I could have sworn I heard that al-Qaeda was in Iraq? And aren't we in Afghanistan? And in other news on the Religion of Peace front (in Australia of all places - guess they did not see your note that they had to be in Pakistan, SA or Afghanistan)...

Terror group discussed killing Australian PM

MELBOURNE (AFP) - Members of a group of Muslim men who allegedly formed a terrorist cell in Australia discussed killing the then prime minister John Howard in 2004, a court heard Tuesday.

Prosecutors said two of the 12 men allegedly involved in the Melbourne-based group raised the possibility of killing Howard in September 2004, when they were discussing what actions were permitted under the Koran.

They said secretly-recorded conversations revealed that group member Abdullah Merhi asked the leader, cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika: "If John Howard kills innocent families... Muslims, do we have to kill him?"

The prosecution said Merhi also asked if an attack on the Australian government would be wrong if it was aimed at forcing the withdrawal of the country's troops from Iraq.

Benbrika did not give a direct reply to either question, simply saying he was passing on Allah's teaching, according to tapes played to the court.

Benbrika allegedly then goes on to suggest the group "do a big thing", adding" "You shouldn't kill just one, two or three."

All 12 men have pleaded not guilty to a string of terrorism-related charges.

In another taped conversation played to the court, also from September 2004, Benbrika's alleged lieutenant Aimen Joud urges the cleric to act before national elections held in October that year.

"Bring the tools, sheikh," he said. "Before the election, we'll do something."

Posted by: dave | February 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112,

I didn't forget, since I gave you the references where you could check the facts, but Obama is the one claiming he is a political virgin!

If you check the facts, please confirm that Obama has outspent Hillary in almost a 4 to 1 ratio on his efforts to buy superdelegates

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: danielmcmartin | February 19, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112,

Don't underestimate Oprah's followers!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"He forgot to mention their efforts to buy superdelegates, since Obama has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005."


Just like you forgot to mention Hillary's dole as well.

Funny how memory works, isn't it?

Fair is fair! That I'd respect.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"I mean, none of you think any of this blogging actually matters do you? To whom, the 250 people who read it?

Come on now."

I love the Fix.


Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

:::: kemurph writes...

"I'd sincerely be interested in hearing those of you who were Democrats before this election cycle and are planning on going nuclear (McCain vote) if HRC gets the nomination."

I am a Maryland Democrat and to me this is not about voting against Hillary Clinton. This is about having the class and grace to do what is honorable by following The mandate of the voters. I will vote in the election for whoever wins the primary as determined by the VOTERS. So I'll be looking at who won the most states, votes, and pledged delegates.

If Hillary wins fairly, of course I'd vote for her.

However if she steals this election using party insiders to subvert the will of the voters you bet I will vote for McCain out of utter disgust. I will do everything in my power to make sure Hillary Clinton does not win the general election if she feels that the voters do not matter.

We are just about done dealing with GWB who thought citizens who vote do not matter. I do not want any more royalty in the White House.

Win fairly, or else... And I am not alone.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Minor correction: There are now 795 Democratic superdelegates. Rep. Tom Lantos, CA, died. His passing doesn't change the magic number, 2025, of delegates needed to win, however, since it leaves 4048 total (not counting the MI and FL pledged and super-delegates).

Posted by: goodrich | February 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

claudialong: Nice try but I'm a democrat. And I am not a racist. The fact is, Obama's speeches adopt a tone and cadence according to the type of crowd he speaks to. The man has been pandering to the public throughout his entire campaign.

Posted by: LB | February 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Ah..., the voices of democracy in action.

I for one am happy the Democrats are finally learning how to fight. For far too long the party has been - for lack of a better term - 'wimpy.' Whether Obama or Clinton wins the nomination, so be it. And then let the real game begin.

The important thing is that the Republicans go down to SEARING defeat across this country in November.

I have a preference regarding the candidate. He is more likely to win, and bring many more Democrats and winning candidates along with him. But in the end, I'll vote for a Democrat over a Repo anytime.

If, however, the Democratic party's Kool-Aide drinking activists don't wise up (and soon), many voters will simply hit the 'self-destruct' button instead (read: stay home in November), handing the Repos another win by default.

All this in-fighting is good for NOW. Coming soon, however, our rage should be directed outward - aimed squarely at the Republican Party.

Play fair, and play smart. The rules have been there for a while. We can change them next year.

Super-delegates get to do what they want to do. Michigan and Florida, too bad. Reschedule a primary or caucus, or - as all the candidates agreed beforehand, your delegates don't get seated.

Period.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | February 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the campaign is not going after Clinton's delegates:

"We would absolutely not use these sorts of tactics. Senator Obama is focused on winning contests and earning the support of pledged delegates."

He forgot to mention their efforts to buy superdelegates, since Obama has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005.

Check these sites for the facts:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-clinton-s.html
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336

Posted by: trace-sc | February 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

LOL. We HAVE made up our minds. All this is just narcissistic rambling. I mean, none of you think any of this blogging actually matters do you? To whom, the 250 people who read it?

Come on now.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd sincerely be interested in hearing those of you who were Democrats before this election cycle and are planning on going nuclear (McCain vote) if HRC gets the nomination.

I get the feeling that most of those speaking that way were not party members to begin with... and the sense that Obama gets somehow credited with bringing a whole new slew of people to the party, but HRC gets criticized for pulling the party apart. It seems like the new people would be the ones doing that, doesn't it? Especially if they are headed for the hills if the party doesn't suit their immediate needs - that's their right and it's understandable, but why should their candidate be the nominee of the party in that case? I'm an independent voter but if I felt my party was being hijacked or given an ultimatum I'd be a little put off.

Posted by: kemurph | February 19, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Why is the press trying to subvert the democratic process?

Why is the Washington Post so slanted towards Obama and so biased against Clinton?

Why not let your readers make up their own minds???

Posted by: svreader | February 19, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

amitai wrote: I can just imagine what it's like when the Clinton's have them over to discuss their vote....."Yessuh, massah Bill, we's don't care if our districts vote ninety percent for Obama and only ten percent for Miss Hillary. We's gonna vote at the convention for Miss Hillary. Halleluyah."

Oh no, Obama supporters could never be racists! They'll just call African-American delegates who vote for Hillary Uncle Toms! How's that new direction in political discourse working out for you?

Posted by: hoopy42 | February 19, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think it takes a certain amount of gaul to claim ones' self ready to assume the office of President of the United States at the age of 46, just 4 years after serving in a state legislature. If it weren't for anti-Clinton sentiment, I doubt Obama would be taken seriously by many people. Be careful what you wish for Democrats, you might just get it.

Posted by: JSnapper | February 19, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"do black men talk about different things than white men, is that it?"

I grew up in LA.

The same place where there was a movement to get "ebonics" taught as an official language in schools.

And I lived in Dallas.

One of the "top 10 best" places for black men to live in the country.

And now I'm in DC-area.

No comment necessary.


The answer is, yes.

Don't call me a racist for pointing it out.

If we're so PC today we can't even acknowledge our differences...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

clawrence35 writes...

"Obama would be a horrible Presidential candidate because he is not qualified to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces."

Thank you for sharing your narrow minded views with us. The majority of the Democrats disagree with you as evidenced by Obama winning more votes, states, AND pledged delegates.

Being the Hillary Clinton minion you are, you probably lack the intelligence to understand any of this. I hear Hillary Clinton calling. Her Majesty probably wants you to go and wash her feet or something. When you see her, tell her that she is loosing the election and not to steal the election unless she wants to be the Ralph Nader of the 2008 election.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 19, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

hoopy42 posted: "I will laugh heartily at the irony if Mrs Obama becomes a first lady who becomes vilified for being assertive and not docile, if she becomes viewed as "willing to do anything for her ambition", a shrill and shrieking woman, i.e., gets morphed into another Hillary Rodham Clinton. After all, much of the Hillary hatred is based on hating powerful, assertive women, and Hillary got a full dose of that when it was clear that she would speak her mind as first lady. John Kerry, likewise, was advised to muzzle his wife. I already see the 'Hillaryzation' of Mrs Obama getting started. Americans cannot stand an assertive, independent-minded woman."

Expanding on these comments - I wonder how many of the people on these boards that are disparaging Michelle Obama actually heard the speech in which she said this? I saw complete footage of her Milwaukee speech and her Delaware speech. When you hear this one phrase within the context of her entire thesis, there is no narcissism or criticism or anger of any sort. The woman is as equally gifted as her husband at presenting the case.

If you have heard the ENTIRE speech, then you have a right to complain. But it's foolish and irresponsible to take one quote out of context and attempt to distort her views, as it leaves you with absolutely no credibility with those who actually heard the entire speech.

And to those still harping on the Rezko land/house sale issue, that was put to bed this weekend when the original owner of the house came forward and revealed that the house was sold to the Obamas at current market value (actually slightly above). Dead issue.

