Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pining for JFK?

The Fix is taking it slow today but couldn't resist posting a little something that caught our eye.

It being President's Day, Gallup decided to commemorate the holiday by releasing a question from a poll conducted earlier this month that asked people to name the former U.S. president -- living or dead -- they wold bring back to be the next president.

Here are the results:

John F. Kennedy 23%
Ronald Reagan 22%
Bill Clinton 13%
Abraham Lincoln 10%

No other former presidents scored in double digits. (The lowest scores? George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush -- both of whom received just one percent of the vote.)

It's impossible -- at least for The Fix -- not to view these poll results through the prism of the current race for the Democratic nomination.

From the very start of his campaign, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has sought to draw parallels, subtle and not-so-subtle, between his candidacy and that of Kennedy. The similarities are real: both men had spent a relatively short time in public life before running for national office, both men were/are young, both men tended toward inspirational rhetoric.

And, of course, the biggest news event of the last month of the campaign was the endorsement of Obama by Sen. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) -- the brother of JFK -- and Caroline Kennedy, JFK's daughter. "A President Like My Father," was even the title of the op-ed Caroline Kennedy wrote in the New York Times endorsing Obama.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), on the other hand, has made no secret that she believes the two terms her husband spent as president were a very good eight years for the country, especially in bolstering the economy and eliminating the deficit, and has even invoked the idea from time to time that the country might need the Clintons again. ("It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush," Hillary Clinton said in a Los Angeles debate at the start of the month.)

Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have been careful to note that the New York senator is running on her own merits and not on the accomplishments of her husband. Even so, the message of the campaign is clear: If you liked one Clinton as president, you'll like the other one too. (At a stop in Ohio on Monday, the message seemed to be working.)

And so, given the candidates' efforts to invoke Kennedy and Bill Clinton, it's not hard to see the current Democratic presidential primary war as a proxy fight between two former presidents. According to this Gallup poll, Kennedy is the more potent symbol. And, for as long as The Fix has been covering and studying politics, there is a real desire every four year for Democrats to find the next Kennedy (Gary Hart anyone?).

The desire to return to Camelot runs VERY strong in the Democratic party now and always. Is it a stronger sentiment than still believing in a place called Hope?

Let your voice be heard in the comments section.

And, since it is President's Day, we couldn't pass up the chance to revisit the single greatest song honoring today's holiday ever written. It comes -- natch -- from the Simpsons. And it goes a little something like this:

"All: We are the mediocre presidents.
You won't find our faces on dollars or on cents!
There's Taylor, there's Tyler,
There's Fillmore and there's Hayes.
There's William Henry Harrison,
Harrison: I died in thirty days!
All: We... are... the...
Adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!"

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 18, 2008; 12:19 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Pays a Visit to John Edwards
Next: FixCam: What Will Happen in Wisconsin?

Comments

dnveqki tlyoqg
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-bipolar-disorder.html lexapro bipolar disorder

Posted by: lexapro bipolar disorder | August 21, 2008 3:43 AM | Report abuse

euyckq kzjd pegmt
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/paxil-overnight-shipping.html paxil overnight shipping

Posted by: paxil overnight shipping | August 21, 2008 3:23 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor efedra | August 21, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

dqtk mnihv sgpv
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-depression-drug.html effexor depression drug

Posted by: effexor depression drug | August 20, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

dqtk mnihv sgpv
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-depression-drug.html effexor depression drug

Posted by: effexor depression drug | August 20, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy paxil medication 35385 buy | August 18, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

mcusor wkgfbu
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/wellbutrin-sr-bupropion-texas.html wellbutrin sr bupropion texas

Posted by: wellbutrin sr bupropion texas | August 18, 2008 6:18 AM | Report abuse

mcusor wkgfbu
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/wellbutrin-sr-bupropion-texas.html wellbutrin sr bupropion texas

Posted by: wellbutrin sr bupropion texas | August 18, 2008 6:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: drug addiction treatment | August 17, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kamagra sildenafil citrate | August 16, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

ranyk yjdm brzd zldhv
http://coeeeebridk.250m.com/lexapro-manufacturer.html lexapro manufacturer

Posted by: lexapro manufacturer | August 16, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

ranyk yjdm brzd zldhv
http://coeeeebridk.250m.com/lexapro-manufacturer.html lexapro manufacturer

Posted by: lexapro manufacturer | August 16, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: pravachol actos plavix ritalin seroquel | August 16, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: pravachol actos plavix ritalin seroquel | August 16, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro and jaw tightening | August 16, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

ucamfn tkey tgysjap cnrw
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/negative-side-effects-of-lexapro.html negative side effects of lexapro

Posted by: negative side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

prgb cdsgeor fgvkl
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4726 cheap generic propecia

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: symptom ultram withdrawal | May 11, 2008 3:23 AM | Report abuse

qtfoy vshd rulg
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4495 online drug store ultram

Posted by: online drug store ultram | May 11, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

qtfoy vshd rulg
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4495 online drug store ultram

Posted by: online drug store ultram | May 11, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

isufl agynxtw vupx eivrglw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 ultram overdose

Posted by: ultram overdose | May 10, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

isufl agynxtw vupx eivrglw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 ultram overdose

Posted by: ultram overdose | May 10, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

jzvo ufdb cfkvpi myqvzgt gctsi zulpgns cbuwfizvt http://www.qsankyi.qjwprovzt.com

Posted by: yuqsacgzw xnvdjzpm | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

irjdmfug hkmzqljvs wshikurae zyxdq buhgi efrvmotda nxtyjudr

Posted by: mlonh regw | April 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

vammap, your latest responses don't require rebuttal, as they make my point for me. Thanks for the delightful conversation.

('simon-says' - how very clever of you. first time I've heard that one. Are you going to pull out 'simple simon' next?)

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I'm not a guy.

And here's the difference SIMON-SAYS, it may be 15,2% but that 15.2% makes up the second largest group in the state.

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

BSIMON

As usual your info is out-dated, skewed; you can't come up with one bone-a-fide resource or fact, so since your tendency is to pick..over bones...

Here I'm throwing you one now....chew this awhile; I'm off to work.


"A look at the state's changing demographics offers some clues as to how Illinois lawmakers may handle public policy choices in the future, according to researchers at the University of Illinois.

While the overall population grew moderately between 1990 and 2003, increasing from 11.4 million to 12.7 million residents, major changes have taken placed in the state's ethnic and racial composition. Both the number of Hispanic (non-black) and Asian residents doubled, while the number of non-Hispanic whites decreased by 1.6 percent. The black population increased by 13 percent.

As a result, the percentage of white residents dropped from 75 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2003.

While blacks still constitute the state's second largest group at 15.2 percent (up from 14.9 percent in 1990),

"These demographic shifts are likely to have an impact on future policymaking on several issues, according to "The State of the State of Illinois," a report issued by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs."

CHEW!

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

We could only hope that Obama would be more like JFK since JFK was more of a conservative democrat that a flaming liberal like Obama.

Posted by: LTCSTAN | February 19, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Guys! guys! Get a room, ok?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

vammap, I hate to pick on the new guy, but you're not making any sense. I said Obama WILL win IL in the general.

You said "If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period," which certainly sounds like you're saying he couldn't win the general. Importantly, you're not even correct about the IL population. It doesn't have a 'large black populace.' Blacks make up 15% of the IL population, according to the 2000 census. I'm left to conclude that you're either making data up to fit your needs, or are woefully misinformed by someone else.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

OK...YOU started it with the bad song/slogan lyrics regarding Presidents, so I'm gonna' give you the campaign slogan I wrote for JFK way back in 1960:

Nix on Nixon!
Rah for Jack!
This is the cheer
That I will back.

In November
You will see
It's Nix on Nixon!
Jack's for me.

(Now, I go to work on Clinton and Obama)

Posted by: EINNOC10 | February 19, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon,

I did not imply he would lose Illinois in a General Election. You are misconstruing what I said, which is that of course he would win his home state, but it does not necessarily mean that he would win a General Election.

You're saying that Sen Obama might lose Illinois in the general election, if he were running for President.

That's not what I said; my statement and your parsing of it are are entirely different.

Waste of time trying to make yourself look credible.

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: nice work dealing with the newbie.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 19, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

vammap, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Scroll up, its all right there for you. At 11:53 EST, you wrote "If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period."

Too bad The Fix doesn't allow editing of one's posts, or you could go back and 'correct' the record. Thanks for playing!

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

bsimon

Don't put words in my mouth to cover your own inaccurracies:

What I said was that a win in red states, not ILL, which is a blue state, is not indicative of outcomes on a national basis.

In other words, he would win Ill, it's his home state, chances of him winning in red states is more unlikely...

