Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's HQ

CHICAGO, Ill. -- The Fix is in the Windy City for the YearlyKos conference but couldn't resist the chance to stop by the campaign headquarters of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to see what all the buzz is about.

In the heart of downtown Chicago, the headquarters take up an entire floor of an otherwise unremarkable office building. Inside the room, however, the feel is anything but corporate.

Staffers, the majority of whom appear to be in their 20s and 30s, favor jeans and Obama paraphernalia as their work uniform; our favorite was a black and white t-shirt with Obama's face on it and "008" written below. Nice.

The youngish crowd is sprinkled with longtime campaign operatives including Steve Hildebrand, widely regarded as one of the best field operatives in the country. (Hildebrand managed the Senate campaigns of Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) before joining Obama to focus on early state organization.)

Maps of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are framed in glass throughout the office -- just in case you were wondering how important those first four voting states are to the campaign. The headquarters -- like almost any campaign The Fix has visited -- have a collegiate feeling with handmade signs hanging everywhere including one labeling the fire extinguisher.

The mood is relaxed -- and confident. Obama operatives insist they are right where they want to be in this race, well organized in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina and with the financial firepower to compete in the big states like California set to vote on February 5.

It's a remarkably large and organized operation considering that it has been built from scratch in less than five months. And, as the Obama folks never fail to remind you, it's based in Chicago, not Washington for a reason. Change is coming, believe the Obama-ites, whether Washington is ready or not.

More from YearlyKos this afternoon and tomorrow.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 3, 2007; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Friday Line: Top 2008 Recruits
Next: At YearlyKos: Dems Set to Expand Congressional Majorities

Comments

Stop the Madness!

Clawrence and the other trolls are ruining this board!

For your information the "bad" polls are the national ones and the state IA, NH, and SC which ACTUALLY matter.

Right now, national polls serve only the state of awareness of Dems as the ACTUAL nomination race is not until FEB 2008!!

Trolls go away!

For people who want to read and learn about the man, go to

http://www.barackobama.com

Posted by: Tommy Ates, Austin, TX | August 4, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

rufus - looks like you got the Friday Line thread shut down. Way to go!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2007 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Elias, please stop trying to insult others - it only reflects poorly on YOU. And for the last time, stop using my computer to pretend you work for the Veterans Administration! Your grandfather did NOT fight in Korea so you would be free to childishly mock other veterans.
And make sure to put the trash out when you get home, and get rid of those sticky pictures of Hillary and Ann Coulter you left under your bed. Ewww!

http://eliashasbeenabadboy_mamaspank!.com

Posted by: Elias' mother | August 3, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Please do not feed the trolls!

Posted by: zookeeper | August 3, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

aauhhh. poor baby. Like I said before. you got a problem you got two options.

1. leave. go elsewhere. This way I and others don't have to listen to you rinfantile babying

2. Help me get Fox Rush Malkin hannity o'reilly off the air.

Posted by: rufsu | August 3, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

More than half the time. You and Zouk mess up the threads over 90% of the time.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

As you can see by the peanut gallery that is loves me and follows me around on every blog. I take it as a sign of respect. If I wasn't putting fear in the fascsits they would spend all day, using differant names, trying to silence or discredit me.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Point taken, clawrence. this website turns into a verbal combat zone sometimes. not that I'm complaining. Half the time I'm the cause :).

Sometiems good honest assesments get caught up in the shuffle. I hear you. Sorry for the venom. I have to fight back the nonstop criticism on this site daily. Sometimes I get combative :)

Peace clawrence

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

All of the campaigns have filters (security guards and Secret Service) that are on the look out for people like rufus.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Rufus - It is both legal and welcome to have your opinion, and I am sorry that Biden did not select your question when you heard him speak in Reno. With his relationship with Sen. Hagel, I would be interested in his response to a 'third party' question.

I would only hope that simply because we someone is critical of an individual, like Sen. Obama (who has gotten way to much fluff press), others wouldn't assume that we are right wing ideologist simply because we look past the rhetoric for some sort of substance to merit the support he is receiving.

We can agree to disagree. You and I are both entitled to our opinions. But everyone has to deal with facts. Obama has said some things on Foreign Policy that he will be held accountable for, and he has a small legislative record that we can judge him on. Those are facts, and he is not entitled to something different. I will judge him on that record, or lack of one. That doesn't make me part of the GOP.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

rufuses, was that you on the Tillman comment?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

rufus/REMF - Man, all I ever do is offer you help. Have you ever checked out the website?

Posted by: Elias | August 3, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Roo, I don't think you are trying to help. Differant people have differant voices, and differant means to get said voices heard. To say"don't listen to him he's a troll". I would think THAT would be counter-productive. Why not let others make their own minds. Why frame the debate that way. I am. You are. Leave it at that. Let's express our ideas and see what comes from it. Even zouk. I just wish he/she had the spine to post as one name and engage in the conversation. I do that. I post as rusus pretty much everytime. To me, the trolls are the one's like zouk and elias. The peanut gallery with wize cracks and nothing to add. Only attack. That to me is a troll. I used a post name. I post my opinon. Focus your hate and enegry on the real trolls. The saboturs and discrediters.

Peace roo. You have changed since you entered. Went you on some socilaist sh** when you first came on.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I saw biden speak here in reno clawrence. He had a forum that he took written questions and his handlers picked about 4. I was dissappointed by that. My questions him was this:

With all the malcontent over the GOP, and with the Democrats unable or unwilling to do anything about it, do you see a real valid thrid party arising in this country?

This was months ago. This was before the dems had such a low rathing in congress. I may have been before the elcetion. His handlers were sitting there staring at me. MAd.

Legitimate question or not? I thogut it was. I think biden will probably be the vp candidate. He is not president material though. To many inconsistancies. Not enough spine. No disrespect. I saw him speak. My opinion. Is that still legal here. Or am I the only one who MSUT be silenced?