Posted by: bbussey | February 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Dean Barnette wrote: "The pressing question that Obama's decidedly uninspiring Jefferson-Jackson oratory raises is which Obama is the real Obama -- the one who read beautifully crafted words from a Teleprompter after his victory in Iowa, or the tediously angry liberal who improvised in Virginia?"

The real Obama is just another politician, and as slick as any of them. Although not slick enough to hide his obvious identity crisis, if that's what you want to call it. In one speech he'll sound like a white man and in the next like a black Baptist preacher, whipping people into a frenzy. It's obvious he has been disingenuous.


Posted by: LB | February 19, 2008 04:04 PM

2nd best post of the day."


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


If that's 2nd best, your threshold is pretty low.

If Dean Barnett had done some work and actually looked up Barack's prior speeches, he would have known that all the so-called "improvisations" have been in Barack's speeches all along.

Again, a lazy blogger using personal animus instead of real substantive research.

2nd best? That's like calling Clemens "a natural."

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Wait till you see the Superdelegate commercial to be sponsored for America:

SCENE: Football stadium filled to capacity.Two predominantly African American Colleges.

SOMBER VOICE: Everyone was not always treated equal (pan to Whites only restroom)

Everyone's vote did not always count the same.(Black voters being run away from ballot boxes in the 60s)

Did you know that TODAY in the Democrat Party 1 superdelegate counts more than the vote of everyone at this game?(slowly pan the crowd)

And the superdelegates are not even elected.

Superdelegate? Or Plantation Master?

Our votes will count. Either in or out of the Democrat Party.

And the Democrat Party can COUNT on that.

END

Posted by: JaxMax | February 19, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

It is sad, to me, how many GOP voters truly want Obama to fulfill their prophecy that he's just another politician and that this whole thing about hope and optimism is just a campaign trick to get the most cash and take the power of the Presidency.

Even though Obama has given very, very little reason to believe he's not legitimately hopeful for America's future, there are people who are scouring the earth to find any shred of reason to say justify their irrational hatred of the man who is the most optimistic and genuine politician to come along in decades.

I just started reading The Audacity of Hope and I have to say, after only reading the first few pages, I'm blown away as to how candid this book is. It is not beautiful rhetoric like his speeches sometimes seem. It is a conversational narrative of Obama's life, written by a great storyteller. I'm only 4-5 pages into the Prologue and I can already tell this from the voice by which it is written.

For the naysayers and whiners who would like nothing more for Obama to be a phony, simply so they can say "Haha I told you so!!!!" and then allow politics to continue their downward spiral, I say to you: Barack Obama is a genuine American. He isn't always perfect, he has made mistakes, and he can't guarantee that everything he says he will do will actually be done while he's in office. But what he will do is admit when he is wrong, correct his mistakes and always give Americans the honest truth. He will inspire Americans to believe in the causes that are necessary for the country, not force feed the causes down our throat like the current President. He will rally all of us behind a common cause, not simply pound a wedge between the two parties and shove his policies down the throat of what will surely be a weak GOP minority in Congress.

Barack Obama is good for every American because he is the only one who pledges to avoid partisan politics at every turn, while representing a true coalition of American values and sentiments. He may have liberal policy proposals but if the public is against them, he will respect that and yield to the common greater interest. Clinton and McCain have strict agendas for their administration, should they be elected in November. Just like Bush, they will refuse to change their paths in the face of criticism from the American people and only guarantee four more years of splitting tension in Washington, while the middle class continues to get smaller, jobs continue to disappear and the economy continues to go sour.

Obama is the only person who will take the best ideas within our country, unite us to rally behind them and make them the defining values by which we are governed. That is the reason I support him unconditionally, and it doesn't have anything to do with lofty rhetoric.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again. After Jackson Jr. threatened any African American who was an elected official and a super delegate to the DNC that if they did not vote for Obama they would have opposition for their elected position, we have the Obama camp once again playing dirty and crying foul.

Look, at the end of the day, the Democratic Party can not ignore the wishes of nearly 2 million voters in FL and MI and not allow them to have a voice in who are nominee is.

They are right about one thing, some times jeopardizing everything is not worth ripping apart the party. The Obama camp has pushed and bullied their way to the point that Dems, who had an historic opportunity to win this election, now appear so fractured that a Maverick like McCain has a very good shot of becoming President.

I can live with that. I would prefer Clinton, but would never vote for Obama. The idea that a community organizer who brags about his drug use and bases his campaign on borrowed words with no record of delivering change in Springfield or Chicago, but instead has a long history of relationships with the likes of Rezko, Stroger, Blago, and the rest of the corrupt and incompetent Pols in Chicago ... the idea that this is going to be the next President is laughable. There are several examples of his poor judgment, and little experience to merit become President.

America is only now getting to know who Obama is. There is a lot of rhetoric, but not a lot of accomplishments - and at the end of the day, Americans will always choose based on merit rather than voting for someone solely because they can make history by voting for someone because of his race.

Obama would be a horrible Presidential candidate because he is not qualified to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"I am realistic enough to know we are not going to win every election"

And the ones we do win, should mean something.

GWB is the "leader" of the R movement.

All-hail McCain, "leader" of the C movement - carbon taxes, stem cells, abortion for 50 years, open borders, class warfare rhetoric, compramise, deals, defeat.

Just the thought makes me sick.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I am all for counting MI and FL but if we are going to count votes or delegates let's have a fair election. Obama did not take part in MI because of the decision of the Democratic party that Hillary Clinton also agreed to.

How sleazy, and underhanded must Hillary Clinton be to now come and want to have FL and MI counted? Does she think we are stupid? If you want to count votes, let' have an election where both candidates are on the ballet!

Can Hillary Clinton possibly do more to turn off any more Democrats with her vindictive politics and attempting to steal an election by overriding the will of the voters?

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 19, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

what exactly does dean barnett mean by 'he sounds like a white man in one speech and a black man in another' -- different voices or different content? do black men talk about different things than white men, is that it?

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The division really started when Obama joined the race. John Edward would really have a better chance than just getting 0 delegate and winning no state. And remember how Obama drummed up the attacks on the front-runner. Obama gets his >50 % chance by not stating his policies and only giving empty rhetorics. NoLiar4US

Posted by: Nolair4US | February 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

'We're racists? Obama's the one using the race card here...'

and exactly how is he doing that?

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Bethesda writes "Obama should run separately if the Her Majesty the queen of sleazeville steals the election. It is about time we had someone run for President who represents the citizens, not the corrupt party insiders."

Now, wait just a minute here! Dems are so quick to jump on this "stolen election" theme once again, only this time, it's their own party stealing from itself? Excuse me, but this whole process, the rules of proportionality, the use of superdelegates, was agreed upon by the Democratic Party!!!

The Superdelegates were made a part of the nominating process after the bitter campaign between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980! You have yourselves to blame. The voters of MI and FL are waiting to be heard, and there are rules in place that were agreed upon by all the participants. So, stop whining about stolen elections. It's getting really old.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

'In one speech he'll sound like a white man and in the next like a black Baptist preacher,'

the republilcans drag out their most reliable technique [next to fear that is] -- racism.

We're racists? Obama's the one using the race card here...

And we're racists for pointing it out.

You're such a jokester.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Proud: I am realistic enough to know we are not going to win every election, and if we have to lose one, this is a good one to lose since McCain is more liberal than most dems. Why I do not agree with Obama on much, he is the 1st likable dem in a long time and I do not believe the country is doomed if a dem wins. I am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter, and if we could survive him,we can survive anything.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Proud: Interesting article.

AG Edwards - now that's terrifying.

FYI to all fix users, Mark_In_Austin predicted AG Edwards a long time ago (well before he dropped out). At the time I remember thinking it unlikely. Now I think, brilliant.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

It seems as though Black superdelegates are willing to ignore the wishes of their constituents and vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention. Shame on them. I can just imagine what it's like when the Clinton's have them over to discuss their vote....."Yessuh, massah Bill, we's don't care if our districts vote ninety percent for Obama and only ten percent for Miss Hillary. We's gonna vote at the convention for Miss Hillary. Halleluyah."

Is it any wonder that Clinton's Black supporters are over the hill Tom's who would have probably told Martin Luther King to "hush up" and "don't rock the boat."

If Barack Obama has won more delegates in the caucuses and primaries and the Clinton's try to deny him the nomination with their superdelegates this will be far worse than what happened in the 2000 election.

Posted by: amitai | February 19, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

'In one speech he'll sound like a white man and in the next like a black Baptist preacher,'

the republilcans drag out their most reliable technique [next to fear that is] -- racism.

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

bcurtis writes...

"If the next president is to be a democrat, then Hillary is the only practical choice. Otherwise, Obama and his supporters can be pleased that they got so close and made history (in a way)."