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Quick look at one Wisconsin voter:

Mike Burlingame, a 48-year-old corrections officer, is a Mike Huckabee supporter who voted for Hillary Clinton at Lincoln Elementary School in Cudahy.

Here's his reasoning: He really doesn't want Barack Obama. He thinks his vote would be wasted on Huckabee, so he's crossing over and voting for Clinton though he plans to vote for McCain in November.

Bottom line: "I want to knock Obama out."

Burlingame said the last Republican he voted for in a presidential race was Ronald Reagan.


Milwaukee Journal.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

To Blarg:

It's not over, Alternet, Feb 6, 2008 points out "that Clinton's strength in large states will eclipse any gains made by Obama in 10 smaller states that have contests in the next four weeks. Those 10 states and locales are: Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virgin Islands, Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii and Wisconsin. Most of these states are seen as leaning toward Obama, for various reasons, from the electorate's make-up, to political beliefs to campaign organization and endorsements."

"Political scientists say the Democratic nomination is moving into uncharted territory with few precedents. During the past two decades, the party's nominee was largely chosen by this stage in the nominating process. What is unprecedented is how an ongoing contest will engage voters -- now and into the fall -- and whether a long contest will hurt the nominee as the country moves into the fall election, academics say."

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

vammap, which fact did I get wrong? I said Obama has won Illinois before. He has. You're right, it wasn't a close race, and the competition was pitiful. Not unlike Sen Clinton's electoral victories, come to think of it. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that you tried to imply that Sen Obama might lose Illinois in the general election, if he were running for President. This is a meritless claim, that you seem to be pulling out of your backside, given IL's Democratic bent. IL went to Kerry, Gore & Bill Clinton (twice). The last time it went Repub was in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis race.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

To bsimon said :

Well... He's won it (Illinois) before,"

Get your facts right Simon. Obama ran easily against Alan Keyes, the raving Republican lunatic, that wasn't exactly a contest. It was a give- away.

Skewing makes you appear less than credible.

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"Most of Obama's wins were in caucus, red, states that will vote heavily Republican in November; these are states where Republicans and Independents can cross party lines and vote for whoever they want, not a very good indication of what a vote would look like nationally."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
RCP notes who won each state, and whether it was a closed primary or not.

35 states have voted (including DC, not including MI and FL). 13 of them have been closed primaries. Obama has won 9 of those. The only closed primaries that Clinton has won are New York, Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Mexico by a nose. Even when voters can't cross party lines, Obama wins and Hillary loses.

Posted by: Blarg | February 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

'Pining for JFK? Well, I've been doing that my entire adult life...No, let's be perfectly honest, he was far from perfect. JFK was a womanizer, he hid his ailments, he was slow to embrace civil rights, he should have stood up to and fired the CIA for that Bay of Pigs fiasco, he should never have commited any troops or advisors to Vietnam (I still believe he had plans to get us out of there completely in his second term - 'could that be the reason he was killed? Maybe...) But he was incredibly inspirational...eloquent and rational...poetic and practical... respected the world over, and he was gone 'way too soon.
I have heard nothing from Obama that makes me think of JFK, although Senator O loves to channel JFK, as well as MLK, and a host of others that he believes will get him elected. Obama doesn't move or inspire me, and I could never vote for him.
"Pining for JFK" certainly doesn't translate to being another lemming under the spell of the Obamamania cult. I see nothing about Senator O that reminds me of the strength and character and vision of President Kennedy.
In fact, I think a quote from a one-time vice-presidential candidate sums it up very nicely, as directed to the enigmatic and undefined Senator O:
"Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. An' let me just tell you, Senator -- you're NO Jack Kennedy!"

Posted by: rhewitt | February 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period."

Well... He's won it before, if I'm not mistaken. Historically, IL has often been a key win for Dem candidates seeking to win the nomination for President. Of course, NY & CA have also been important in that race, which is why the race is still going on.

vammap, suffice it to say, your analysis & comments are pretty one-sided & reflect a limited understand the process. That's ok, of course, but you should perhaps keep an open mind that you might better serve yourself to seek out more sources of information in order to gain a better grasp of how the process works.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period"


But he did win in Illinois by a large margin. And the more voters get to know him, the more he wins in "blue" states.
Hillary is more or less coasting on name recognition and those who really want Bill back.

She has lost 20 point leads (from only a month ago) in every state. This points to a momentum for Obama that will carry him in the blue and red states. And the further McCain nuzzles up to the right, the more independents and left-leaning and moderate Repubs come Obama's way. I think he could very well win some traditionally red states.

14,000 showing up for a Democrat in Boise Idaho is pretty much a miracle politically.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Most of Obama's wins were in caucus, red, states that will vote heavily Republican in November; these are states where Republicans and Independents can cross party lines and vote for whoever they want, not a very good indication of what a vote would look like nationally.

If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period.

Characterizing Hillary as losing is not an accurate assessment, the race is too close..She's won big blue states, he's won mostly caucus red states. We have to wait and see how the remaining contests will play out..

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Look at the state of Illinois. You have to be able to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. It cuts across racial lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across rural and urban lines..."


But of course that is Obama's home state. Much more important is Missouri. I think it accurately reflected (as it has done ever since 1900-with one exception)the final outcome...Barack by a nose.

However, it is worth noting that the one exception was Adlai Stephenson, and in some, but not all ways, they are a rather similar.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Look at the state of Illinois. You have to be able to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. It cuts across racial lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across rural and urban lines...

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary has so much appeal to the voters, why do they keep voting for Obama? Seems to me that if people loved her as much as that quote says, she wouldn't be losing.

Posted by: Blarg | February 19, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"Look at the state of New York. You have to be able to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. It cuts across racial lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across rural and urban lines. She carried every county but two. What that tells me is that all the things that the sophisticates like you and me don't like about her--her coldness, her dowdiness, all these thing about her that seem uncharismatic, as opposed to the dashing Obama or Edwards--that's all stuff people like. We don't get it. They get it. They're the people who are going to be voting. I've seen this disconnect before. In 1998, the chattering classes thought Clinton was toast, but the country was for him."


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/16/making-the-case-for-hillary-clinton-by-sean-wilentz.aspx

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"It further erodes any semblance of a meanginfull exchange, which did not happen last night on CNN's LKL."


I certainly agree that last night's group was certainly representative of nothing in particular. Not a minority in sight. Who was the woman wise-cracker...funny but what's the point? Frum? Propangandist. Ron Reagan?...ballet perspective? And the blonde woman..."monolithic grunt"? was anyone blinded by that brilliance?

The young guy though was the exception...he seemed objective and reasonable.

But, frankly, I thought they made Hillary look good.

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

That's exactly what he was doing, making Hillary look bad by association (even though he was saying supportive things about her). It's a given..

And why have such a trashy group, why not have the candidates' surrogates representing them?

It further erodes any semblance of a meaningfull exchange, which did not happen last night on CNN's LKL.

Remind, Barack has not won one huge blue state.

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

That's exactly what he was doing, making Hillary look bad by association.

And why have such a trashy group, why not have the candidates' surrogates representing them?

It further erodes any semblance of a meanginfull exchange, which did not happen last night on CNN's LKL.

Like this exchange...

Remind, Barack has not won one huge blue state.

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"The historian has a point. FDR and Bill Clinton, though widely vilified, ran for president a combined six times and never lost. When the voters divided, most went for them."


Rewriting history now?

Clinton won in 1992 with only 43% of the vote...and Ross Perot was the spoiler, taking 19% of the vote from Bush I.

In 1996, he got only 49% of the vote against one of the worst Rep candidates ever, Bob Dole.

As far as vilification, I think there will be plenty for each.

The point Frum was making is that the Republican fear neither Clinton or Obama. They prefer Clinton because they like her close relationship with big business and because she will unite a fractured Republican Party...which fits nicely into their plan to nominate Jeb Bush in 2012, whom the entire Republican party will support.

Obama is a wild card...they HATE that. He could be the best president ever or the worst...no one really knows.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"Frum, Schrum, were they separated at birth?
Both like to talk a lot and they also stink a lot."


LOL.
You certainly know how to lower the bar.
With supporters like you, Hillary doesn't need enemies.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Frum, Schrum, were they separated at birth?

Both like to talk a lot and they also stink a lot.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

The 9 million plus Democrats and independents that have already voted for Sen. Obama must have it all wrong.

Repent, REPENT! Saint Hillary shall prevail!, you little people, fly-over raffle.

Shrum rhymes with "has been", "loser" and schmuck.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Is there any actual evidence that the Republicans are scared to run against Hillary? So far your "proof" has consisted of "They act like they want to run against her, and they're sneaky!" Is that all you've got?