Posted by: RUFUS | August 3, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

rufus--Fine, refuse help but do not be surprised when no-one listens to you.

Posted by: roo | August 3, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Fine then. Spend all day thinking about me and attack me then. That is your choices . See what this site produces.


You know zouk is here tryi ng to divide and conquer. posting as differant names. Lie spin and discredit. That's all the gop has left. Marginalize those spinning and lying. Not me. Help me, with these fascsits. I can't do it all on my own

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I battle Bill O'REilly and the GOP authoritarian thought police daily. Why should this site be any differant.

Open you mind to truth. Get out of your caves gop. I know it's dark at first, that is natural. In time the brightnest goes away. I know it hurts at first. I know change is hard. We must for our chldren and the future

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I based my assessment of Obama on his words and his lack of accomplishments. I don't criticize Republicans because it is a waste of my time. They hold no promise.

I will criticize Sen. Obama because he does has potential, both as my senator and with a future in my party. He is not ready become president in my assessment, but he can live up to his rhetoric both in the senate and by pushing for better from our Democratic leadership here in IL.

He has not lived up to his promise by a long shot here in IL.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

clawrence writes
"If Obama were running in the general election, the poll wouldn't be relevant. But being that he is in a Democratic primary, and is loosing, he will never have the opportunity to find out how he would do in a general election."

If your goal is to pick the winner of the Dem nomination, your point has merit. If your goal is to win the general election, my point has merit.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Who am I insulting? Read my boy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

The reason you people get offened is not my fault. It is becasue you think certain mental aspects of your self is the you. If one see's HIM/HER self as a democrat/republican/independant any attack on an external source is an attack on them. That's not my fault. I do go after gop'ers and bush. I am agaisnt the peopel that have ruined this country. If you are not one of them, what are you complaining about.

Someone once told me one this site" I've never heard that".

How can I possible post to what you people know are don't know or view yourself as or not as. I can just do me. If you hate my methods, go elswhere. But trying to tell others not to listen to me is a strange arguement to me. Wha thappened to freedom? What happened to the individaul? He got stomped out by constant attacks and alligations. Why do I scare you people so much? You cannot fight truth with lies misdirection and spin. You can for a short time.

"You can hold me down for a minute, but you can never hold me down forever"

2Pac

Stop framing the debate roo and others. You are not god's. You are americans just like me. My vote counts just as much as your. Stop with the peanut gallery. If you got a rebuttel, say it.

I won't stop so telling others what "I AM" is a false agrument. Better to let people make up their own mind. Those thought police unwilling to do that try and frame the debate. You can't beat me, you may fool others.

I won't stop. Go elsewhere or rebute. Telling others how and what to think is so 20th century :

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Anomoyous writes: "clawrence seems to be a lieberman-style DINO... can't stop criticizing dems. concern troll?"

I am not a fan of Lieberman or Obama. I care very much about my party's future, and believe that Sen. Biden merits support. Obama would prevent the democrats from taking back the White House, and this election is too important to allow a novice like Obama have my parties nomination. I strongly dislike the kind of corrupt politics practiced in IL. If speaking truth to power means I get ridiculed once in a while, so be it.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"I know I have been holding this site down today. Sorry.

I feel good and fluid today.

And I'm not crazy.

I am operating on a differant level that is true.

Again, ignore me if you must."

Posted by: ok, we will, rufus | August 3, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon writes: "Well, if Dems were the only people voting in the election, such a poll might be relevant."

If Obama were running in the general election, the poll wouldn't be relevant. But being that he is in a Democratic primary, and is loosing, he will never have the opportunity to find out how he would do in a general election.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I will continue posting truths. People will continue to silence me and or discredit me. And the world turns. Any independant thinkers can read and make up their own minds. If you silence me that cannot happen. What makes roo's opinion worth more than mine. We're both americans right? Were you in the militray roo?

What have any of you done in here that makes your word so much more valuble than mine. Is it like minded thinking? Is it because some choose to label and group themselves?

Do you. i'll do me. Let the readers decide. Trying to frame the debate is a waste of time. It will not stop me. What are you scared of? If I'm crazy or posting lies, why not ignore me. You can't because I'm not. Everybody here knows it. Your just all scared. Scared of change. Scared of the future. I am trying to help you see fear doesn't exist. don't hate me for that. Help me, help you:).

And I'm not crazy. I just study phil. that you are unware of . I am operating on a differant level that is true. I have differant goals than the next guy. I care about differant thigns than the next guy.

I sincerly hope there are more independant thinkers, like donny, reading this and making up their own mind. Again, ignore me if you must. But don't try and silence me. Who are you to silence me? Who have I silenced in here?

Facsists/

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

clawrence, based on my reading, it seems that you misrepresent Senator Obama's views on those subjects. Did you source your opinions directly from his words, or did you pick up the media spin, or other candidates' criticisms?

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

bsimons writes: "I think Senator Obama has actually been the most consistent in his foreign policy - particularly when compared to Sens Clinton and Edwards."

Well, thankfully we have more than three candidates. The most consistent in foreign policy, and the most qualified candidate, is Sen. Biden.

Obama's consistancy, as I stated before, was: Obama would be willing to bomb Iran - invade Pakistan - withdraw from Iraq regardless of genocide or spreading into a regional conflict - would talk unconditionally with dictators and give them legitimacy - will do nothing to stop the genocide in Darfur - would respond to a terrorist strike as a natural disaster - and likes to talk about hypothetical nuclear options and strategy.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

clawrence seems to be a lieberman-style DINO... can't stop criticizing dems. concern troll?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

clawrence writes
"Read the actual poll results, rather than just picking out what you want."

Well, if Dems were the only people voting in the election, such a poll might be relevant. Given that becoming President involves standing election in front of the whole country, from anarchists to zealots, I fail to see your point.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

'verybody my age is slowly melting together and throwing away outdated "values" and "standards." '

I've got teenagers, donny -- have to say you're right.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

roo says, to rufus
"If you got, for one moment, out of your reactionary knee-jerk mode you might possibly understand that your method is the absolute worst for trying to affect any real change."