I know you mean well but you fail to see how UNELECTABLE Hillary Clinton is. Yes, we need a fighter, but we also need someone who is honest, and has the moral authority and the leadership to STAND UP for what she believes in.

I am a Maryland democrat and after observing the pathetic campaign she is running there is NO WAY I am voting for Hillary Clinton. How do you think she is going to win a general election when she has alienated so much of her own party with her dirty politics? There's no way she can reach out to Independents and moderate Republicans the way Obama can.

It is really telling that after 35 years of selfish and self serving politics that Obama can come and beat her fairly in the elections so far.

Obama has won more states, pledged delegates, and votes than Hillary Clinton. She is loosing the Primary because she is not resonating with the voters within her own party.

I hope it is not too late by the time the Hillary Clinton supporters realize this.

She's willing to destroy the Democratic Party for her own personal gain and steal the election after the majority of the voters have REJECTED her and her politics.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 19, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"if we are faced with a choice of HRC and McCain, I will either cut my throat or vote 3rd party."

Oh, don't be so melodramatic. Voting 3rd party isn't so bad - though it can turn into a bad habit. I didn't vote in 1988, though I was eligible. Since then, I've voted for:

1992 Bush v Clinton: Perot
1996 Clinton v Dole: Perot
2000 Bush v Gore: Browne (Libertarian)
2004 Bush v Kerry: Badnarik (Libertarian)

This year I'll go for Obama, if the Dems nominate him, and will consider McCain if he doesn't pick too badly for a VP. If its Clinton v McCain-Huckabee, I'll be stuck with a 3rd party again.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

'By the way, Claudialong, there is a big difference between nuclear weapons possessed by the now-defunct Soviet Union and by Islamic terrorists. The Soviet Union could be deterred from using them. Religious fanatics who don't care how many they kill in a suicide attack cannot be deterred. You sound like another one of these peaceniks who, for the past 30 years, turns a blind eye to the enemy the U.S. faces'

obviously you weren;t around at the time because no one thought that the soviets would be deterred. that was not a given at all.

a few ragtag religious nuts hardly compares to a huge country armed to the teeth. You sound like one of those naive morons who's constantly peeing his pants over some imagined threat.

the enemy we do face, such as they are, are all in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, the ones who attacked us, so why aren't we fighting them there instead of Iraq? strain your brain on that one.

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Dean Barnette wrote: "The pressing question that Obama's decidedly uninspiring Jefferson-Jackson oratory raises is which Obama is the real Obama -- the one who read beautifully crafted words from a Teleprompter after his victory in Iowa, or the tediously angry liberal who improvised in Virginia?"

The real Obama is just another politician, and as slick as any of them. Although not slick enough to hide his obvious identity crisis, if that's what you want to call it. In one speech he'll sound like a white man and in the next like a black Baptist preacher, whipping people into a frenzy. It's obvious he has been disingenuous.


Posted by: LB | February 19, 2008 04:04 PM

2nd best post of the day.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Is there anything behind the rumor that if Clinton steals the nomination, Obama and Bloomberg will take 1 BILLION dollars and run together?"

I hope so.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

USMC, bhoomes, Before committing political suicide, consider this... an Obama Presidency might be much, much worse from a conservative point of view than a Clinton Restoration - not only in the very long term, with Obama playing a liberal Reagan to a larger leftward shift in American politics, but in the world of short-term politics as well.

I know conservatives weren't great admirers of Bill Clinton's AG choices either, but the prospect of Attorney General John Edwards is exactly the sort of thing that ought to make right-wing Obamaphiles think twice.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_robert_d_novak/attorney_general_edwards


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"...if we are faced with a choice of HRC and McCain, I will either cut my throat or vote 3rd party."

Hah, line of the day.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Dean Barnette wrote: "The pressing question that Obama's decidedly uninspiring Jefferson-Jackson oratory raises is which Obama is the real Obama -- the one who read beautifully crafted words from a Teleprompter after his victory in Iowa, or the tediously angry liberal who improvised in Virginia?"

The real Obama is just another politician, and as slick as any of them. Although not slick enough to hide his obvious identity crisis, if that's what you want to call it. In one speech he'll sound like a white man and in the next like a black Baptist preacher, whipping people into a frenzy. It's obvious he has been disingenuous.

Posted by: LB | February 19, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

bcurtis writes
"The very nature of this competitive process for delegates is symbolic of the most important question democrats should be focused on."


And that question is: "What do you stand for?"

.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike: Obama should run separately if the Her Majesty the queen of sleazeville steals the election. It is about time we had someone run for President who represents the citizens, not the corrupt party insiders. If the Democratic nominee is not elected democratically, what the point of the Democratic party?

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 19, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I hope its not a rumor USMC Mike, if we are faced with a choice of HRC and McCain, I will either cut my throat or vote 3rd party.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I am on obama's mailing list and just received an email from David Plouffe asking everyone to write to super delegates asking them to support Obama. While the email doesn't specifically say, go after those pledged to Clinton, it does sort of go against what Plouffe said earlier...

Posted by: Donohuem | February 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The very nature of this competitive process for delegates is symbolic of the most important question democrats should be focused on.

This is hard-ball politics. So is governing, once elected.

Many Obama supporters come to this process with no experience and no realistic expectations of the fight that will begin once the general election is underway.

Obama himself is a newcomer, untested, unvetted, and unreliable as a candidate to win the election and lead this country.

Hillary is a proven fighter with the kind of political experience necessary to beat the republicans, if the republicans can be beaten.

If the next president is to be a democrat, then Hillary is the only practical choice. Otherwise, Obama and his supporters can be pleased that they got so close and made history (in a way).

In that instance, it will have been very disappointing to see that we failed to take back the white house because we picked a candidate without a hope or a plan.

Posted by: bcurtis | February 19, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Is there anything behind the rumor that if Clinton steals the nomination, Obama and Bloomberg will take 1 BILLION dollars and run together?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sure we all know was "snafu" is an abbreviation for."

LOL! Yes, in fact, I heard it's the new slogan for the Democratic National Convention!


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary seems like a soar loser. But that's not new. During the 1993-94 health care reform debate, Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee introduced an alternative plan to Hillary's. Cooper met with her to discuss their differences. According to a recent NY Times article (The Cooper Concerns, Feb. 8), it was the coldest reception he ever encountered.

Her campaign spokespeople say that when they are trying to woo Obama's pledged delegates, they are playing by rules allowed by the DNC. That's as empty as Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority" about his dialing-for-dollars tactics in the 1996 campaign, or the claim that 900 FBI files turning up at the White House during the Clinton Administration was a "bureaucratic snafu." (I'm sure we all know was "snafu" is an abbreviation for.)

By the way, Claudialong, there is a big difference between nuclear weapons possessed by the now-defunct Soviet Union and by Islamic terrorists. The Soviet Union could be deterred from using them. Religious fanatics who don't care how many they kill in a suicide attack cannot be deterred. You sound like another one of these peaceniks who, for the past 30 years, turns a blind eye to the enemy the U.S. faces.

Posted by: Livelongandprosper | February 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

There will be a civil war within the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton fixes the election by making backroom deals with the Super Delegates to steal the election and change the outcome chosen by the citizens who voted.

I ama Democrat and I can't believe how much I am starting to loathe the Clintons and their politics. I'm now starting to understand why some people had so many issues with them. To a certain extent I think the likes of Carl Rove were necessitated by the sleazy politics of the Clintons. If she ends up hurting Obama in Wisconsin with her dishonest negative ads, I hope either Obama's campaign or Move On responds in kind. She has so much garbage and skeletons in her closet that I was amazed to see her making an issue about Obama borrowing a sentence or two from a friend. What is that compared to all of the Clinton's borderline criminal activity? Someone should talk to Hillary Clinton about the story about people who live in glass houses...

If I am so disgusted by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and I'm sure there are many more democrats who feel as I do. There is no way she's going to win a general election without even the full support of her own base.