Posted by: Blarg | February 19, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

On Larry King Live last night Frum made the most salient points against Obama, for Hillary.

Here'a a snipet from an article in the Charlotte post from Sun, Feb 17, 2008, "Saul Wilentz, a Princeton professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who's supporting Clinton, offered this advice to those who fear she's too divisive.

In an interview with Newsweek magazine, he asked, "You know who makes that argument more than anybody else? Republicans. This is a favorite Republican argument. They say, `We want to run against Hillary. She's the polarizing candidate and we're going to take advantage of that. She's going to rile up our base, et cetera, et cetera.' Whenever Republicans tell us who they want us to nominate, we should nominate her. They're scared of her."

The historian has a point. FDR and Bill Clinton, though widely vilified, ran for president a combined six times and never lost. When the voters divided, most went for them.


http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/497314.html

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

"fpiktor: Don't make the mistake that Repubs are FOR Obama, just the opposite, they are afraid of Hillary and he is only a tool they are using. These SDs are being wooed and I think they will use their judgement as to who is best for the country."


Republicans would much rather have Hillary in the WH than Barack. David Frum has made that very clear. Hillary is friendly to big business and to Israel, both very important to Republicans. They consider her "Romney Light."

Not to mention the fact that they think she will galvanize a fractured Republican party...something many prefer to 4 years of maverick McCain.

Repubs don't like Obama because he's an unknown and Republicans HATE uncertainty. They just wet their pants in the face of the unknown. Which is of course why they tend towards conservative values...stockpiling money and crushing dissent. Security is more important than liberty.

However, as Ben Franklin said,
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Pining for JFK has always been a problem in a large part of the Democrat Party. As I've noted on other Blogs, Camelot was created by Jackie Kennedy, shortly after JFK's assassination, and implemented by close JFK aides in an effort to pre-determine his legacy, yes, a fairly tale.

Posted by: gkmtn | February 19, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: Don't make the mistake that Repubs are FOR Obama, just the opposite, they are afraid of Hillary and he is only a tool they are using. These SDs are being wooed and I think they will use their judgement as to who is best for the country.

Posted by: lylepink | February 19, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

"If Republicans can actually vote against Hillary, which is the case in most caucus states where Obama consistently won, this is not at all an indication of the national vote..."


Not necessarily. McCain has been abandoning his independence and sucking up to the right, actually changing his positions in several key areas. This is losing him the independent support among all party members...voters whom Barack picks up.

Plus, McCain will never win the far right without Huck as VP, which won't happen (and if it does happens, he loses every independent and right-leaning Democrat..and most likely every moderate Republican).

He's damned either way.

Barack wins either way.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

If Republicans can actually vote against Hillary, which is the case in most caucus states where Obama consistently won, this is not at all an indication of the national vote...

People, do you get it yet?

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

lylepink | February 19, 2008 08:17 AM

Obama Republicans?

Music to my ears.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: I lived in Racine for six years 66 to 72 and it was great. My earlier estimate of at least 10% of Repubs voting for Obama is beginning to look like I was a little low and it appears that it is more like 15%, and even higher in some areas. The exit polling should give us some idea, if it is reported accurately, which I somehow doubt.

Posted by: lylepink | February 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Talk about demented!!

...all this supposed Republican/ Independent "support" is because they don't want Hillary to win, Obama is a pawn..

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642_pf.html

"We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

" study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did."

... pretty hard to fathom why old white boys would support Obama..and seeing George Bush's photo ops in Africa, NOW, (interesting timing) is utter hypocrisy...

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Lyle, if it is of any consolation to you, Hillary will prevail.

Any other scenario will be the little people's doing and will have nothing to do with brainy prognostications and feelings of any sort.

THE MACHINE WILL RULE! Or not.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

"Today, Wisconsin should show Obama winning by about 8 to 10% and anything less would be a victory for Hillary, since it has same day registration and anyone can choose a Repub or Dem ballot."


Any win by Barack in Wisconsin is huge...Even a 50/50 split is big for Barack. This is demographically her state. If she can't win here, it spells big trouble in Texas and Pennsylvania.

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

novamatt | February 19, 2008 07:25 AM

Do not worry, the little people, the fly-over little people are watching.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Roger Simon over at Politico is reporting that the Clintonistas will be going after Obama's pledged delegates now. Utter, utter shamelessness.

If Hillary is the party's nominee via some back-room putsch this summer, it's time to blow up the Democratic Party and start something fresh. And we can kick that off by not voting at all for anyone in November.

Posted by: novamatt | February 19, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy endorsement business: it takes a lot of bravado to campaign for change when the Kennedy reputation lives on.. destroying Ted's attempt to recapture the "fairy tale" in his 1980 run for the Presidency..

He couldn't fulfill what must be a family quest to return the "name" to the oval office.

Evidently he doesn't want to see his dream absconded by the Clintons..

The irony is stunning..

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

lylepink | February 19, 2008 07:15 AM

Two words: February five.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

cam8: No. Hillary should continue on her way and try and think of some way to overcome The Media and Repubs support of Obama in their effort to stop her. I was accurate in that most folks did not even realize just how strong this is, by under estimating how powerful this all out effort to stop her really was. I hear and see nothing reported about this and can only assume that is also part of the plan to keep folks from finding out what is actually going on. Today, Wisconsin should show Obama winning by about 8 to 10% and anything less would be a victory for Hillary, since it has same day registration and anyone can choose a Repub or Dem ballot.

Posted by: lylepink | February 19, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Calling an upset for Hillary today in Wisconsin.
Sub-zero weather....whose vote will that suppress?
The Stepford speech bite will hurt just enough to tip the balance, plus Michelle's "proud of America" sound bite. Barack is in trouble.
Hillary posed for winning the nomination.
Barack/Bloomberg third party a definite possibility.
Hillary ultimately prevails. Will exceed expectations.


More than a feeling?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

May the best candidate win!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 6:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 06:21 AM

Another off-the-wall response. These aren't my numbers, it's not my spin, it's from a national poll! Hello, earth to rfpiktor...are you there?

Obama had a huge lead in Wisc and now the campaign is stepping back from what could be a more competitive race..

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

people

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

vammap | February 19, 2008 06:11 AM

Your numbers against political reality.

The little people will make themselves heard today in Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Go tell the little peoople numerology tall stories.

Eight wins in a row and counting.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 6:21 AM | Report abuse

Response to rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 05:44 AM

This is exactly the type of insubstantial and idiotic spinning I'm talking about:

Pollster.com rates the American Research Group Polls at the bottom of the pack..in other words...they're highly unreliable.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_i.php

The Washington Post Poll, which is ranked 2nd, shows Obama and Hillary running roughly even (today) nationally...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/polls/

You know what they say about fairy tales...
happy endings, we all live forever...oh and did I mention...unreliable

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 6:11 AM | Report abuse

Will Texas look like this? My guess is YES, but that is only my humble opinion.

http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 5:55 AM | Report abuse

Good morning, Mrs. Billary, thought you'd wake up to this:

Texas poll- Clinton 42%, Obama 48% done on Feb.13

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/txdem8-702.html

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone watch Larry King Live last night, or Anderson Cooper, or Blitzer?
Well,seems CNN has gone the radio talk show route, the days of prognosticators arguing policy are gone; there is no equity, no fair representation of the candidates' positions, CNN might as well be classified as comedy, rather than news..is this a Rubert Murdoch thing?

Posted by: vammap | February 19, 2008 5:36 AM | Report abuse

From www.newstreamz.com

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy will visit San Marcos on his swing through Texas this week to rally young voters for presidential candidate Barack Obama, a paid coordinator for the campaign told volunteers at an organizational meeting this evening. The announcement was made during a training session attended by about 80 local campaign workers at the Dunbar Center, several people who attended said.

http://newstreamz.com/news/texas-state-university

Posted by: bradrollins | February 19, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

Many Americans are not proud of this country right now. Nor of themselves. Feelings can't be denied.

Barack us helping to change that.
----------------------------------
Such nonsense. He's nowhere close to achieving this let alone faced the difficult decisions the next president will have to make with regard to Iraq (his campaign promises will be severely tested here I suspect), entitlements, AMT (he is utterly silent on this politically and fiscally difficult topic), immigration and a number of other areas.

It's difficult to take these pronouncements seriously.

Posted by: JamesSCameron | February 19, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Many Americans are not proud of this country right now. Nor of themselves. Feelings can't be denied.

Barack us helping to change that.
----------------------------------
Such nonsense. He's nowhere close to achieving this let alone faced the difficult decisions the next president will have to make with regard to Iraq (his campaign promises will be severely tested here I suspect), entitlements, AMT (he is utterly silent on this politically and fiscally difficult topic), immigration and a number of other areas.