You mean that insulting people is a poor way of convincing them of your point of view? Surely you're not serious!

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Just 16% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of Clinton while 30% hold such a view of Obama."

bsimon - Read the actual poll results, rather than just picking out what you want.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

People like Rezko?

The tribune had a donor link for Obama - he had all of 30 contributions coming from Iowa, and a list of people in IL that I wouldn't want to be associated with.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

clawrence writes
"Obama is not winnning, and his negatives continue to go up."

Have they reached Clinton levels yet?

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

rufus--If by "changed the rules" you meant "any idiot can continue spewing poorly written rants without regard for establishing dialogue, actually reading more than one line of disagreeing opinions or trying to form a persuasive argument" then I definitely agree.

If you got, for one moment, out of your reactionary knee-jerk mode you might possibly understand that your method is the absolute worst for trying to affect any real change.

Posted by: roo | August 3, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Don't forget the murder and cover-up of my boy. Pat Tillman"

rufus or rufsu, was that you?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

clawrence writes
"You don't raise over 50 million dollars by not getting into bed with some low lives."

go look at who's donating the money. Don't limit yourself to Obama - check his lists against the other frontrunners of both parties. YOu might be surprised at who's selling out to the fat cat 'low lifes' and who's hitting up the little people for $50 donations.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

SEe what I deal with daily donny and mikeb. Lies spin discredit. All day long. I must really scare these people, right? Like with obama, they fear change. They fear anybody thinking out of the fascsit box. Their only hope is lie spin and discredit. Obviously they have nothign to combat my words or else they would present it. Ignore the trolls. Ignore the peanut gallery :)

Posted by: rufsu | August 3, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Tom writes
"I am leaning Biden, although I fail to understand why there is so much resentment toward Clinton."

I don't know that resentment is the right word. I think Sen Clinton is more over-hyped than Sen Obama. What does she bring to the table, other than Bill? Regarding your thoughts about Obama, I suggest you go read his speech, before concluding that he has 'mis stepped' or demonstrates 'tortured logic' (I forget which terms you used and am now too lazy to scroll up to verify). I think Senator Obama has actually been the most consistent in his foreign policy - particularly when compared to Sens Clinton and Edwards. Go read his 2002 speech on the vote for going into Iraq, then his speech this week on how to defeat terrorims & let us know if you disagree.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm assuming you want a response, gop. Obama unlike Clinton has got his money from individuals. Small amounts a lot of people. That translates to a lot of votes.

He has had fund raiser with oprah and hollywood. He also got most of that money from smal donations like mine. Spin and discredit all you want. Of all the candidates he is the lest endebted. Where is Rudy/Mitt/mccain getting their money from? Clinton? Obama is getting it from people like me. Americans as opposed to corporations. Doesn't it scare you that he has raised the most money. CAme out of no where and raised the most money?

Normally I would sa y the opposite is true. The more money the more indebted, right. If obama is getting his money from hollywood celebs and ordinary people who is he indebted to? The people as opposed to corporate interests. Research. Don't believe me. I'm assuming you made that statement because you don't know. Research.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey Donny, welcome. I see the rufuses are hiding out here right now.

I try to help the rufuses, but they ignore me. Maybe you could get them to go to http://www.va.gov/rcs/ . We're here to help people like them. Maybe you could give them a nudge.

Thanks for helping.

Posted by: Elias | August 3, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

donny - the rufuses are trolls, disrupting every thread and filling a disproportinate amount of space with inanities.

They are best left alone, even if they do prove the "blind squirrel can find an acorn" theorem. But, it happens so rarely that it's not worth acknowledging.

Plus, some of the rufuses actually seem to have psychological problems, so it's best not to enable them.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

rufus writes: "We need someone in there who will hold bush and his cronies responsible. Real jail time for real crimes. Soembody who's not scared to say, "this is wrong and we need to change it" whatever that it may be."

Obama has no record of correcting all the wrongs done by his Democratic allies here in IL. He isn't going to change anything in Washington. You don't raise over 50 million dollars by not getting into bed with some low lives.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for that donny. I do get much flak daily. I would be here (everyday) if I hated the GOP. I thought they were being misled by propoganda, and once they found out fox and rush were such they would shut them down. Didn't happen. I'm trying to add balance here. I'm making sure these goper's, though they can hide in their caves interms of the news they watch and the radio they listen to, they cannot hide from the truth in here.

I agree that the internet changes the game. This is the internet age. The gop can no longer go to one group, propogate and lie, and go elsewhere and say the opposite things. No longer can they do that. The internet gets them everytime. Hence the flip-flop.

You are right. Most of these people are living in the 70's. They are living by the old rules. 9/11 and the internet changed the rules. The old rules no longer apply. Propogating and lying is no longer good politics. Fraud is now fraud. The best liar can't win anymore. It takes much much more. Thanks for that donny. I'm waging verbal battle daily to not much fanfare. Why would I do that? BEcause I care. I care about everyone in this country. We are americans. I care that the right-wing propoganda machine is lying and misleading the elderly (I care about my grandpa and family). I don't hate these people as they hate me. They just don't realie the old rules no longer apply.

I know I have been holding this site down today. Sorry. I feel good and fluid today. I will stop for a time.

Thanks again, donny

PEace to you brother

Posted by: RUFUS | August 3, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

DCAustinite - MikeB is an engineer and a prime example as to why engineers should stick to engineering and not dabble in politics.

Politics doesn't follow his The World Runs on a Strict Set of Rules mentality, meaning MikeB's Set of Rules and he has trouble coping with that.

rufus is a set of trolls and should just be ignored.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

What a nation! Where the Capitol building is within eyeshot of some of the poorest crime-ridden neighborhoods! God forbid a Senator would be caught dead in the REAL SE DC.