I hope she just goes away soon without destroying the party any more.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 19, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Words do matter, Obama said so, so here are two things Michelle Obama said and they do matter

when asked if she would support Hillary if she were the democratic nominee, she said "i would have to "think" about it, it depends on the tone, the policies" (I quess if she don't like it she'll vote for McCain)

and now "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country" and of course attributes this to Barak

words - they do matter

now i notice that people are not taking kindly to criticism of Michelle, well get used to it - she's a woman and she will be demonized the minute someone hears her fart or say something.... not fiar - no it isn't but we started a tradition with Hillary and if you want to live in the fish bowl, then get used to it. Her every sneeze will now be analized and ripped apart - how do you like the shredding machine now - it sucks doesn't it.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 19, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

drindle - I am not at all sure of what you mean, but if you mean that a "victory" is justifiable by any means, then count me out! And, you can count out just about every other *American* I can think of. The Clinton's have rushed to a new low here. This isn't just contemptable, it is so awful that they need to be tossed out of the Democratic Party. There is no justifcation for this sort of underhanded politics. It is the reason why I will never vote for a Clinton and it ought to be a wakeup call for anyone contemplating voting for her that she cannot be trusted. All of those campaign promises are just hot air designed to fool the rubes.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 19, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think the high negatives were necessarily helpful"

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, but I have a theory that part of her success has been driven by a natural inclination, on the part of liberals, to want to stick it to the VRWC for demonizing her for so many years.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama's criticism of the United States is problematic for Senator Obama... it will be played widely by the usual swift boat suspects and it echoes (as someone mentioned before) her church's denigration of this 'racist United States' and 'middle class values'. While we are not voting for the candidate's spouse (sounds odd saying that when Bill is on the other D side), she is putting herself out there in support of Senator Obama. For a campaign that puts such a premium on words, this is a pretty bad lapse.
I am not a Bush supporter. I voted against him twice and find most of his policies/actions repugnant. Nonetheless, I can find a few things to be proud of during the past eight years:
· US funding on AIDS treatment in Africa
· Bush's support for American Muslims in the wake of 9/11 and his refusal to scapegoat Muslims in general
· US support for our Eastern European allies (e.g. Kosovo independence) and building Democracy in that region

I might have had to ponder the three points a little, but I could think of a few positives from the Bush administration that make me proud. It sure seems like whoever is working with Michelle Obama might have added to the list somewhat.

All that being said, if I were inclined to Obama I wouldn't worry too much about his wife's speech. I didn't particularly care for Therese Heinz-Kerry's random pronouncements either (especially her attack on Laura Bush) but I still voted for her husband...

Posted by: seannewengland | February 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Standing at an event this morning with former President George
McCain is proud of bush's strategy in Iraq. Vote for him if you wnat more of the same.

'H.W. Bush to receive his and Barbara's endorsement, McCain was asked whether he "would be in effect carrying out a third Bush term."

"I'd be honored to have President George Bush's support, his endorsement," McCain responded. "And I'd be honored to be anywhere with him under any circumstances." He added, "I am proud of this president's strategy in Iraq." Watch it:'

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Administration

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

bsimon writes: "But I'd also bet she [Hillary] wouldn't be in the Senate now, much less be running for President, had she not been subject to such attacks."

bsimon, I disagree. I think she does owe her senate career and current candidacy to her high profile as first lady - but I don't think the high negatives were necessarily helpful. However, they certainly serve her purpose now, since she can compare her being already vetted to Obama's "unknowns."

Posted by: -pamela | February 19, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Ahem... except for the HRC backers..."

I was thinking it, but chose not to write it...

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

'Virtually every time Obama deviated from the text, he expressed the partisan anger that has so poisoned the Democratic party'

LOL. try a little harder. if you want to talk about poisoned by hatred, look no further than the GOP. this is one of the new memes I'm talking about. It started in the WSJ and will spread thoroughout the rightwing machine... Obama is 'angry.'

Yeah, I know it's ridiculous. Roll your eyes and laugh at their desperation.

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

'So I ask you all, what national event(s) has made you so proud to be an American?'

interesting question... right now, the fact that a woman and a black man can be considered legitimate presidential candidates. othe than that, the Civil Rights Act, the dawning consciousness of women that they were equal to men [although different] our space program and partnership with the Russians, the Hubbell Telescope launch, a man walking on the moon, of course, our various peacekeeping efforts in troubled countries --but then I'm older than Michelle.

I recall that I used to be especially proud of this country's leadership in science and technology -- something that really doesn't exist anymore.

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

It's high time to bid Billary and Hill adieu.

Posted by: buzzm1 | February 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington, Obama without the teleprompter sounds a lot more like John Edwards and a lot less like the lofty Deacon of Unity.

At the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Virginia, Obama's angry off-script riffs were markedly different than what we're used to hearing.

What was especially noteworthy about his Virginia speech were the diversions Obama took from the prepared text.
Because of Obama's improvised moments, this speech was different than the usual fare he offers. We didn't get the
normal dosages of post-partisanship or even "elevation."

Virtually every time Obama deviated from the text, he expressed the partisan anger that has so poisoned the Democratic party. His spontaneous comments eschewed the
conciliatory and optimistic tone that has made the Obama campaign such a phenomenon.

It looked like the spirit of John Edwards or Howard Dean had possessed Obama every time he vamped. While Paul Krugman probably loved it, this different Obama was a far less attractive one.


At one point, Obama launched an improvised jeremiad against the current administration that took special note of the recent revelation that he and Dick Cheney are distant
relations:

"Now I understand some of the excitement doesn't have to do
with me. I know that whatever else happens whatever twists and turns this campaign may take, when you go into that
polling place next November, the name George Bush won't be on the ballot and that makes everybody pretty cheerful.
Everyone's happy about that. The name of my cousin Dick Cheney won't be on the ballot. That was embarrassing when
that news came out. When they do these genealogical surveys, you want to be related to somebody cool. So, but,
his name went be on the ballot.


"Each of us running for the Democratic nomination agrees on one thing that the other party does not -- that the next
president must end the disastrous policies of George W. Bush. No more Scooter Libby Justice! No more Brownie incompetence! No more Karl Rove politics."


None of this was in the prepared text. And all of it was a marked departure from the kind of successful campaign that
Obama has run. One can imagine Obama, if he thought things through more fully, using the revelation regarding Cheney
as an occasion to note something vapidly uplifting like how in America, we're all part of the same family.


Looking past the missed opportunity regarding the vice president, how many times has Obama deliberately pushed
angry-left hot buttons like Scooter Libby and Karl Rove?

Obama has run looking to the future, and thus hasn't felt It necessary to dwell on the purported horrors that the
Bush administration has visited upon the nation. This tack has made him look above the fray.


Other improvised moments also contradicted the generally lofty tone of the Obama campaign. At one, point when
addressing what we have to do for the economy, Obama ad-
Libbed, "The insurance and the drug companies aren't going
to give up their profits easily . . . Exxon Mobil made $11
billion this past quarter."

This is the kind of empty class
warfare shtick that earned John Edwards an early exit from the race. What's more, it displayed the kind of simplistic
sloganeering that Obama had previously eschewed.


Obama's shot at Exxon Mobil's profits is strikingly disingenuous. He seems to be implicitly saying that the
healthy earnings are good news for Mr. Exxon and Mr. Mobil, who will promptly stash most of the profits underneath
their obviously outsized mattresses. The two will then likely invest the remainder in foreign sweatshops that will
facilitate the outsourcing of even more American jobs.


Of course, who benefits from corporate earnings is a slightly complex matter, and thus vulnerable to simplistic
demagoguery. Just ask John Edwards. But Barack Obama is far too intelligent to not realize that many of the school
teachers and union workers and working moms that so often people his more elegant speeches likely have an interest in
Exxon Mobil's profits either from their retirement plan's portfolio or their union's holdings or their own
investments that they actively manage.

The implied notion that corporate profits matter only to the corporations in
question is risibly counterfactual.


Worse still was the threat to take away the profits of the drug and insurance companies. Perhaps Obama thinks that the
drug companies will continue to develop life saving therapies out of benevolence, and that their employees will happily take the pay cuts that will accompany the loss of profits.

This is yet another simplistic piece of us- against-them politicking, the kind of thing that Obama has reliably eschewed -- at least when he's on script.

What makes Obama's Jefferson-Jackson speech especially relevant is where he went when he went off script. The
unifying Obama who has impressed so many people during this campaign season vanished, replaced by just another angry
liberal railing against George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Exxon Mobil, and other long standing Democratic piñatas.

The pressing question that Obama's decidedly uninspiring Jefferson-Jackson oratory raises is which Obama is the real
Obama -- the one who read beautifully crafted words from a Teleprompter after his victory in Iowa, or the tediously angry liberal who improvised in Virginia?"


Obama Unplugged
Lost without a Teleprompter.

By Dean Barnett
THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Tuesday, February 12, 2008


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what rules they come up with since the Clintons will break them anyways and then lie about it when they get caught.

Posted by: FLvet | February 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

As others have mentioned above, there has been analysis of the money that Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's PACs have contributed to the campaigns of the various superdelegates and how it has influenced their pledges. Senator Obama has indeed given more money than Senator Clinton. The original article is here:

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336

I have taken the data from the Capital Eye article above and added it to my spreadsheet tracking how superdelegates vote in comparison to the popular vote in their state or congressional district. I have found that the donations are not having a large impact on superdelegates who are defying the will of the voters. Most of the superdelegates who are voting against their local constituents are doing so for other reasons. The full analysis is here:

http://gawksquawk.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegates-and-campaign-donations.html

Posted by: GawkSquawk | February 19, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

This is what I mean about McCain. I think he's become as unhinged as Bush. All he cares about, all he thinks about is, Iraq. Not about this country, not about the economy, not about the middle class, not about health care, or infrastructure, or education, or the future. Just a long and loony and costly military escapade.