It's difficult to take these pronouncements seriously.

Posted by: JamesSCameron | February 19, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I don't give a damn about Obama and the money. Ask John about that million dollar loan.
John McCain is a politician and will toe the party line when he has to do so. Yeah he is a hero, but I don't want him as President.
Hillary is a liability downticket. Is there any wonder why Chet Edwards went with Obama today? Democrat in the reddest district in America, hmmm.
If you want to find some substance about Obama it is there. Who the hell wants to read a thirteen page report on the economy? Damn, there is a reason they call it the dismal science. Does anyone remember Ross Perot and his stupid charts? I swear, do you really want to hear a speech about flowcharts? I have slept through enough of those, thanks. If I want to know where a candidate stands on an issue or how they tend to vote I can find it without being put to sleep.


Obama takes Wisconsin and Texas, a split in Ohio.

Posted by: cactusflinthead | February 19, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Chris -
You, like most pundits, leave out the significant distinguishing factor between JFK and Obama. Kennedy served in a position of leadership in WWII. That fact alone puts his experience head and shoulders above Obama's. It is alarming to see how uncritically the media boost someone with so little background in confronting the challenges of our times.

Posted by: BDaren | February 18, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

All this Obama thing is a good plan to keep the Republicans in the White House.

Obama has no slight chance in the general election.

He will make a mockery of himself and the Democratic Party in the general election.

Vote for Obama, this is exactly what corporate media and Republicans want.

Do you think they are willing to let go of the power and its enormous financial benefits easily?

Look in the past, when was the second time they have ever supported a left liberal candidate before?

Once Obama gets the nomination they start a swift boat campaign you haven't seen the like before.

They know, after all the corruption and incompetence that have brought to this country, they have a zero chance in the general election, unless to promote a candidate like Obama.

A candidate who thinks acting like JFK and revibrating the air in his throat like MLK or preparing for speeches for hours is enough to win elections.

Don't be fooled by the polls that Media publishes everyday, trying to convince you that Obama has a better chance in the general election against Mccain. Who has verified those polls?

A very tiny fracion of the Republican-leaning Independents and Republicans (compared to the whole electorate) vote for Obama in primaries exactly for the same reason that Media is giving him a free ride.

They know Clintons are very resilient people, they have defeated them twice already.

Don't be fooled by the slogans like "Obama will bring us together." How in a right mind someone might think an ultra liberal will bring parties together?

Any thing was achieved in this country in the past was for the efforts of the moderate of both parties who were willing to compromise.

Don't lose an election that Republican has already lost.

Posted by: Bar123 | February 18, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

JFK and "Camelot" made us feel good...that counts for a lot. In life, when one is optimistic, hopeful, expecting positive results, oftentimes they receive them.

As Studs Terkel said in 2004, "Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up. That's what Jessie de la Cruz meant when she said, "I feel there's gonna be a change, but we're the ones gonna do it, not the government. With us, there's a saying, 'La esperanza muere ultima. Hope dies last.' You can't lose hope. If you lose hope, you lose everything.""

Obama brings new hope to millions of Americans and especially to young people, who will decide this next election.

The old way, the scandals, the divisiveness, the "Decider" will be history. This is as Obama states, a decision about the past versus the future; it is our time. It will take hard work; people working together, to bring real change. This is part of our national character and history...we can do better. Grace under pressure; lifting and leading all people.

Growth is the only sure sign of life, and it is time for our country and our people to grow.

This is the United States of America!

Posted by: BGreat_in2008 | February 18, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

wpost:

"Like sending our kids to their deaths in Iraq so Bush's friends would make more money on oil.

She loses on both counts: what's between those two darling ears and how she used it."

Agree. I wonder if HRC was pained or not with the loss of lives, lives of the poor and of both Americans and Iraqis. An article in The New Yorker reported that she did not really read the documents sent by the White House before her voting. She just took an opportunist position, which is very telling about her integrity, let alone judgment. The same article said that her health care reform version then was of more than 3000 pages, simply too long for anyone to finish. When suggestions of revision and as well as criticism rose, HRC said we would demonize them. This is why we heard "demonizing" time and and again recently. The word became a jab at HRC without mentioning her name. One of the reasons for me to support Obama is that Obama does not have this so-called political establishment. Imagine a lawyer just moves to NY, a state she was never a resident, and says I want to be your senator and she is, and then she says to the country I am so ready to be your president and she is almost there now. I support Obama because Obama processes certain excellence of both character and ability, and because he has showed great concerns with the ordinary, and the less privileged in particular. I read an article in the New Yorker about Obama four years also ago , before he run for the senate. I was very impressed by him then already. I am very glad that he is now running for president.

Posted by: pinepine | February 18, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Both JFK and Reagan were positive, yet realistic - as is Obama.

Clinton, not so much.

Posted by: TomJx | February 18, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

I was just looking at the Real Clear Politics site and it shows a CNN poll that has Obama to within 2% of Clinton in Texas. If Obama wins Texas, Clinton is toast.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 18, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

..the poll shows that the GOP has done a great job of trashing the Clinton record and the Clintons.

Who would follow the endorsement of a Kennedy, in this case Edward..both brothers were womanizers; they get a free pass..we don't hold them accountable?

Americans are dumb!

Posted by: vammap | February 18, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

AdrickHenry - No, you shouldn't. I am a history buff and you need to read a lot of it before you go touting Lincoln as this glorious saint. He wasn't and he and the Radical Republican's did a lot of things that came very close to destroying the American democracy. They were not very nice people. And Reconstruction was nothing more than a vendetta. The underlying reason for the Civil War had very little to do with emancipation and a whole to do with the same Wall Street folk that have brought us so much misery of late. We are simply treading the same ground, over and over, dancing a tune set for us by the wealthy, the investors, and big business. I hope and pray that Barak Obama will help to end this cycle, where this country can realize its potential. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Stop believing in the fairy tales you were taught in public schools, go to the library or a good bookstore, buy some decent history books and read!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 18, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I love Obama, but I can't resist TWO Clintons. I loved just one.
Srfotog-Oregon

Posted by: srfotog | February 18, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Howard Fineman said something about the Clinton's today on Hardball that was pretty amazing.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/losing-their-embarrassment/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 18, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is fortunate this year to have John McCain as head of their party. They are also fortunate to have a new opposition party - The Un-Democrats. The opposition candidates, Obama and Clinton, are in a bitter fight to lead the un-democratic party.

Just look at the Byzantine, convoluted, tortuous selection process and politics of the DNC. Is it a democracy to have Super Delegates trample over the rights of the elected?

The un-democratic party could be called the autocratic party - because the Super Delegates know best. Some are better than others in an Orwellian point of view. Just for kicks, let's disenfranchise Florida and Michigan - after all - this is the un-democratic party.

The Byzantine Empire collapsed under its own bureaucratic weight of impossible rules and regulations. It appears the same thing is happening to the former Democratic Party of Truman and Kennedy.

Posted by: alance | February 18, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

I saw your appearance on Olberman's show, and find myself compelled to respond to your "talking head" crapola.

You said that democrats see Obama/Clinton as a dream ticket. I have heard that ad nauseam. There is no truth to that bull, and even if it were true, it can't happen.

If you want an African-American/female ticket, get one that can win in red states. Obama and the governor of Kansas.

Posted by: saremchuuk2008 | February 18, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, don't be surprised that a few nitwits pine for Nixon: rightist wackos like Ann Coulter flog the idea continously that he was a swell leader. It's a pretty big movement among the real hard cases.

Posted by: Prozrenie | February 18, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

As a thirty-something, my memory of the Kennedy clan are more informed by their scandals and electoral defeats (One of the first Republican votes I cast was for Bob Ehrlich when he trounced the insufferable Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend for Maryland governor back in 2002). Since then I've relocated to the midwest.

As a Republican-leaning Independent today, I can only hope that Obama would govern as conservatively as JFK did (wasn't JFK a tax-cutter and, and manage to redeem a failure at the Bay of Pigs with masterful brinksmanship in the missle crisis?).

The party of JFK is long gone (policy-wise, JFK had more in common with Reagan than Obama). The only similarities between Obama and JFK are in style, not substance.

Posted by: heartlandmoderategal | February 18, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"Being smart isn't just a matter of what's between your ears, but what you do with it."


Like sending our kids to their deaths in Iraq so Bush's friends would make more money on oil.

She loses on both counts: what's between those two darling ears and how she used it.

None of the empty promises on her website will bring those lives back.

bad Policy. bad President.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Being smart isn't just a matter of what's between your ears, but what you do with it.