Posted by: bwaaaah | August 3, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Nobody on this board seems to take rufus seriously, but he actually does embody ideas of the future. The Internet is going to change everything. You old white Washingtonians have no idea.

In 20 years, gay marriage and marijuana will be legal. Why? Because the future President is currently on the Facebook either taking a hit off a joint or dressed in drag. And nobody on the facebook cares. Yes, you old-hat Drudge types will still dig up such photos, but when the next generation is in charge, will anybody care? Everybody my age is slowly melting together and throwing away outdated "values" and "standards." Sure, healthcare may still be crappy then but at least we wont have to waste our time on frivolous wedge election issues liek you current people-in-charge like to do.

Posted by: donny jeffcoat | August 3, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

What what you claim are mishaps. I see as adding meat to the bone. As cc said.

how can you gop'ers calim he is an empty suit, then attack anything he does. I agree with you mikeb. Fear. He scares them popless. Good. We need someone in there who will hold bush and his cronies responsible. Real jail time for real crimes. Soembody who's not scared to say, "this is wrong and we need to change it" whatever that it may be. Get a REAL AG in there. Give bush and his people 30 years, not 30 months. That would make sure TREASON from the top down is never tried again. Anyone scared to do that, you must live with the results, ad stop complaining abou t"what is". If you got a problem with "what is" chance. If you are unwilling to change, you have no one to blame but yourself for the downfall of the last great world power.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Thursday, August 02, 2007

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton reaching another new high-water mark in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Clinton now has support from 43% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, more than double the total of her nearest challenger. Illinois Senator Barack Obama is a distant second at 21% while former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is preferred by 12%.

Clinton is now viewed favorably by 82% of Democrats, Obama by 66%. Those figures include 43% with a Very Favorable opinion of Clinton. Thirty-three percent (33%) have such a positive view of Obama. Just 16% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of Clinton while 30% hold such a view of Obama.


Obama is not winnning, and his negatives continue to go up.

Tom - stick to your guns, most of Obama's supporters are wingnuts within the Democratic party, but they are not the majority in the Democratic party.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

DCAustinite - Tom, of course, is a right wing Republican. He's one of those idiots who supports Clinton or a Romney troll. I suppose the last weeks "cleavage nonsense" was all about their new campaign slogan: "Hillary or bust!".

Posted by: MikeB | August 3, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

You do that Tom .I agree with all his satements this week.

1. We need to get Bin laden. If he's in pakistan and they won't give him up, how does that differ from afganistan and the TAliban.

2. If terms or Iran. I think no REAL presidential candidate would ever say nukes are off the table, espiecally if the country is developing weapons themselves. It should always be a last resort, as should war. What does bush and the gop think on this?

3. In terms of iraq. That failure cna be placed squarly on the shoulders of bush and the gop. His incompetance got us in there. Staying their (from an americans perspective) is only to justify bush's legacy. My brother's are worth more than that. It is a cival war. We should have thought about the results before removing the leader they had. I personally am against replacing any countries leader with a US puppet. Soverign nations should be treated as such. We negotiate. We war wars, we DO NOT replace their leaders with us puppets as the gop has been doing for years and years and years. If we do the failings, if there are any, fall on us. Each country should hold their own destiny. I'm against bush's and the gop's claim of empirism.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

Nobody's going to remember Obama's work in Illinois anyway. This is a contest of rhetoric, style, and pizzazz. I'm not saying I approve of it, I'm just telling it like it is.

Posted by: jojo | August 3, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

You faux-liberals won't be able to escape in your reclusive Potomac McMansion.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Tom - "...Obama is being beaten 2-1 in the polls...". I guess you are rommmates with KOZ and live in the same make believe world. The Post, *today*: "Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." Out West, here in Oregon and up North in Washington, Obama and Edwards are both leading Clinton and every Republican contender. Maybe Obama is behind 2-1 in Indian, where the Senator from Indian enjoys enormous popularity due to her willingness to give away Amercian jobs, not in the U.S.

Posted by: MikeB | August 3, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"MikeB and Rufus seem to think that anyone who disagrees with their assessments is a right wing republican unworthy of existing on this planet. Obama's supporters just cost him my vote.

Thankfully Obama is being beaten 2-1 in the polls, and after this week of foreign policy missteps, I suspect that will increase. What a bunch of losers."

I'm certainly not one do defend Rufus, but clearly your vote was never Obama's to lose. I mean you would relly not vote for somebody based on what two people, who may or may not even be real, said on a website? I think not.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 3, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Rufus - the majority of DEMOCRATS, like myself, do not support Sen. Obama or at the very least are very skeptical that he has the experience or judgment to be an effective leader. He's very smart, but he has displayed his judgment this week, and as clawrence points out, with a record in IL that doesn't bode well for someone who is supposedly an advocate for change.

I am leaning Biden, although I fail to understand why there is so much resentment toward Clinton.

Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

One thing this blog makes abundantly clear about Obama: he has a lot of R's running scared. Witness the extreme logical gymnastics they are employing to paint him as this or that by distorting the words that come out of his mouth. We even have one distortion of his words being QUOTED by another R. Now that's desperation**2!

He's made it onto their radar screen and the boot-quaking has begun. Will they be able to take all this heat and no light and Swift Boat his chances amongst the electorate? They'll certainly keep trying. Will Obama somehow be able to overcome what Kerry couldn't? If he gets the nod we'll have to wait for the general debates to find out. Obama has what Reagan had: charisma. None of the other major candidates can hold a candle to him in this department.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 3, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

majority rule remember. We are not a monahrcy. Or at least wern't until Bush took over.

The majority is going to flex it's muscles tom. I think the gop is going to get removed compleatly from politics after the last 15 years. I may be wrong. It's possible that in certain states they will continue their support. It will be good because we will see where the blind and out of touch are. Thought the gop will still lose.