"Nice historical perspective, Senator.

Arizona Sen. John McCain played it cautiously Monday night, barely mentioning his Democratic rivals for the presidency, hailing past and present Republican presidents and underscoring that his focus as president would be waging war against "radical Islamic extremism."

Speaking to about 500 party faithful at the Outagamie County Lincoln Day Dinner, McCain said the war in Iraq was part of the fight against Islamic extremism, "the greatest evil, probably, that this nation has ever faced."

Yeah, probably not.

Nazi Germany took over one continent and a good chunk of another, executed 12,000,000 men, women, and children in the name of racial purity, and started a war that killed 70,000,000 people worldwide. The Japanese slaughtered 35,000,000 Chinese, including 300,000 mostly for the hell of it at Nanking. And of course there's Stalin, who killed 20,000,000 of his own people and Mao, who probably wiped out 2-3 million for being disloyal.

Someone who ranks Osama and the war in Iraq above World War II and Hitler and Stalin and Mao just should not be taken seriously about anything. It should be automatic grounds for a complete loss of all credibility, especially on national security issues. Period. It's ridiculous."

WWII was taking on one of the mightiest military machines ever built, which was rapidly expanding and conquering and murdering vast numbers. And then there was the Cold War and thousands of armed nuclear weapons aimed at our cities. And he thinks a couple of hundred religious nuts hiding in caves is more dangerous than that. Sure they can do some harm here, but if we keep our guard up [and our ports and borders de4fended] not that much. However, we can RUIN ourselves by continuing to waste all our resources on a war that cannot be won by military means alone.

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Most voters seem to vote more for the candidate, than for the spouse.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 02:15 PM

Ahem... except for the HRC backers...

Sry proud, didn't realize you'd addressed it. Literally only had 30 seconds to get my Fix fix before running to a meeting.

Posted by: JD | February 19, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

SAY GOODNIGHT HILLARY. OR FAREWELL OR ADIOS. GOOD BYE WOULD DO NICELY. YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK WORSE BY THE MINUTE AND TEARING OUR PARTY APPART. IF YOU TRULY CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY MORE THAN YOUR OWN ABITIONS AND THIRST FOR POWER...GIVE IT UP!

Posted by: ED_SCOTT | February 19, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I see, i went back and looked at the article again and i see most of these posters never got past the first paragraph

per usual, wa po started an article making it look like Hillary was stealing delegates and splitting the party

further down, it became apparent that Barak was stumping the delegates, not Hillary

but don't fret, drink more kool aid and faint for Sanjay

Posted by: lndlouis | February 19, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

NOTHING is more DISGUSTING than watching dinasaur party insiders plotting against the electorate that is REJECTING the insider's candidate.

In Hawaii today the electorate is choosing Obama - but their dinasaur senator is crowing that he'll proudly flout their choice and throw his support to the defeated candidate.

ANY SUPERDELEGATE VOTING AGAINST THE DECISION OF HIS CONSTITUENTS DESERVES TO BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE!

The party is NOTHING. The party has NO legitemate voice in who we elect. The party SERVES the electorate -not the other way around.

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT AND THROW OUT THE SELF-SERVING DINASAURS INSIDE THE BELTWAY!

Posted by: onestring | February 19, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

What's with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

A democracy should be fought for! Lustily!

I'm supporting Obama, but enough with the whining already. You want to be Prez? Fight for it...fairly, but fight, dang you, fight! Outsmart em, don't nag us to death.

And that goes double for them Hillary folk.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama's quote does not bother me. Her feeling of pride comes from the sweeping national desire for political change. Twenty years of Clinton and Bush will do that for some.

I, for one, wasn't eligible to vote 20 years ago. I was too young. Too ignorant to the process. Government, politics and candidates were foreign languages to me. I was 16. Michelle Obama was 23 years old.

But now that I am well into my 'adult' life, Ms. Obama's quote (along with the negative criticism) has caused me to reflect on possible moments since 1992 (first year I voted) that made me feel proud to be an American during my adult life ...

And oddly enough, nothing really comes to mind. Although immediately after 9/11, I was proud that ethnic, cultural, racial barriers within our country were temporarily irrelevant. We were a people of one, united. Unfortunately, by a catastrophe.

National pride is always flowing in one's blood. Sometimes this circulation is awakened by certain events, whether by an underdog's victory in the 6th round at the Olympics or by means so tragic and unforgettable. However, this national pride typically becomes short-lived and once again, becomes inactive.

The pride that Ms. Obama is talking about - beyond the dormant, natural patriotism we most share - is possibly something more. Perhaps, lasting.

So I ask you all, what national event(s) has made you so proud to be an American?

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

Hopefully, President Hussein Obama doesn't do too much damage in the next 4 years.

"Willard Mittens Romney?"

Could be.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Both side have said they will not actively campaign for the others delegates.

both side - buttttttt - you all are posting about Hillary's evil going after Obama;s delegates while he (the hope virgin) is just the sweetest innocent victim of the evil doer. do you really see yourselves? as you really are - do you read these articles or just rant and rave (craigs list) to hear yourselves rant and rave.

for some of you this is American Idol and you are all Simon's

this is a presidential election and the media is biased again:

Obama is a "uniter not a divider" a "harvard man" of "great character". Sound familiar? Its the exact same pitch Bush made.

the media sold it

me - trust the media

No - I am voting for Hillary and the rest of you can kma

Posted by: lndlouis | February 19, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"And so, I will vote for Jimmy Carter II, in hopes of another 49 state sweep (by a REAL conservative) in 2012."

Willard Mittens Romney?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 19, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"PROUD: McCain aligned himself as usual with the dems to prevent conservative judges to get a fair vote. McCain has stuck it to conservatives for the last 8 years, always demeaning them but never the dems, who he has only good things to say about. McCain is not only not a conservative, he's not a republican. But he will be in my back yard tomorrow (Youngs' Dairy which is 3 miles from my house)and if I get a chance to converse with him, I will be respectfull but he will get straight talk."

I think I'm going to weigh in (sorry Proud).

I respect McCain as a hero. The man is so torn up he can hardly walk. Standing next to that preppy, ivy-league-but-pretends-to-be-average adolecent, he couldn't look more refined and in control.

But not all heros get to (or should) be President.

I've decided, as of today:

I will vote for Obama over McCain.

I will vote for McCain only over Clinton (the devil herself is worse than the man who so willingly makes deals with the devil).

This could change, but only if it seems likely that a 57 year-old hope-peddler can actually find a way to "unite" principled veterans with infinitely more experience, to shove his ultra-left-wing agenda down our throats, masked as a "new deal", "great society", or other jolly, colloquial phrase meant to mask the true intentions of a socialist ideology.

For now, it seems highly unlikely that he can.

And so, I will vote for Jimmy Carter II, in hopes of another 49 state sweep (by a REAL conservative) in 2012.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama is the one who is damaging not only the party but the whole country, saying that this is the first time in her adult lifetime that she is really proud of her country.

A woman with a "blame America first" attitude is not suited to represent the USA on the world stage as First Spouse.

Barack himself has built his campaign on lofty rhetoric and was caught having plagiarized whole segments of his "Words matter speech.

Barack and Michelle are wrong for America!!

Posted by: mehuwss | February 19, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

How about an interview with Ron Paul, asking his opinion on these party fights?

(I can't believe I'm saying this, but he defintely looks better than Clinton and McCain right now. At least he looks like a responsible adult.)

Posted by: TomJx | February 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

The real shame in this contest is on the media. We all know that at some point the "pack" will turn on Obama

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Beginning wit The Fix.

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

Speaking of Cindy McCain, has anyone ever asked her what she thought about the "joke" her hubby told about Chelsea Clinton?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 19, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I won't be voting D in this election (have in the past), but have to agree with the Clintons when they say Obama has (so far) received a free pass by the media. Obama has backed off his pledge to accept public financing of his campaign. Obama has freely plagiarized from others speeches. While he's basically laughed it off, similar allegations helped force Joe Biden out of an earlier Presidential bid. Further a fundamental part of a legal education is the critical emphasis appropriate citations. Plagiarism is a major taboo. It says something about his character that, although he received a top-notch legal education, he feels no compunction about stealing words from other people (especially when rhetoric is seen as his major benefit). The church Obama belongs to recently saw fit to award that paragon of unity, Louis Farrakhan, an award. Lastly, Obama's(?) pretty words of unity obscure his deeply partisan approach. He talks about unity but if you read closely it's really 'my way or the highway'. When has Obama reached across the aisle in a legislative sense and not just rhetoric? Clinton seems like she is actually the more bipartisan politician than Obama.