We've gone through 7 years of "a uniter, not a divider" "a man of principle" "a Harvard man"

What we've gotten is 7 years of disaster.

He turned out to be an egotistical empty suit.

Part of being smart is being skeptical and verifying that people's plans make sense.

I'd just like to urge voters to look at both web sites.

If you study both of their policy plans, you'll wind up voting for Hillary Clinton.

Presidents make policy.

Posted by: svreader | February 18, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I still call an upset in Wisconsin (for Hillary) and an upset in Texas and Pennsylvania (for Barack). He'll also I think take the debates....another upset.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

When is the media going to start actually discussing who might be a good president and stop these Obama campaign commercials?

"Will he be more like Bobby or John Kennedy?"

It is not journalism. Are you going to start reporting about Britney Spears in the Fix as well?

Posted by: pkilgallon | February 18, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Here the one-minute video of my opinion on YouTube:"


The Larry Craig clip is fun....and Hillary's "vote with conviction" is excellent.

I support Bama but don't see how we can pull out of Iraq without major problems. Hope Bama's got some good plans...actually, hope he gets Colin Powell in his circle. What a mess George and the Congress got us into.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who would vote for Hillary over Mr. Obama probably roots for Notre Dame or thinks "The Empire Strikes Back" had a happy ending. What part of 64 ounce can of whoop-ass don't you get?

Posted by: bondjedi | February 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Here the one-minute video of my opinion on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J3x2Qu7Noc

Posted by: rippermccord | February 18, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

sch,
My $.02 theory is that FDR isn't higher because he died a natural death in office. It shouldn't matter, but subconsciously it may feel like a "bad risk" of his dying again, unlike those assassinated, whose deaths were caused by murderers who are gone. Does that make sense?

Posted by: jhbyer | February 18, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd just like to urge voters to look at both web sites.

If you study both of their policy plans,, you'll wind up voting for Hillary Clinton.

Presidents make policy.

Posted by: svreader | February 18, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

the poll was very interesting/revealing.

this line about kennedy & obama jumped out at me, though: ". . . both men had spent a relatively short time in public life before running for national office . . ."

that's perpetuating the myth on BOTH men.

so here are the years in government office (elected or appointed), for the presidents of the last half century, in order of years experience, including the three prominent dem noms this year (counting how long they will be when they take office, just like the previous presidents).

their years in office is listed first.

i relied on wikepedia, with all links from this list of prez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

27 Johnson (3 VP, 12 US Senate, 12 US House (includes Senate Majority Leader))
26 Ford (1 VP, 25 US House (includes House Minority Leader)

16 Bush Sr (8 VP, 4 US House, 1 CIA director, 3 UN Ambassador)

14 Nixon (8 VP, 2 US Senate, 4 US House)
14 Bill Clinton (12 Gov of Arkansas, 1 Attorney General of Arkansas)
14 Kennedy (8 US Senate, 6 US House)

[b]12 Obama (4 US Senate, 8 Illinois Senate)[/b]

8 Reagan (8 Gov of California)
[b]8 Hillary Clinton (8 US Senate)[/b]
8 Carter (4 Gov of Georgia, 4 Georia Senate)

6 Bush Jr (6 Gov of Texas)
[b]6 Edwards (6 US Senate)[/b]

0 Eisenhower (formerly General of the Army)

so kennedy and obama are both near the middle of the pack.

barack is 7th out of these 13. hillary is in a three-way tie for 8th, and Edwards is second from the last. obama will have been in office 50% longer than hillary, and will be just two years shy of the group tied for fourth, clustered in the middle of the pack.

you can argue that hillary is a special case. but take her out of it, and obama will have double the government experience of the other leading Dem, john edwards.

the clinton's tagged obama with this "newness" myth way back, the press repeated it, and now it's taken for granted.

i'm not sure how/when kennedy developed his myth.

Posted by: cullendave | February 18, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

"I also see him running his campaign brilliantly against the most formidable political machine in American history."

True enough.

"I supported McCain for a while, but he has flip-flopped on taxes, torture and supreme court. I can't trust him. I don't want his temper near a nuclear button. A hero, but not I think a President."

That seems fair.

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

I appreciate your post.

I'm glad to hear you're maintining professional skepticism (and not swooning.)

I'm going to sign off for the day knowing there is one lukewarm Obama supporter out there (I didn't know they existed).

Peace be with all of you. Even you, angry Blarg.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

If only we had time machine usmc. All our problems would be solved if we could just journey 5 or 6 decades in the past, huh?

HAhAHHAHA. Same sh*t differant day. You can't run and hide from your problems forever. Eventually you must face then. In your case taking responsibility means your party irrelevant for a generation. I can't wait to see the great america we build without gop sabotage for profit. It's going to be great.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 18, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"wpost4112 -- just curious
Are you a left-leaning democrat, indy, or what?
How do you usually vote?"


Independent. I always try to vote according to conscience and intelligence. Party affiliation means little to me.

I'd say I was a fiscal conservative and social liberal...in other words, I am against a government mortgage bail-out and throwing money at people to "stimulate the economy" but for letting anyone marry whom they damn well want to.

In other words, I'm an American.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

http://www.politico.com/cartoon/index.html

For whoever that was last week. "We had to burn the town to save it." :)

I think it was simon. It would be funny if our childrens future was not in jepordy

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 18, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

You made 2 points.

I responded to both of them.

Then you responded to 1.

I assumed you conceded the other.

Your response was to imply I am insane, then jet.

Time well spent, I'd say.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"And I'm not convinced Obama is the Messiah.

But if you are, that's cool man."

I am not convinced Obama is the Messiah. I don't believe in Messiahs. I believe in real people doing real things.

I have my doubts about Bambam. I think he is a little too arrogant at times. A little too lazy. I don't like the way he has treated Hillary...indicates a smallness of character. I wonder if he has the grit to stick to a unpopular decision. Will his prose meet the poetry.

I have my doubts.

But I also have a record of what he has done. And it is impressive. I also see him running his campaign brilliantly against the most formidable political machine in American history. And winning graciously.

I also know a lot about the other candidates and to me they come up even shorter. I supported McCain for a while, but he has flip-flopped on taxes, torture and supreme court. I can't trust him. I don't want his temper near a nuclear button. A hero, but not I think a President.

Hillary. Well, I think she might have the best President the USA ever saw...except she decided to marry Slick Willy and became something other than herself. And now will be whatever is needed to win. I trust her even less than McCain...and I won't even start in on "I had no sexual ralations with that woman" Willy. A President who lies under oath. THE example for lawfulness. Astonishing.

I'm taking who I think is the best of the three. And that's Barack. It's a gamble I'm comfortable with.

Messiah? No.

Not half bad nominee? Sure.

Possibly excellent? Defintely.

Possibly the worst? Maybe.

And we roll the dice.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"So you concede he has based his campaign on hope, and for me to attack hope is relevant, whereas a similar attack on Huckabee would be pointless."

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything even vaguely close to that. I didn't use the words "hope" or "attack" in any of my posts on this topic. I was talking about a method of increasing the minimum wage.

So here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to leave. Obviously you're having yet another conversation with the caricature of a liberal who lives inside your head; I'm just getting in the way. Bye now.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

PS,

I don't want a religious theocracy, or a christian socialist state, or anything like that.

I agree with Mitt Romney - that we each have the freedom to believe what we want to, and not believe what we don't want to.

Last week, the debate got very heated when I suggested that we ought to at least be able to acknowledge the fact that our values are based on Christian morality (NOT, as it were, that we are a "Christian nation", although at one time that's exactly what we claimed to be).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I trust the Super-Delegates....
to hammer out the details at the Democratic convention...
sort out what match-up breaks best for the Democrats winning the White House in November.

If the contestants can't gain a resounding primary mandate from the voters, then we've got OT in Denver with the "Coin-Flip":

- Michigan and Florida elected-delegates are 1st TIE-BREAKER...

- Super-Delegates 2nd ... the elected officials with tons of collective experience... GET TO WEIGH-IN.

Sorry, if a simple plurality that can't win on 1st ballot...
then light-up the cigars and broker us a "Winning Ticket"

"Clinton- Obama '08" or "Obama-Clinton '08"...
either bumper-sticker gets my vote!


(People wanting a brand of ideological perfection can vote for Ron Paul)

Posted by: bensonrt | February 18, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 -- just curious

Are you a left-leaning democrat, indy, or what?

How do you usually vote?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"So you concede he has based his campaign on hope, and for me to attack hope is relevant, whereas a similar attack on Huckabee would be pointless."


He has based his campaign on the citizens. WE are the hope he is talking about. US.

Huck is basing his campaign on divine hope...on whatever his notion of God is. That has nothing to do with all Americans.