Maybe I'm wrong on that front. Maybe the country will embrace fear and fascism. If that is the case we deserve all the attacks we get. If you choose fascsim WE deserve whatever happens to us and our country.

Just like before the 06 elections. If the country I love chooses fascism and slavery over freedom and unity, I'm gone. The 06 election bought me two years. It bought us ALL two years. I had told everyone if the GOP gets elected again, after all they done, they counry isn't worth living in anymore. (and I'm a former army infantry soldier 11B).

If we choose it now. I'm taking my family and fleeing oppression as my german ancestors did in the early 1900's.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that people want to pretend as if Obama had a horrible week on foreign policy? He was attacked by HRC, shot back and clearly won the argument. The MSM distorts his speeches only focusing on the Pakistan issue. If you read the speech you will see that this is a sort of last resort move, which most if not all other Democratic candidates agree. HRC has been mighty quiet since the scuffle...that's not the look of an individual who is "right" and or "experienced."

Posted by: M. Flores | August 3, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

What I hope happens, is Obama gets elected. The conservatives in his party (clinton's/ bluedogs) switch parties or go independant. That or we form two new REAL parties. One left of the current dems and left of the current repubs. Then we can stop this internal sabotage. I just want real representation. I'm sick of allthe lies spin and sabotage. I believe most americans are too. Who is stopping the untiing the nation again? It's not the dem's or liberals.The gop are the one's trying to discredit and lie about everything the dems do. The dems are merly doing what they have to do. The gop is holding up both progress and national unity with their continued support of bush and his policies. The country is united on one front. It's untied against Bush. And you gop'ers have the balls to come in here and attack me the dems and obama? That is you right. Just don't go on a rampage when you are swept from the political landscape.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

MikeB and Rufus seem to think that anyone who disagrees with their assessments is a right wing republican unworthy of existing on this planet. Obama's supporters just cost him my vote.

Thankfully Obama is being beaten 2-1 in the polls, and after this week of foreign policy missteps, I suspect that will increase. What a bunch of losers.

Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack."

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN's Elise Labott that the congressman's comments were "reprehensible" and "absolutely crazy." Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.

Posted by: the loony repugs | August 3, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of the gop games. I don't know why I waste my time. I must really care about helping you gop'er see the light, huh.

Tom. Vote for who you want. Research who you want. Hold candidates to whatever criteria you choose. It doesn't matter in the end.

The gop is done for a generation if they contnue this stance. They have choose party over country. That used to be called treason. They have alligned with those (the saudi's and iran china) that want to kill us. How does that differ from benidict arnold?

You party is done for a generation tom. Like I said rather than attacking and spinning you should try and right the ship. I don't see you gop'ers doing that at all. I see you standing firm on fascsit principles. That's is their choice. You can vote for whoever you choose, that is your choice.

Just know the gop is done. America youth will not follow the same path as our fathers and grand fathers.

ONE PEOPLE ONE WORLD

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Tom asks
"why should I vote for someone who isn't a leader within their own party and has such a short list of accomplishments?"

Well, in theory its a valid question, though it contains an assessment with which some people might not agree. I've asked on this site before who the leaders are of each party - and who's going to lead those parties into the future. For the GOP, President Bush is still the de facto leader, though someone will clearly have to take that mantle as the next nominee for the job. Thus far, there is nobody yet taking over that role. The same is mostly true for the Democrats - President Clinton is a leader in the party, as are Dean and Gore, but none of those three are really leading the party into the future. Again, one of the candidates for President will eventually slide into that role. So each party needs to ask themselves - who's the person best suited to lead us into the future? What kind of party do we want to be? The safe bet would be a person who's already been effective at building consensus both within the party & across party lines - but there really isn't anyone that meets that criteria, certainly not Sen Clinton, former Sen Edwards or Gov Richardson. Sen Biden, due to his long tenure, has some success there, but his primary expertise is in foreign policy, yet his Iraq plan has gained little support in the year plus that he's been pushing it. That implies to me that Biden's not the future of the Dem party either. Which implies, to me, that they have to take a chance on someone who has a bold initiative for the future, but hasn't necessarily yet proven themselves. I think that person is Obama. Perhaps Dem primary voters will disagree with me - they certainly have a historical habit of doing so. I hope they finally come to their senses.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

A record. In the "culture of corruption" congress. Of corse others have more time in washington. That's is the appeal of obama. The Culture of change. Changng the way congress does business. The gop has been running the show behind the scenes for 50 years at least. They have lead this country into termoil. Time for a change. His ideals is one of the major appeals for him. The fact that he cares about the country AND AMERICANS. As opposed to the gop who care about money/themselves/party. It's time to start to re-build without the partisanship you people have stewed in the last 20 years.

don't vote for him them tom. You not going to anyway and never were, regardless of his points. So what differance does it make?

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Okay, Tom "..what exactly has he done? Has he passed a bill in the Senate? He doesn't seem to be a leader in his party, so why exactly should we vote for someone just because they know how to campaign, yet not how to legislate or govern?"

Let's see, now. What have you done to deserve a place on this already overcrowded planet? Do you have an invention that helps mankind? How about an energu saving device? Do you work with the poor and indigent, succoring thse in need? I'd bet not. You are a clanging bell, with all of the purpose of a cow flop. Rther like KOZ and all of the other right wing hacks that flap their lips heres here. You have no REASON to exist. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has been bucking the Washington establishment AND the mainsteam media. He is constantly and deliberately misquoted by this newspaper. It's as if he is an affront to their cornination of Ms. Clinton and Mr. Gulianai, two of the worst scumbags to have ever crawl out from uder a rock. The very fact that Barak Obama has so many people excited, working for him, discussing ideas that run counter to the wishes of the wealthy that usually run these campaigns and choose the candidates, that marks him as successful. Whether he wins the nomination or not, he has already won! You, on the other hand, will still be a looser until you jettison your right wing baggage.