I hated the swift boat campaign in the Kerry election (I voted for Kerry) and the mud slinging by the various demagogues. Obama's empty rhetoric (yes he has policy positions on his website... but I've yet to hear any 'hard truth's' from him), enormous ego, and broken promises (on public funding, super delegates, stolen campaign speeches) are just as damaging to the Democrats hopes in November as the Clintonian method of politics.

Posted by: seannewengland | February 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

pamela writes
"Would [Sen Clinton] have such high negatives now if she hadn't been pilloried during her 8 years as first lady? I don't think so - her senate career doesn't seem to have engendered much antipathy."

No - her negatives would not be so high if she hadn't been pilloried for 8 years. But I'd also bet she wouldn't be in the Senate now, much less be running for President, had she not been subject to such attacks.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Inspiring leader or cynical politicians? Any super delegate that doesn't vote for the future of the Democratic Party is an idiot and should be defeated in the next election. "It don't take a weatherman to see which way the wind blows"(RZ).

Posted by: thebobbob | February 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

HIllary, you've been busted plagiarizing! Your campaign strategy of paranoia, sleaze, mud-throwing, self-pity, duplicity, and hypocrisy has been lifted verbatim from the Nixon playbook! Now, when do we get the farewell press conference telling us that we won't have Hillary CLinton to kick around anymore?

Posted by: bondjedi | February 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has used the Democratic Party for power. Power corrupts, and 25 years of it has made the Clintons as diseased as they get. The Party? Unity? Those are quaint concepts to the Clintons. Here's what they recognize: POWER. The rest is silly.

Posted by: robertell | February 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

PROUD: McCain aligned himself as usual with the dems to prevent conservative judges to get a fair vote. McCain has stuck it to conservatives for the last 8 years, always demeaning them but never the dems, who he has only good things to say about. McCain is not only not a conservative, he's not a republican. But he will be in my back yard tomorrow (Youngs' Dairy which is 3 miles from my house)and if I get a chance to converse with him, I will be respectfull but he will get straight talk.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 19, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

What about Obama's tactics?

Could the WP be any more slanted in Obama's direction?

What ever happened to objective journalism?

Posted by: svreader | February 19, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Guys, I am carrying this over from the other post - I had to go out - but I wanted to address some questions.

Mark in Austin - I agree with you - here is a select list of early voting places in Cameron COunty - it does not include all places - where I voted is not listed

Selected early voting locations in Cameron County
Cameron County Elections Department, 954 E. Harrison, Brownsville
Brownsville Public Library, 2600 Central Blvd., Brownsville
Cameron Park Community Center, 2100 Gregory Ave., Brownsville
Hon. Bennie Ochoa III County Annex Building, 505 Highway 100, Port Isabel
Los Fresnos Community Building, 204 N. Brazil, Los Fresnos
Note: For a complete list of locations, contact the elections office at (956) 544-0809.
SOURCE: Cameron County Elections Administrator Roger Ortiz

To understand why we feel dismissed you have to understand Texas politics. UT Brownsville is the only state university in part funded by a local taxing authority. This means every other state university is funded by the state 100% except UT Brownsville - the agreement with the UT System was - if we as a 95% latino community wanted a university we had to agree to fund it partly through local property taxes.

This is how badly we are treated. So when a presidential candidate who cannot win without us snubs us we take it personal.

I would be curious to compare how many people voted today in Texas compared to those who voted today in Wisconsin. I understand Obama needed to be in Wisconsin today - the issue is - he has not even scheduled RGV for a future campaign stop

On the Swift Boat Veterans issue - a review of Eddie Lucio III campaign reports shows his number one contributor to be Bob Perry - who funded the Swift Boat Veterans - Bob Perry bought Eddie Lucio his political office - no one disputes this.

Obama's number one man on the ground in Cameron County is Eddie Lucio III.

We cannot get rid of these corrupt politicos because they use the politiquera system to steal elections. (See above) They get the money to pay the politiqueras from people like Bob Perry.

Of note, Hillary's number one and two people are Eddie Lucio Jr (father of the 3rd) and Gilberto Hinojosa. Hinojosa through his open support for Hillary is in violation of party rules. several weeks ago behind closed doors and no advanced notice to the people he was installed as the Democratic Party chair for Cameron county. As the Chair he is to remain silent on the issue until after the primary. It is this level of contempt for the law and rules which got him unelected and replaced with a Republican in the second poorest county in the US.

We are tired of being dismissed and having politicians from outside the valley coming in and telling us to continue to support these thieves

So when Obama failed to even schedule an event in RGV and has brought the scum of the earth to be his spokeperson - well as they say the rest is history - I now know the man and did not pull for Hillary or Obama when I voted today.

BObby WIghtman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | February 19, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he's waffling on his promise.

Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics?

Is giving Robert Byrd's campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation's 261,000 lobbyists don't see the light, even after the laying on of hands?

Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party -- the trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, the AARP?


The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out.

Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions.

Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Folks, how exactly is Clinton stealing this election? I remember some posters on these boards going into conniptions over the NH results. The exit polls were accurate and showed how Clinton won. The attack ads coming out now are touch football compared to the general election. If you can't stand the heat...

Proud - You said something curious. How exactly is Obama's campaign an "angry populist"? I think you're recycling some anti-Edwards posts.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Voters have long memories - especially when someone makes a bad first impression. In the modern era, that definitely includes candidates' spouses. How ironic that Hillary's negatives seemed to start when she made an innocuous remark about baking cookies. Would she have such high negatives now if she hadn't been pilloried during her 8 years as first lady? I don't think so - her senate career doesn't seem to have engendered much antipathy.

My sympathies to Michelle Obam and Cindy McCain - this might be a long campaign.

Posted by: -pamela | February 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

proud, I'll tell you what. I'll ignore the whole "Bomb Iran" thing with McCain if you'll let the Michelle Obama thing go. Okay?

I'll agree that it isn't the kind of statement to make in this. But I'd also argue that all of the folks in the campaign at this point have wished they could take back things that they (or others in their campaign) have said.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 19, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Clinton tactics damaging party? How about my followers will probably not vote for her in the general, but her's will vote for me. so vote for me because she can't get elected in the general. Michele-I would have to give a lot of thought before voting for her in the general. True Dems? Thanks for the loyalty? That should be enough to vote against Obama, but the blind sheep keep following.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 19, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

LB writes
"Seems it took the nation's support of her husband as a possible presidential candidate to finally make her feel "really" proud of this country. Before that she was what - "NOT really proud" of her country?"

Another rational interpretation would be that before this, she was merely 'proud' of her country. Now she's REALLY proud. Of course, the folks who are trying to beat her husband in the race are going to make a more critical interpretation of the comment.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Regarding recent comments about Michelle Obama: I will laugh heartily at the irony if Mrs Obama becomes a first lady who becomes vilified for being assertive and not docile, if she becomes viewed as "willing to do anything for her ambition", a shrill and shrieking woman, i.e., gets morphed into another Hillary Rodham Clinton. After all, much of the Hillary hatred is based on hating powerful, assertive women, and Hillary got a full dose of that when it was clear that she would speak her mind as first lady. John Kerry, likewise, was advised to muzzle his wife. I already see the "Hillaryzation" of Mrs Obama getting started. Americans cannot stand an assertive, independent-minded woman.

Posted by: hoopy42 | February 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I live in Wisconsin and voted for Obama today. When this race heated up I thought I would be happy voting for either candidate in the general election. But the way Hillary has lowered the level of discourse and gone very negative, I doubt whether I could bring myself to cast a ballot for her if she wins the nomination.

Is Karl Rove running the Clinton campaign? Is this the kind of leader we want?

Posted by: grassy123 | February 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

NMP1- I'm just pointing out that the early voting could have a surprising impact on the outcome. Optimyst makes a good argument for why CA & TX are different. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was caught a little off-guard when Bobby CW posted on the other thread that TX voting started today.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

PROUD: That statement struck me as "Odd" to say the least, for a lady that is highly intelligent and very well educated. I have always had this "Feeling" about him, and now this from her. Something is just not right about these folks.

Posted by: lylepink | February 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

From our friends at the NYT:

"At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress.

They were experiencing the first hints of what's bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.

The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania -- fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama's face.

These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness.

Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation's Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.

Up until now The Chosen One's speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense.

For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we've been here all along?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

USMC? Time for some more inspiring slogans!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The one doing the most damage right now is his own wife who told a rally of supporters "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country".

Seems it took the nation's support of her husband as a possible presidential candidate to finally make her feel "really" proud of this country. Before that she was what - "NOT really proud" of her country?

No matter how you interpret it, it's a very self-centered and unpatriotic thing to say. Especially coming from someone who hopes to become our country's First Lady.

Posted by: LB | February 19, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a fraud and I hope it comes out in time to stop him otherwise the Republicans will expose him. Michelle Obama has largely been given a pass on her cmments. Imagine if Bill had said that. The Rezko problem won't kick in until just after the Texas vote, to bad. What about Obama paying to steal superdelegates?