He wants to conform the Constitution to the Bible. This is not hope, this is religious fascism. It may be "hope" to him, but it may be despair to others. He can practice his brand of relighious hope at home or in his church.

Many more of us are quite happy with a the society and government as described in the Constitution...based on secular laws, and practice our religious beliefs in private.

The pursuit of happiness is our inalienable right. And no one has the right to abridge that right as long as it causes no damage to another's person or property.

It is quite relevant to criticize foisting one person's religious hope on the many, it is without meaning to criticize wanting to awaken hope in every American citizen as they see it for themselves.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"We yearn for leadership, but not a priest or Queen or general. Just a man or woman who is honest, smart, capable, inspiring...a citizen among citizens with a inborn gift for leadership and enough humility to keep him or her in
balance. "

While I can't deny how attractive that sounds,

I also care about issues.

And I'm not convinced Obama is the Messiah.

But if you are, that's cool man.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

j.navin, either you're lying, your source is lying, or you misunderstood what you read. I don't know you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The person who stated she was "proud to be an American" for the first time was NOT Michelle Obama. It was a gal named Monica Morris who posted a "happy birthday" message to Michelle Obama on the positivelybarack.com website Jan. 19th. Her exact words were:

"I would like to share something with you that touch me deep in my soul. On Januay 17th about 6:45am (I remember the date becuase marked it in my calendar and was on my way to work) a feeling came over me. For the first time, I felt proud to be an American..first time..mind you, I am a veteran..a college graduate, and a proud black woman...but never had I ever experience the feeling of feeling proud to be an American...a connection..part of the team..possibilities..that are real possibilities."

Please get your facts straight before you make scandalous accusations.

Thanks.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 18, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112, your intriguing musings about randiness and leadership compel me to offer a possible explanation for Lincoln being an exception. According to his biographers, he concluded from the childhood deaths of all but one of his sons and his wife seeming a bit "touched in the head", that he had before marriage contracted syphilis and passed it to his wife. Reportedly he was consumed with such guilt over this that his wife could do no wrong, and he could have no fun. As you you say, he does seem more spiritual owing to his seriousness, plus he was never able to stop grieving those sons who died. For sure, he was not religious. He never joined a church and only attended upon his wife's request. That his speeches flow with scriptural references and have the cadence of the King James Bible is owed to it being the only book his parents owned from which his kindly stepmother taught him to read and write.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 18, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA AND LARRY SINCLAIR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxb9i9IIAsE&feature=related

PT. 1 OF INTERVIEW

Jeff Rense interviews Larry Sinclair about his alleged sexual and drug encounter with then Illinois Sate Senator and now US Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 18, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

3.00% Annual Increase

1938 $ 0.25 -- the first national minimum wage
1939 $ 0.26
1940 $ 0.27
1941 $ 0.27
1942 $ 0.28
1943 $ 0.29
1944 $ 0.30
1945 $ 0.31
1946 $ 0.32
1947 $ 0.33
1948 $ 0.34
1949 $ 0.35
1950 $ 0.36
1951 $ 0.37
1952 $ 0.38
1953 $ 0.39
1954 $ 0.40
1955 $ 0.41
1956 $ 0.43
1957 $ 0.44
1958 $ 0.45
1959 $ 0.47
1960 $ 0.48
1961 $ 0.49
1962 $ 0.51
1963 $ 0.52
1964 $ 0.54
1965 $ 0.56
1966 $ 0.57
1967 $ 0.59
1968 $ 0.61
1969 $ 0.63
1970 $ 0.64
1971 $ 0.66
1972 $ 0.68
1973 $ 0.70
1974 $ 0.72
1975 $ 0.75
1976 $ 0.77
1977 $ 0.79
1978 $ 0.82
1979 $ 0.84
1980 $ 0.87
1981 $ 0.89
1982 $ 0.92
1983 $ 0.95
1984 $ 0.97
1985 $ 1.00
1986 $ 1.03
1987 $ 1.06
1988 $ 1.10
1989 $ 1.13
1990 $ 1.16
1991 $ 1.20
1992 $ 1.23
1993 $ 1.27
1994 $ 1.31
1995 $ 1.35
1996 $ 1.39
1997 $ 1.43
1998 $ 1.47
1999 $ 1.52
2000 $ 1.56
2001 $ 1.61
2002 $ 1.66
2003 $ 1.71
2004 $ 1.76
2005 $ 1.81
2006 $ 1.87
2007 $ 1.92
2008 $ 1.98
2009 $ 2.04

Sorry, $4 was an estimate. I meant 2.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mike...
I'll make you a deal. I won't assume either is true for either of us.

With you, I'll stick to the issues.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't care who Obama chooses for veep as long as her name is Napolitano, Sibelius or McCaskill

Posted by: krnewman | February 18, 2008 06:04 PM

I think you will be disappointed. I am pretty sure Obama will select someone with heavy duty foreign policy/national security credibility - someone like Joe Biden or Wesley Clark. An interesting dark horse candidate could be Congressman Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania - he is a retired three star admiral and a very promising up and coming Democratic star. He combines outsider newness with heavy national security credentials.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 18, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The democratic party is house divided - it looks like the Obama half is winning and these people are NOT gracious winners by any means, so they will kick and scream obscenities at the Clinton half, until the smaller half is disgusted enough to sit out (or for some of them to even switch and vote McCain who is not a bad choice in any case).

The strange thing though is that the winning half are actually the usurpers of the old democrats' legitimate house. The Obama half got the keys by the help of independents, Repug crossovers who may have their own motives, and by winning caucus red states overwhelmingly (with a few blue states thrown in no doubt, thanks to the large African American vote), all aided and abetted by the fawning media, such as Arianna Huffington and Andy Sullivan who were part of the Rethug bunch not so long ago, and also the old style racist and sexist scum such as Colby, Robinson, Frank Rich and Mo Dowd.

Well, they can have the keys to that house, when the Clinton supporters are kicked out or leave of their own volition, the Obama half will find their tent is not big enough to cover the White House.

As an old style liberal (not a watered down progressive - what is wrong with the word liberal?), I would not be unhappy with that outcome.

Posted by: intcamd1 | February 18, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"I just learned that Michelle Obama said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud to be an american. I'm surprised that the media hasn't picked up on this statement. It is extraordinary and disturbing."


I find it refreshingly honest. It's what I hear every day from the people I meet through work, at weddings, community activities, ball games, etc.

Many Americans are not proud of this country right now. Nor of themselves. Feelings can't be denied.

Barack us helping to change that.

Pride comes from honesty, hard work, fairness, doing the right thing.

We see Enron, Iraq, Monica Lewinsky, New Orleans, Torture, Steroids. We hear Rush, Matthews, FOX, NOW, Rove, Reid.

Dishonesty. Laziness. Greed. Perversion. Incompetence.

We yearn for leadership, but not a priest or Queen or general. Just a man or woman who is honest, smart, capable, inspiring...a citizen among citizens with a inborn gift for leadership and enough humility to keep him or her in
balance.

With kindness in the eyes and steel in the backbone. Whose head and heart are matched.

An example. Because in the end, it is WE who will do all the work. It is after all our country.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

So you concede he has based his campaign on hope, and for me to attack hope is relevant, whereas a similar attack on Huckabee would be pointless.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I would like to ask a practical, reasonable question to Hillary Clinton supporters. lylepink, I know that you are likely the biggest HRC supporter on these boards, and so this question is especially for you.

Let's assume that the DNC approves a plan to seat half of the original Florida delegation based on the results of the January 29 primary. Additionally, they also agree to fund a caucus in early April in Michigan to seat half of its delegation, in order to insure that there is a fair representation of the MI electorate at the convention.

Sen. Obama wins WI, HI, and WA tomorrow. He then goes on to win 3 of 4 on March 5th. Let's just say he wins TX, VT, and RI, while Sen. Clinton wins OH.

It is now all but impossible for either candidate to earn a clinching majority of delegates through the primary/caucus system. Trailing in pledged delegates by over 200, wouldn't you say that, after March 5, it would be time for Sen. Clinton to accept an offer to withdraw? Knowing that the Democratic electorate would become alienated by having their will potentially overturned by the superdelegates?

I ask only for your reasoning why she should or should not withdraw.

Thank you.

Posted by: cam8 | February 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I have no idea where your $4/hour comes into it, because I don't know what that is. It's certainly not a living wage, or a reasonable minimum wage. Is that just a number that you made up?

Obama says that he will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation. I don't see anything unclear about that. True, he doesn't give an exact dollar amount that he believes the minimum wage should be. But that's not the president's job. And if he did, you'd be attacking that number, so we'd be having a slight variant of this conversation which would be equally inconclusive.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

j.navin -- well said.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 --

I'll make you a deal

I won't make any references to you being a civilian,

If you don't make any references to my being a Marine.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. Hoooooweee!