Posted by: MikeB | August 3, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

There is a neat Pro-Obama / Anti-Hillary Video on youtube. Obama needs to watch this comercial and change the conversation from experience to judgment. Copy and past this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq54KoIgf6E

Posted by: Jason | August 3, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the calls he made were wrong in all three cases. He obviously is not courting gop racist fascsit voters tom. He has a base of REAL americans who care mmore about america than themselves and their party. All three calls were 100% with me. The gop'er WILL never vote for obama. NEver. So why should he care about your views. Bush and the gop obviously don't care about mine or 80% of the country. He is doing what's best for the country. Somethign you GOP'ers CANNOT grasp. If it doens't invole money you can't fathom it.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

OK rufus, I checked out the wikipedia sight for Obama, then the same sight for Biden, Dodd, and Clinton. Obama has least successful legislative record of the four. Again, why should I vote for someone who isn't a leader within their own party and has such a short list of accomplishments?

Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

As charges and reactions continue to ricochet over what Obama actually said regarding the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan, below is the actual transcript of the audio of the Associated Press' interview with Obama (which the AP has given to NBC News).

From the audio, it is clear that Obama initially rules out the use of tactical nuclear weapons -- then backtracks. His opponents, especially Clinton and Dodd, have attacked Obama for appearing to rule out the nuclear option -- in contradiction of traditional U.S. deterrence in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Today, Obama's camp is standing firm and welcoming the contrast to what they are describing as "traditional Washington think," saying they are surprised that anyone would disagree with what he said.

The transcript is below...

AP: Sir, with regard to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...

OBAMA: Yeah.

AP: Is there any circumstances where you'd be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?

OBAMA: No, I'm not, uh, there has been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss.

AP: Not even tactical?

OBAMA: No. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. Uh, if involving you know, civilians... Let me scratch all that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table so...

AP: No discussion within your group?

OBAMA: I made a very narrow statement that I think is incontrovertible, which is if we've got a actionable intelligence then uh....that there are high value Al Qaeda targets, that we should take them out. And that's the extent of the statement. I mean it's...

AP: But the nuclear topic is bound to come up because of the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is certainly capable from Middle East experts to have an irrational religious fanatic type leader.

OBAMA: I'm not going that far field on this topic -- right now the question is are we going after Al Qaeda, and that's what the topic of the speech was about.

AP: Thanks for your time.

OBAMA: You bet.

Posted by: Truthteller | August 3, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"How anyone can find such a convoluted foreign policy approach a sign of intellectual seniority is beyond me."

And how you gop'er could follow bush with all his erros is beyond the rest of the 80% of americans. What has he done right? Really, in 8 years. What has bush done right? Yet you people still have the gale to come in here and attack myself and dems. What nerve you people have. After the last 7 years, you claimin gthe dems unable to lead? That takes balls. Or incompetance.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Rufus - I meant why should I vote for Obama in the primary. I kind of agree with clawrence, I'm a democrat and I don't expect much out of the Republicans, but Obama hasn't explained why we should vote for him after such a disastrous week on foreign policy issues. On top of that, I don't see much of a legislative record. So why exactly should I vote for Obama?

Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Obama is right where he wants to be?

Puh-leeze. If being 23 points down in the latest NBC/WSJ poll is where he wants to be he has problems.

Posted by: NoObamaSpin | August 3, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

clawrence points out that Obama has said he "Would be willing to bomb Iran - invade Pakistan - withdraw from Iraq regardless of genocide or spreading into a regional conflict - would talk unconditionally with dictators and give them legitimacy - will do nothing to stop the genocide in Darfur - would respond to a terrorist strike as a natural disaster - and likes to talk about hypothetical nuclear options and strategy."

How anyone can find such a convoluted foreign policy approach a sign of intellectual seniority is beyond me.

Posted by: Nigel | August 3, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Democrats refuse to do the will of the people? are you crazy? Same day lest see what the gop is doing.

"In a massive flare-up of partisan tensions (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv), Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them.

The flap represents a complete breakdown in parliamentary procedure and a distinct low for the sometimes bitterly divided chamber because members of one party have rarely, if ever, walked off the floor without casting a vote.

The rancor erupted shortly before 11 p.m. as Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled close the vote on a standard procedural measure with the outcome still in doubt.

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.

One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders - but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call - a strange development in itself.

Whatever the final tally, acrimony quickly exploded between lawmakers on either side of the aisle as Democratic leaders tried to plot a solution, while parliamentarians on either side argued over protocol.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) eventually offered a motion to reconsider, according to floor staff on either side, ostensibly giving members a chance to recast their votes. But the maneuver sparked a chorus of angry protests from the Republicans, yelling "shame" on Democrats, while they returned fire with angry volleys of their own."

Is that how you people operate. If you don't agree take your ball and go home. What about THE WILL OR THE PEOPLE. Hypocrital GOP. Your time of pulling on story out of the blue is garbage. You party has a year. Rather than using that time lying spinning and discreditting you should use this year fixing the damage you have caused this great country.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

'DEMOCRATS STILL REFUSE TO REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:'

republicans are hypocritical clowns.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Is that a question or an attack, tom?

Why shopuld we vote for anyone? We still don't have the candidates yet. My question to you is who on the GOP side is a better candidate than Obama? Rudy? Ask any new yorker how they feel about rudy, same with hillary. Thompson? HAHAHHAHAHA. Mccain? No chance, after immagration. Mitt? Flip-flop mitt. Calling the dems "terrorist's". With some people, I am included, his faith is an issue. And to those saying faith should not be an issue. Tell the gop to stop making it an issue. Stop campaigning for religous votes then.

It's like the vitter scadel. I would care about his activities one bit if he wasn't so pro family. If he hadn't went after clinton and his LEGAL affair.

You said why would anyone vote for obama tom? Look at his resume:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

You at least own him that much if you are going to question or bad mouth him, no?