Posted by: dwashington314 | February 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

optimyst | February 19, 2008 02:23 PM

You forgot to mention the two million mailed absentee ballots. Erase those and you have an Obama win in California.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I just heard the flap over Obama's wife statement that for the first time in her adult life she finally has something to be proud of her country. This is not a statement to be taken lightly since it indicates that there is an intrinsic dislike of her country but now that a minority candidate is being taken seriously, which is the only thing that has changed her mind set has changed.

I believe that she has just put ammo in Hillarys cannon. Remember John Kerrys wife and her erratic behavior during his campaign. Me thinks the Obama Campaign is right now deciding how to limit damage control. I'm sure they will down play it and maybe even make it work for them. Isn't love wonderful?

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Man this has gotten nasty. I agree, HRC will stop at nothing to steal this nomination.

What I also find disturbing is how the media has been starting to describe Obama supporters as being irrational fanatics. I started this nomination process as a fan of both HRC and Obama, but HRC's tactics have driven me solidly into Obama's camp. And now I keep seeing in the blogosphere some really angry and irrational posts by HRC supporters.

Her supporters are starting to look a lot like her campaign: desperate.

Posted by: AdamSC | February 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the post from kelly. The recent turn of negative events and attacks by the Dems has really hurt the enthusiasm for the General Election. If things do not improve, enough Dem. voters will get turned off by diviseness and exposure of each candidates' weaknesses. The healing needs to start in March or April - NOT IN JUNE OR AUGUST.

Posted by: ahodes | February 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

David Plouffe is a superb spin-doctor. The only better spin doctor that I have seen so far was Tony Blairs' Alastair Campbell. The problem is that we all know how his career ended. If Plouffe is insisting that superdelegats should follow their precincts then he needs to be aware that he is giving the Clinton camp a great chance to make the claim that all pledged delegates should follow their states. It is somewhat ironic but the Clinton camp's argument is more faithful to the rules even though it looks more farfetched. As a constitutional lawyer, Obama is very well aware that Plouffe's argument is in conflict with the purpose of the rules about superdelegats. Obama is simply risking too much by allowing Plouffe to spin the rules to the extent he did and hoping that he will manage to persuade the public that it is Clinton who is the "bad guy". All those in legal profession know that you should think twice before you start fiddling with the rules since the spin could easily turn around and hit you right in the face. If Obama is as fateful to the rule of law as he claims he should know better. The rules are here and they do matter. Moreover, they make sense. If they fail or you don't like them change them after the election process is done. Don't start misusing them in the middle of the process because this is so....what's the word...oh yeah, old Washington.

Posted by: sego | February 19, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Since Hillary is taking a page from the Republican playbook and attacking Senator Obama on one of his strengths, public speaking, it is time to reexamine just why her healthcare initiative failed back in the 1990's. The first thing she did was set up this secret conference of experts, closed to the press, where the elites, aka, those that already agreed with her, were creating the perception of a blue ribbon commission/study group, even though her plan was actually already formulized and people and the conference were given very strict parameters within which to work, so that they would come to the conclusion she had already reached. There wasn't any brainstorming or meeting of the minds, it was a done deal. When the Senate was handed this proposal, and told to vote on it, they of course had to discharge their duties as legislators and discuss and debate. The Clintons were adament that their's was the only way to proceed. The late Senator, John Chafee, of Rhode Island, a moderate, got together a group of moderates and offered to work with her and make some real progress in solving our health care crises. Hillary didn't want to hear about it, it was all about her and Bill telling the Senate what to do. Only she and Bill knew what was best. Thus, it failed not because of a vast right wing conspiracy, as she claims, but rather her own arrogance and unwillingness to reach across the aisle and be bipartisan, something she is claiming she does in the Senate.

This is another example of Bill Clinton's very poor political skills too!

Posted by: gckarcher | February 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

MarkFoxenberg | February 19, 2008 02:21 PM

You are leaving out the voters. We are in the middle of an election and the voters have perked up a little. This will be settled by the voting public, not the Establishment Machine.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Damaging to the party? Maybe.
Damaging to her campaign? Yes.

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: davidmwe | February 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

bsimon wrote, "TX could be a CA repeat, where the polls show Obama closing the gap, but early voters going strongly to Clinton, negating the late gains of Obama."

My initial thought was the same, but there are some differences:

1) Obama has momentum now that he certainly did not have before Feb 5.

2) Obama voters seem more "energetic" than Clinton voters, so I would expect them to be at least as likely to get out early to vote.

3) I may be generalizing (Mark?), but it seems to me that Texas is one of the hot spots where there is an intense loathing of Hillary among certain groups. Since it is an open primary, Obama may find some gratuitous support as a result.

4) If yesterday's 50% - 48% poll is accurate, Hillary's support may have already weakened considerably in Texas.

One of the things I'll be watching for tonight in Wisconsin to get a sense of the mood of voters is how the undecided vote breaks. Right now Hillary gets about 42% with about 12% undecided. If she finishes with 44%, it will show that the late deciders broke for Obama 5 to 1. I think that will be a very useful stat in handicapping the Texas and Ohio races, especially given the Clinton campaign tactics of the last couple days.

On the other hand, if she picks up a majority of them, it will ratify her tactics, which will only get more negative as we move toward March 4.

Posted by: optimyst | February 19, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"There will be chaos at the convention," Wilder told Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation."

"If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse."--Politico

GO, HILL, GO!!!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,

When early voting in California began Senator Obama was trailing Senator Clinton by double digits. At the start of early voting in TX, today, Senator Obama is in a statistical dead heat. Moreover, why do you presume that Seantor Clinton's supporters are more motivated to early vote than Senator Obama's. This is NOT the same as California, by any measure.

Posted by: NMP1 | February 19, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillazza said,

"(1) No race in the modern era has ever been as protracted as this one."

Am I the only one to remember the Republican nomination fight in 1976? Reagan and Ford were each clawing for single delegates well into July. Even more than thirty years later I can still remember how individual delegates were being wooed with phone calls from both President Ford and Ronald Reagan.

The real shame in this contest is on the media. We all know that at some point the "pack" will turn on Obama, and a feeding frenzy will begin on this man. Even some in the media know this will come, but they don't know it they'll do it before the convention or after it. I'm no fan of his or of Mrs. Clinton, but I feel sorry of both of them, and for the country to have to suffer from the vain, selfish, petulant and spoiled media.

Posted by: MarkFoxenberg | February 19, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

We are coming down to the wire on this election. This may be the most important election (other than 2000) in many years. There are dire consequences. Let's get this thing together.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/19/america-hope-or-prosaic-nation/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 19, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

For democracy's sake, its critical to end the 28 year Bush Clinton Dynasty.

For Pete's Sake.

I am willing to vote for just about anyone in order to accomplish that one thing.

Posted by: President_Roslin | February 19, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, How can you even call yourself a conservative if you would actually cast a vote for a person with a 100% liberal rating as a Senator. Not to mention the difference between the angry populist message that Obama and his wife espouse and the solidly fiscal conservative and pro-military platform of McCain.

Michelle Obama's recent comments are very telling. America hasn't been good to her?

What, opportunities to go to Princeton, Harvard Law, working for top-shelf law firms and hospitals, sitting on the board of directors for a major Wal-Mart supplier -- that's not enough?

But there's a contrast here Rs can feel comfortable with:

McCain: I'm blessed to be here, and owe everything to my country.

Michelle Obama: Supporting my husband is the first decent thing this lousy country has done in a long time.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Obama better shut his wife up, if he wants to get elected. No time to elaborate, but most politi-junkies know what I mean."

proud already detailed the event. An innocuous statement in context reads poorly in a transcript, particulary when pared down to one sentence.

Most voters seem to vote more for the candidate, than for the spouse. Though I have to note that neither Theresa nor Tipper much helped their mates.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

PROUDTOBEGOP: Your a bit to harsh on Michelle, in a long campaign you are bound to misspeak once in awhile. At least if Michelle is the 1st Lady, she will not be strung out on Prescription drugs, can Cindy say that.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 19, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

HRC will stop at nothing to steal this nomination.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Worth worrying yet?