Whether or not this sort of madness occurs, the race for the D nomination becoming uglier with each passing day. Gotta love that. "


I could easily see this happening. I'd sign up instantly. Maybe we will have a revolution after all. Or civil war?

The times they are a changin.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I just learned that Michelle Obama said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud to be an american. I'm surprised that the media hasn't picked up on this statement. It is extraordinary and disturbing. There is much to criticize America, but America stands for much that makes me proud, every day. Particularly the brave men and women serving in Iraq at this very moment. The press has not held back in admonishing the former President on the campaign trail - but this one is a whopper, and someone needs to find out what the heck she meant.

Posted by: j.navin | February 18, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Blarg --

To your first point, I do understand the inflation-indexed idea. But is he going to raise it to $10, then index it? Didn't he just vote for the massive raise? Or, does this count? Is he just making up for past failures to index? Once again, where does my $4/hour come into play? Is it a living wage, or a minimum wage, or both?

The point is, it's not clear. It's neither clearly written or articulated.


To your second point -

Mike Huckabee hasn't made a career out of being a "political rockstar". He isn't swooning crowds. He isn't talking in huge platitudes. He isn't relying on vague hopes and dreams for change and a brighter future. He isn't masking anything about himself - his beliefs, opinions, or policies. So, if you were to do the same of him, it would be less relevant (obviously).

And yes, Obama has said something I agree with - cut middle class taxes. Of course, not by nearly enough, and he also proposes punishing the wealthy to "pay for it". So, I guess no.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

OK, Semper Fi, fair enough.

What I hear from Barack is "Compromise." Not "give in," not "my way or no way," not "give up." But finding solutions that work...win/win solutions.

It is the essence of political achievement. It is what has been lacking from American life for decades.

It is what he has done throughout his life to great effect...whether on the basketball court, the Harvard Review, the Illinois Senate or the US Senate.

Bush operates from fear and ignorance. The Clintons operate from arrogance and paranoia.

Barack operates from self-respect, intelligence and courage.

It is that which allows him to reawaken hope in America. What we do with that is up to us.

As a marine, I can't understand why you do not understand the importance of leadership, of inspiration, of self-respect, of watching your brother's or sister's back.

That is what Barack calls us to. That is what he has practiced.

That is what he stands for.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't care who Obama chooses for veep as long as her name is Napolitano, Sibelius or McCaskill

Posted by: krnewman | February 18, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign is now realizing that Clinton is willing to fight nasty by pushing for Michigan and Florida delegates to be included and by persuading super delegates by all available means. Well, the Obama camp is not sitting idly by and allowing the Clinton's to do what they do best: continue their trail of corruption, and total disregard for rules and guidelines.

The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. Hoooooweee!

Whether or not this sort of madness occurs, the race for the D nomination becoming uglier with each passing day. Gotta love that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Mike: The Minimum wage is currently only raised by statute. Obama's plan, a common plan among Democrats, is to link it to inflation, so it automatically increases every year. Do you honestly not understand that very simple concept? Or are you feigning ignorance to insult Obama? I'm not sure which reflects worse on you.

Out of curiosity, is there anything that Obama could say which you'd agree with? It's been established that you and he are very different politically. I'm not sure what your point is here. I could go to the Huckabee site and pull up dozens of policy ideas that I disagree with, but it wouldn't say anything about the quality of Huckabee as a candidate. I could also find a bunch of vague feel-good statements on his site and post them here. But I won't, because it's a waste of everyone's time.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Four words: "Independent Ticket: Clinton Bloomberg".

Posted by: AsperGirl | February 18, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I guess my point is, I've read his website.

I've watched the debates.

I've been paying attention to the news.

(No, I didn't read Audacity of Hope.)

Shouldn't it be easier to figure out what this guy stands for?

Shouldn't it be obvious?

I'll tell you what's obvious:

*Belief

*Hope

*Change

*Future

And 24 states have fallen for this nonsense already.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"OK. So now the executive branch of the Federal Government is going to "invest" in high-speed Internet access for "rural" areas?"

Sounds like a great idea. Internet access means you can do business anywhere. Information access increases. Knowledge increases. More business means LARGER TAX BASE in rural areas. Less federal money needed in the long run.

Looking ahead. That's my man, Obama!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

USMC, As much as I find your poetry amusing, I'm gonna have to correct you on your label of Sen McCain as a "liberal" R.
In an effort to discount his solid lifetime voting record of 82.3% with the American Conservative Union, you asked me to review the last seven years of his ACU rating a while back, so I've got it here:


According to some on the right, he's taken "a radical left turn."

To respond to such nonsense, let us herewith set the record straight --- with a little "straight talk" in print.

Here are McCain's ACU ratings, running from the last year of Clinton's reign to the most recent available figures (2006):

2000 - 81%

2001--68%

2002---72

2003---80

2004---72

2005---80

2006---65

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/83e46c29-567d-483f-85e1-90769c76e061

In other words, over the last seven years, McCain has come within two points of his lifetime average of 82% three times. His average since the turn-of-the century: a respectable ACU rating of 74%.

This doesn't make him one of the most reliable, ideologically pure of Republican Senators (but he's never claimed that), but it also leaves him a world away not only from Barack and Hillary, but also a world away from true "mushy moderates" in the GOP who, in 2006, earned vastly lower scores:

Olympia Snowe of Maine (36%)
Susan Collins of Maine (48%)
George Voinovich of Ohio (56%)
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (43%)
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (24%)


For the record, one of McCain's biggest critics in the Senate, Thad Cochran of Mississippi (who supported Mitt Romney for President) earned a 2006 ACU rating of 67% -- virtually identical to that of his Arizona colleague - but maintains a lifetime record of 80% (that's below McCain's).

And ultimately, it is worlds away from Obama's 100% liberal rating, and that is what counts in November and for our country for the next 4 years.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs. "

Which is it Mr. Obama? Are you going to raise the wage, or index it to inflation?

Because, as I have previously calculated, an inflation-based minimum wage would be less than $5/hour. And Pelosi-Reed raised it to what? 7-something?

So, I'm confused.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas. "

OK. So now the executive branch of the Federal Government is going to "invest" in high-speed Internet access for "rural" areas?

And, oh, by the way, doctors and schools too.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers. "

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

What the F- does that mean? Honestly?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Why is nobody talking about Reagan? Chris spent the entire post talking about JFK/Clinton nostalgia while it seems pretty clear that the GOP has spent the entire primary season trying to out-Reagan one another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pesbcAei6p8

Can we talk about this weird cult surrounding Reagan? How did these guys rewrite history and perpetuate this narrative about Reagan being a "great" president? I don't understand how he can even be compared to FDR.

The greatest presidents the U.S. ever had were as follows: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR. Reagan is not even in the top 10. That would be reserved for Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson and FDR AGAIN because he was elected to four consecutive terms, survived the depression, brought the nation through the most terrible conflict in world history AND to top it all off, the bastard was in a wheel chair the entire time.

Posted by: jameswellingtonbentley | February 18, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

No,I'm not pining for JFK. It was a good time in Camelot for the rich and powerful, like in Old England. The "fairytale" Camelot didn't exist, except for those rich and powerful.

Posted by: katherinekcarr | February 18, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"do you have something against testosterone or beer?"

Nope. Have both in abundance.

Missed the estrogen line though...pretty good, but would have been better coming from a woman. Seems less hateful that way.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"I'm annoyed the only way to stop this guy is to vote for a 70 year old liberal "republican" who is equally likely to destroy the country I have spent my life serving with love."


Well, speaking for all the rest of us who have spent our lives serving this country with love, opinions differ.

I do know what Senator Obama stands for. Have you read his 2 books? Have you read his platform positions at his website?

If you haven't, you have no (moral) right to complain. If you have, then you lack comprehension skills.

Given you seem a most literate fellow, I can only deduce you haven't read either his books or his position papers but instead relied upon CNN and MSNBC.

But I could be wrong. Just don't see how.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112

do you have something against testosterone or beer?

What I had made a comment as follows:

"Picking your favorite President is like an estrogen-filled room of preppy cherry-cosmo-sipping cry-babies"

What would the Fix's very own feminazi's say?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Come on now.

How in tar nation is anyone going to know how good a President was/is? It's just an emotional leap. And no doubt another meaningless testosterone-fueled my guy is better than your guy beer battle.

More interested in who is going to be best today. Less fun, more filling.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget to donate to Hillary's campaign. As Obama's campaign showed, a lot of small donations really add up.
--- www.hillaryclinton.com

Posted by: AsperGirl | February 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

cmsore, all:

No one hacked my computer today (or last Friday).