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

DEMOCRATS STILL REFUSE TO REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:

There is a news conference on right now on CSPAN. Mike Pence just said that the republicans had won the vote to deny benefits to illegal aliens, but then the Dems broke the House rules to change the vote.

Watch it now! On CSPAN

Posted by: calumonit | August 3, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"My hurt comes from the honest word"

Nas

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Good simon. We are in the same boat then dispite your hatred of my methods. Release your hate and skeptism. We are both americans. Don't follow the fascsits down the rabbit hole. They have molded an alternate reality, similar to the movie the Matrix. You got the fake gop world and the real world. The red and blue pill :)

One nation. One people.

In time ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE. Wen you gop'ers are finally ready for it. If they can just release their fear and greed. NOt you simon. I respect SOME of your points. I wish you people could see me for what I'm doing.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Ok - Obama knows how to set up a campaign headquarters, but what exactly has he done? Has he passed a bill in the Senate? He doesn't seem to be a leader in his party, so why exactly should we vote for someone just because they know how to campaign, yet not how to legislate or govern?

Posted by: Tom | August 3, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter writes
"Obama's verbal pratfalls lately make me uneasy. Putting on and taking off options from the foreign policy table is rookie stuff... personally, I've had enough of training-wheels presidency with Bush.

My comfort level is with Biden or posssibly Dodd.

Clinton's "most qualified" experience boast is phony. Her experience is as a Senator only... her WH bona-fides either failed (insurance) or weren't front line.

I'm also looking at a few Repubs like Paul, although he seems to be in the wrong party, and other second-tierers.

In short, to me Obama comes up wanting."


Truth- I was trying to warm up to Biden, mostly for his foreign policy, but have found other positions of his troubling; one was the vote for bankrupcy reform that sticks it to the private individual in favor of creditors.

All the candidates have flaws, the question is which flaws are deal breakers. For me, the candidates that have done so are:

Giuliani - can't trust him, wrong on Iraq
Clinton - can't trust her, wrong on Iraq
Romney - flip flopper, wrong on Iraq
Richardson - wrong on Iraq
Edwards - least experienced of the bunch, campaigning on little more than a pretty face

Which leaves McCain & Obama. McCain has been disappointing, but if he can somehow get the nomination, could still earn my vote, depending on the opponent. Obama, in my opinion, makes up for experience with intellect. The alleged verbal gaffes that people are jumping on have been blown way out of proportion, if not outright deliberately misinterpreted. Maybe he's said other things that would turn me off, but at this point, I find him the most promising of the bunch.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid I think th idea of using nuclear weapons anywhere is quite terrifying. Maybe you folks don't remember Hiroshima...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

cc said "The mood is relaxed -- and confident. Obama operatives insist they are right where they want to be in this race, well organized in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina and with the financial firepower to compete in the big states like California set to vote on February 5."


NEvada. I know I got his back out here in reno. I'm pretty sure it will come down to Las vegas though becasue reno is 90% fascsit gop'ers. Cow folk. I'm holding it down though. I incourage all independants thinkers, as well as democrats to move to republcian districts for a year. See how these people operate. It would blow your mind. People leaving fox on in the break rooms all day all night. Rush on radios all day. Non-goper's getting fired or marginalized because of their political beleifs.

Some actually told me: " The founders thought we would have a revolution every 20 years."

That is their mentality people. they are not as dumb as they let on. This is and was a fascsit revolution, albeit a soft non-violent revolution. That's until WE vote them out. Then they will go back to their mcveigh, waco, unabomber ways. Little children. If you don't get your way, if you don't get EVERYTHING you want throw a temper tantrem. Storm out of the congress of shut down the government. You time of sabotage is done forever. don't blame me. look in the mirror.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I have got to get me one of those shirts!

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 3, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I'm sure it has not escaped your notice that while national polls have Hillary ahead, recent state polls have put Obama tied or ahead of Hillary in South Carolina, New Hampshire, and now (as reported in today's WP) in Iowa. Obama's in an excellent position to win and I think the recent dust-ups over national security will work to his advantage. Does Hillary really want to be in a position of defending the potential use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Maybe in the general election she does, but not to a liberal audience in Iowa. I think this week was a turning point for Obama. If I were Hillary, I'd be worried.

Posted by: Dan | August 3, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

""We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.""

And bush has shone undisputidly. HE IS WITH THE TERRORISTS>

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 3, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Heaven shines light on those, innocent to how the world goes."

"Do not speak to fools. They scorn the wisdom of your words"

"My heart is wise"

"This hurt comes from the honest WORD"

"Prisoners, rise rise rise"

Nas

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama's verbal pratfalls lately make me uneasy. Putting on and taking off options from the foreign policy table is rookie stuff... personally, I've had enough of training-wheels presidency with Bush.

My comfort level is with Biden or posssibly Dodd.

Clinton's "most qualified" experience boast is phony. Her experience is as a Senator only... her WH bona-fides either failed (insurance) or weren't front line.

I'm also looking at a few Repubs like Paul, although he seems to be in the wrong party, and other second-tierers.

In short, to me Obama comes up wanting.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 3, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

George Walker Bush, President of the United States, to Congress
9-20-01

Posted by: 9-20-01 | August 3, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

It is good that Chris took note of how efficient and organized the Obama Operation aka campaign organization has become considering that it was built from ground-up barely five months ago. Now, if this is a surprise as it should be, consider the kind of clean-up he will give Washington after his inauguration!!!
Kudos to Senator Obama and the brilliant brains that make up his great team. These are truly dedicated Americans. Go Senator Obama; Go Obamateam.