If a clear winner emerges between now and Mar 5, it's pretty much over and this is a moot point. And if in June it's a dead even tie I think even most supporters would understand if the party hacks give it to Clinton, that's what they were bought for, and there's a strong tradition in the party of smoky rooms to be respected. As an admitted Obama supporter, even I am willing to concede a tie to Clinton. This issue with delegates, super and otherwise, is like MI and FL, only an issue in the scenario in which Obama wins a clear majority of delegates and popular vote and Clinton somehow subverts any notion of democracy by winning dirty, by "persuading" unearned delegate support AND/OR pulling a successful coup with FL AND/OR MI. And if that happens, the Democratic Party as we know it is over, done, kaput, they will lose 90% of their African-American membership, young voters, liberals, idealists, intellectuals, etc. With luck, the movement would be strong enough, along with a lot of independents and perhaps the 15% of Republicans who are actually really decent people after all, to form a new thrid party that could really redraw the whole political map of the country. Would I like to see that? Well, no one really wants to see the Democratic Party go up in flames, but if it means a new party that I could wholeheartedly support instead of having to hold my nose. Yeah, I guess that would be OK. What am I saying? Heck yeah, I would LOOOOOOVE to see that. So please please please, Sen. Clinton, lie cheat steal be as nasty as you possibly can be, please please please. Give me my new shiny wonderful party.

Posted by: krnewman | February 19, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

schencks84 | February 19, 2008 01:32 PM

What we have here is the death rattle of a two-headed monster.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama better shut his wife up, if he wants to get elected.

No time to elaborate, but most politi-junkies know what I mean.

Posted by: JD | February 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama divided the Democratic Party the precise moment he announced his candidacy, which was AFTER Hillary had announced hers.

He knew he would get the black vote and women votes, which would have been hers.

If he is nominated, can he beat the demographics of McCain?

I would bet NO.

Posted by: Georgiapeac21556 | February 19, 2008 01:45 PM

These days, it's hard to tell the snark from the merely very stupid.

Posted by: novamatt | February 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is now denying this: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php For whatever that's worth. That's why they call 'em trial balloons.

Mayberry Machiavellis. This isn't just a primary campaign. This is a battle for the soul of the party.

Posted by: novamatt | February 19, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Early on I was excited about this election because I thought the democrats had at least two good options. However, now, as this race has gone on, I get this sinking feeling that Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing, including ripping the party apart, to get the nomination. The negativity from the Clinton campaign is making me lose any enthusiasm I once had for winning back the White House.

Posted by: kelly | February 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Yes SPECTATOR; I will vote for Obama over McCain but its not going to happen because Obama is going up against a couple who will happily sell their soul to win. They will break any law necessary to win to include Obama committing Suicide at Marcy Park.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

In the long run, I think the risk of fracturing the party - because of negative ads, delegate fights, or MI and FL, is slim, b/c as Claudia says, "democrats consider this election a matter of life and death." (The greater impact may be on independent voters.) But these conflicts over process are indicative of a system that needs fixing before the next election.

The original idea behind the super delegates might have been sound when first conceived but this seems more like a vestige of the past than a "relatively new creation."

Posted by: -pamela | February 19, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama is under fire for saying in Milwaukee, on Monday: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."

She said she wasn't just talking about her husband's booming presidential run -- it was more a statement on a trend she's seen of Americans being "hungry for change."

Obama's comments suggest the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling.

Can it really be there has not been a moment during that time when she felt proud of her country?

Forget matters like the victory in the Cold War; how about only things that have made liberals proud -- all the accomplishments of inclusion? How about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991? Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg's elevation to the Supreme Court?


Only her husband's run for president has made her proud of America? That's extremely narcissistic and self-centered. How sad. She comes across as arrogant, harsh, and negative, and when she goes on Larry King to do lengthy interviews, then it's fair game to criticize her views.

I certainly don't want such a vain pessimist as First Lady.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 19, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

cab91, Did you read or hear

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

as referring to menstruation? That went right by me. I googled "Obama" and "sexist" to find that one.

Back to real work now.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 19, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I find it somewhat hypercritical that many complain that money has disfranchised voters from the process and leads to corruption, but then we allow presidential candidates to contribute to the reelection of many SuperDelegates.. Smells like maybe someone is trying to buy an election. You might expect Hillary to be giving more, but in reality Obama is far out pacing Hillary. Why hasn't the MSM picked up on this story?

Posted by: sltiowa | February 19, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Early voting started today in (some parts of?) Texas. Obama will be spending the next several days in Texas campaigning. I heard many young and first-time voters were taking part in Texas early voting.

Advantage Obama?!?!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding damaging to the party? I think it will be far more damaging to the party to elect a one time wonder man who has never managed to successfully bring together a bipartisan group of Senators on anything other than his campaign to be the first African American president in history. It will be far more damaging to elect someone who is the Hope Preacher for America and who will not be able to effectively push forth the Democratic party's agenda. It is time for a real change, a change to reverse Bush's policies not a change for the Hope Preacher's lengthy speeches on why we're a great country.

Posted by: ritu1 | February 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama divided the Democratic Party the precise moment he announced his candidacy, which was AFTER Hillary had announced hers.

He knew he would get the black vote and women votes, which would have been hers.

If he is nominated, can he beat the demographics of McCain?

I would bet NO.

Posted by: Georgiapeac21556 | February 19, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

It clearly was too much for Plouffe to confirm Politico's report before the conference call. If the report didn't pan out it was a lost opportunity for Plouffe to whine about Hillary Clinton.

Both Plouffe and Politico--and Cillizza-- missed the point.

The Clinton campaign--but probably both campaigns--currently have organizers targeting pledged delegates in states where a caucus or primary has already taken place. In many states, the delegate selection process is multi-tiered and does not end after the first caucus or even once the primary polls have closed. In those states, the Clinton campaign still has organizers working on the delegate selection process, not just on the delegates themselves.

She's not going after Obama's pledged delegates. Untwist your knickers, people.

And Chris, when will you be focusing on Obama's sexist references to Clinton, which are also "damaging to the party"? Or is it a case of IOKIYAO?

Posted by: cab91 | February 19, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Chris, the good people voting today in Hawaii and Wisconsin will quiet the Clinton Mean Machine a little more.

A losing operation should be expected to grasp at straws. If it is the 2x1 combo it should be doubly expected.

They will not be able to lawyer reality this time. This time the little people will push back the Big Mean Machine. Just you watch the slow death by eight, nine, ten wins in a row.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

On wooing the delegates:

Is that not legitimate? I'm no fan of Sen Clinton's, and think the Dems would be fools to nominate her - BUT, if nobody wins the nomination on the first ballot, don't all the delegates become 'fair game' for all subsequent votes? They're only pledged for one ballot, right?

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

so, vbhoomes, if obama is the dem nominee you'll be voting for him over mccain?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 19, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis writes
"And now Obama is polling within 2% in Texas with two weeks of solid campaigning left."

Bobby Wingman-Cervantes (sp?) notes on the prior article that the polls opened TODAY in TX, which apparently allows two weeks of voting, before the polls close on March 4th. This offers a new twist on the predicted outcome in that state & the predictions of an Obama resurgence there. In light of this situation, the Clinton campaign's efforts in that state don't look as foolish as they once did. TX could be a CA repeat, where the polls show Obama closing the gap, but early voters going strongly to Clinton, negating the late gains of Obama.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

If anything is damaging to the party is disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida. That will hurt the general elections

The closeness of the delegate count has set off a furious race between Sens. Clinton and Obama for the superdelegates. But any attempt by either campaign to win with these party insiders what they couldn't win with the voting public would destroy not only the prospects of the "victorious" candidate, but the prospects of the Democratic Party itself.

Should the Democrats redo Michigan & Florida primaries?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1751


.

Posted by: PollM | February 19, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Apparently about half of the dems want the past instead of the future. The democratic battle is going to end very ugly because the Clintons will put themselves ahead of their party. You silly dems who supported the Clintons throughout their corrupt 8 year of lying, stealing and perjury have it coming. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 19, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

From the Politico article: "Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides."


And now Phil Singer: "We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions regarding our pledged delegates."


Wow. A 24-hour turnaround on deciding whether or not to circumvent the democratic process for personal gain. This is the Hillary we've come to know. She thinks Americans are idiots. Will we prove her wrong?

Posted by: schencks84 | February 19, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

No Obama super delegate will go to Clinton.

Obama has 700,000 more votes.

Obama has 135+ more delegates, and counting (as they switch from Clinton)

Obama has 10+ more states won.

In no way can Clinton be seen as the better candidate in this race, empirically speaking. And now Obama is polling within 2% in Texas with two weeks of solid campaigning left.

Clinton needs to bow out before she lets her name smear the party more than it already has. I used to be a staunch Clinton supporter.

After this race, no more. Not again.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

'If one of the campaigns falls into the trap of focusing too much on process, voters are likely to turn off.'

I doubt that, considering that we democrats consider this election a matter of life and death, the difference between diverting all our resources for the next 100 years [and borrowing vast sums and creating untold numbers of enemies] to finance occupations for oil - OR we start thinking about how to build this country back up and make ourselves strong, competitive and proud once again. We are steadily losing ground in the world.

The republican candidate, no matter the identity, will follow the mandates of the republican establishment. As will the Democrat. So it will be either four more years of Bush, or a new direction.

It's the past versus the future. Which do you want?

Posted by: drindl | February 19, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company