Posted by: Peter M | August 3, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but note anonymous trolls like Posted by: | August 3, 2007 01:51 PM that continually try to sideline these debates. Chris, all, I really wonder how many of them are paid Republican operatives, engaged in their usual dirty tricks.
I suppose they really need to do this sort of garbage becasue their candidates are such a clueless and morally bankrupt collection of stuffed shirts. Witness Romney and his exchange with a waitress on healthcare in todays Post - http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/03/post_6.html?hpid=topnews.
Now one really good thing about this encounter with a live human being is, IT WAS FILMED. I can't to see that film being viewed over and over and over. Romney comes across as a complete baffoon; sort of like our multiple personalitied KOZ out of his closet. Scratch one clown, Chris; Romney is now officially toast. Now, can we somehow arrange for Guliani to do an encore perfomance? How about Ms. Clinton? Obama and Edwards come across looking like the only people in this race who have one clue about what the voters are upset about.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 3, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

It is good that Chris took note of how efficient and organized the Obama Operation aka campaign organization has become considering that it was built from ground-up barely five months ago. Now, if this is a surprise as it should be, consider the kind of clean-up he will give Washington after his inauguration!!!
Kudos to Senator Obama and the brilliant brains that make up his great team. These are truly dedicated Americans. Go Senator Obama; Go Obamateam.

Posted by: Peter M | August 3, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a Republican - I worked from Gov. Cuomo, I have volunteered on Paul Hackett and Tammy Duckworth's campaigns, I support Sen. Biden for president. I am also a decorated veteran of Iraq, Kosovo, and Bosnia - and our armed forces needs a commander in chief who understands the critical situation we are in, and how the incompetence of the Bush/Cheney has done nearly irreparable harm to this nation. You don't replace Republican incompetence and bad foreign policy with Democratic incompetence and worse foreign policy.

I live in Chicago - and the last thing my party needs to do is select someone who has never delivered change in a state that desperately needs it, or is as inexperienced as Obama on the international and national stage, as my parties Democratic nominee. I am no fan of Blago/Stroger/Daley or the corruption and incompetence of the Democratic party here in IL. Their actions are shameful, and every Democratic should be insisting on better from our parties leadership.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what the vibe at Hillary's camapaign HQ is...

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 3, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

because all he wants to do is trash dems. what else have they got?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

What makes you think clawrence is a republican?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

'Headquartered in the heart of arguably the single most corrupt democratic organization in the country - and the incompetence in Springfield, '

Hilarious when repugs talk about corruption and incompetence, isn't it?

Worst case I've seen of pot calling kettle black.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Headquartered in the heart of arguably the single most corrupt democratic organization in the country - and the incompetence in Springfield, were the Dems control both houses of the legislator and every constitutional office, and they are two months late on passing a budget with no end date in sight. The Cook county budget shortfall was $500 million and they are cutting health care to the poor (Obama endorsed the corrupt Todd Stroger); the city is reeling from federal convictions and has a budget shortfall of over $200 million (and Obama endorsed Daley); and they have selected an empty vessel who's own words reveal just how naive he is.

His best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," doesn't offer one. Obama calls in the book for a "revised foreign policy framework that matches the boldness and scope of Truman's post-World War II policies -- one that addresses both the challenges and the opportunities of a new millennium, one that guides our use of force and expresses our deepest ideals and commitments." But then, he writes: "I don't presume to have this grand strategy in my hip pocket."

Would be willing to bomb Iran - invade Pakistan - withdraw from Iraq regardless of genocide or spreading into a regional conflict - would talk unconditionally with dictators and give them legitimacy - will do nothing to stop the genocide in Darfur - would respond to a terrorist strike as a natural disaster - and likes to talk about hypothetical nuclear options and strategy.

That's just the kind of change we need.

Posted by: clawrence | August 3, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

As of late 2001, Iran's enemies were the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

By 2004, Iran had succeeded in dismantling Saddam Hussein's vaunted military and overthrowing the Taliban, using their moral suasion with the United States of America, the world's only superpower.

The U.S. should learn to charge more to do Iran's heavy lifting.

Posted by: Iran's puppet | August 3, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (Reuters) - American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. plans to close most operations on Friday and said nearly 7,000 employees will lose their jobs as the lender becomes one of the biggest casualties of the U.S. housing downturn.

Experts said it is likely the Melville, New York-based company will have to seek bankruptcy protection, and no later than Monday.

In a statement, American Home on Thursday night confirmed earlier reports that it was ceasing most operations. The company said its employee base will be reduced to about 750 workers, down from the 7,409 it reported at the end of last year. The terminations are effective Friday.

Posted by: not good | August 3, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I certainly prefer him to Hillary, and he's had some stubles, but nice moments too. However, I also like Dodd and Biden. But Obama hasn't LOST my vote. The only ones who have done that is all the republican candidates besides Bloomberg, Clinton and Kucinich (though he was never a serious option).

I do like the HQ being in the midwest, a place written off by the dems until Dean took over the DNC.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 3, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

CHANGE IS COMING. THANK GOD.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark;

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Democrat Barack Obama spells out his foreign policy: "I will not hesitate to use force"

By Andre Damon
28 July 2007

This month's issue of Foreign Affairs carries an essay by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama outlining his foreign policy. Obama gets to the point early on. Noting the catastrophe in Iraq, he writes: "After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make."

The senator's words must be seen in context. The foreign policy establishment that constitutes the key audience of Foreign Affairs generally recognizes that the debacle in Iraq represents a disaster for American military and geopolitical hegemony. In evaluating presidential candidates, these elements are looking for leaders who will not equivocate in the assertion of US primacy. Obama certainly gives them no cause for disappointment. To this end, he writes: "To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world."

How is this dominance to be preserved? Obama does not leave us in suspense: "We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale." In concrete terms, Obama recommends adding 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to the standing military.

As demonstrated by the above passages, Obama's quarrels with the Bush administration foreign policy are of a tactical nature; both Obama and the current resident of the White House share the overall strategic goal of preserving American hegemony by force of arms.

The senator's main dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, however, is the deleterious effect the occupation of Iraq has had on the United States' ability to project force abroad. As Obama would have it, the United States "must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power--political, economic, and military--could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria."

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/obam-j28.shtml

Posted by: che | August 3, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company