And I'm not on any meds. (although perhaps some of you liberals might think I need them).

I'm just fed up with the American electorate who is so taken with Obama (to the point of SWOONING at his campaign events).

Spare me lofty rhetoric and platitudes.

I still haven't figured out what the man stands for, specifically. And, I suspect, many of his supporters (none of them loyal Fixians, of course) don't know what he stands for either. [They are probably oblivious to the fact that is is the #1 most liberal senator, for example.]

I'm annoyed.

I'm annoyed the only way to stop this guy is to vote for a 70 year old liberal "republican" who is equally likely to destroy the country I have spent my life serving with love.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Polk died right after he left office. He had worked himself to death. He was not up to a second term.

And if you really want to know where are immigration problems started, look into Polk's moves...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised FDR didn't rank higher - his would be a great presidential archetype for this time.

I'd also note that Obama shares more with both of the top responses, JFK and Reagan, than does Hillary Clinton. Bad sign for the Clinton campaign and the Clinton legacy.

Posted by: shc | February 18, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

OK. this cannot be the devil dog, leather neck, USMC_Mike today. Someone is on his PC and having some fun. Or... it really is Mike and he just broke into the Ganj that he has had stashed from the 'Nam era.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

rfpiktor, thanks for the link to the rankings. As an Oregonian, I'm ashamed to have forgotten about Polk! Basically did everything he set out to do and then stepped down after a single term. Can you imagine? Plus TMBG wrote a very catchy tune about him, which is nice.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"wpost, Obama didn't kill the Clinton campaign, Bill did. "


We're on the same page.
But it ain't dead yet. Vital signs are critical though.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

cmsore, I actually think "conservative republilcans" are pretty far to the left of Mike.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"He's so dreamy..."

Step away from the screen, Semper Fi. You don't want to make a mess.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

ok. need rest, not sure why I used we there other than no other pronoun quite fit the construction. not intended to be the roysl we but I didn't seem right.

Posted by: cmsore | February 18, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"The wit and charm are just lovely extras"

He's so dreamy...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

There are people who actually believe USMC_Mike is actually an Obama supporter? LOL. He is a self admitted conservative republican who is self admittedly unenthusiatic about McCain because he is too liberal. Usually though we disagree with him he posts original and honest posts. Today, however, he seems to be acting as the annoying spam troll in a way we normally associate with zook or rufus. One hopes he will either be able to stop whoever is hacking his computer soon or gets his meds rebalanced.

Posted by: cmsore | February 18, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

At this point in time, I'd take JFK's janitor over the guy we have in office now.

And with regard to our future president, I am emphatically for Obama. I'm tired of Hillary running on Bill's laurels -- in fact, I think someone forgot to tell Bill he isn't running.

I hope the good voters of Wisconsin, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas and Ohio see through the rhetoric. I firmly believe a lot of voters are confused and think that Hillary's mandate means health care insurers/providers would be forced to give them coverage -- basically providing free (or vitually free) health care. I don't think they quite understand that it really means that we, the American people, would be forced BY LAW to buy an insurance policy -- the cost of which has never been revealed. If we don't, it most likely would result in fines and garnished wages. Essentially, we would be breaking the law if we were unable to buy Hillary's health insurance. I don't see how that helps struggling workers and families.

Posted by: DogBitez | February 18, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm with you rpy1. I support Obama, too.

But it feels more than a little creepy to have mibrooks27 on our team. Maybe brooks actually opposes Obama and is writing the way he is in an attempt make Obama look bad.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

wpost, Obama didn't kill the Clinton campaign, Bill did.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris, the posters here are so ignorant of history that I hope you get a big laugh from this. Lincoln, to take one example, *started* the Civil War and was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Amercian's. He flat out did nothing about emancipation until he needed more cannon fodder. He imprisoned newspaper editors and writers, even a few sitting U.S. Congressmen and other politician's (from "Union" states) for criticising him. Lincoln was one of the single most ruthless dictators this country ever had. Everyone should celebrate John Wilke's Booth Day, becasue, if he had lived, there is no telling what kind of country we would have if Lincoln had continued on after the war. Reconstruction was bad enough after him and, for all of his wrongs, Grant at least never completely caved to the Radical Republican's.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Fire wall may be failing.

Latest Texas poll:

Clinton: 50
Obamma: 48

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike, You have an extremely dry humor. I support Obama. Yet, I have to say I actually enjoyed some of your comments. However, when you repeated your chanting too much, it's boring.

Posted by: pinepine | February 18, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Being a late comer to the Board today, I scrolled quickly through the picks for resurrecting a dead president.

I like bsimon's TR pick, except that TR is on record saying that he loved war. He claims to have killed a Spaniard in hand-to-hand during the charge on San Juan Hill in Cuba; TR said that was the best day of his life. That makes me more than a little bit skeptical.

Although, he was a very complicated individual. He was one of the, maybe THE, most Progressive president we've ever had.

But I am shocked to say that I would agree with "Proud to be GOP".

I would pick George Washington.

The president that warned us against "entangling alliances".

I wonder how Washington would feel about the nation being led to precipitiously invade Iraq.

Washington would be all about strong defense, I'm sure. But as far as I understand his speeches and writings, he would never countenance a pre-emptive invasion. Epsecially without a declaration of war from Congress.

But we could use from Washington more than anything right now is his honor. This man would never condone using torture against POW's. Nor we would he advocate spying on Americans.

After a few years of his leadership, America's standing in the world would be restored.

In a very close second place: Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza,

Honest Abe is ranked first.

Bill Clinton, for all his self-love and peacock-strut over the American consciousness, is ranked by historians twenty first to Dubya's 22nd.

In moral authority, he ranks 41 to Nixon's 42 historians say, not I.

Have a very merry Prez Day, Mrs. Clinton!

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

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 18, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"In 2003, Howard Dean, for reasons we still can't fully comprehend, served as the emotional life preserver for the hopeless left."


There is world of difference betwen Dean and Bama.

Howard Dean was a pied piper, and his "magical" status can be proven by h is dismal showing in the Iowa caucus. He wanted to win without the work.

Obama was just the opposite. Obama worked his rear-end off and organized an extensive grassroots network, not just in Iowa where he blew away the field, but in every state since.

He has overcome something most people never mention...Hillary has 100% name recognition in every state. And she rides on Bill Clinton's coattails.

Obama, without drama or complaint or negativity, has beat the Clinton machine without that name recognition and without anyone's coattails. Just hard work and his record.

Whatever you can say, he is not conventional at all. He's a brilliant and principled tactician.

The wit and charm are just lovely extras.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

*******************************
rpy1 - USMC_Mike has a problem with optimism and he is an Obama voter? I'd say you have a problem with delussional thinking. Obama is all about optimism and integrity and decency and treating working men and women with the repect they are due. Cltinon is all about duplicity and shrill hysterical feminists forming mini-mobs on forums like this and bashing anyone willing to tell the truth. You and hacks like AdrickHenry and all of the other shrill Cltinon Cool-Aid drinkers are just nasty and very very stupid fools.
***********************************

If you were aware that I was an Obama supporter and was making a joke (okay, not a very funny one), would you still think I was a nasty and very very stupid fool?

It weirds me out a bit that we support the same candidate.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 18, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

That Simpsons song is really one of the best they have ever done.

On topic, either Roosevelt could serve us well again. I think Teddy back in office could go a long way to advancing progressive causes, while at the same time projecting American power and influence abroad.

Posted by: aavrakot | February 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

In 2003, Howard Dean, for reasons we still can't fully comprehend, served as the emotional life preserver for the hopeless left. He was the Magical Democrat who just by dint of his presence in the Oval Office would right the world's wrongs.

In 2008, the far more plausible Barack Obama has assumed the role of the Magical Democrat.

It makes one feel like a killjoy to point out that Barack Obama is merely a man, and a politician at that.

At the risk of being even more of a sourpuss, one can note that, in spite of the meaning he's already giving to so many people's lives, Obama is a thoroughly conventional liberal.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

You don't hate change, Mike. Be honest wouldn't you like to roll the clock back to, say, the 1950's?

When men were men. John Wayne was the big box office draw. The U.S. pounded lumps on our enemies. We took no gruff from no one. Right, Mike?

That's a big change -- going back 50-some years. Don't say you hate change. it just ain't true, Mike!

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"i tried to chant "hope" today, but all that came out was "hype""


Sounds like you need practice...we've all been out of practice for sometime.
But I'm sure that if you keep at it, you'll get there.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Shrub, it was roundly assumed, would have his dad to call on for counsel, which he did, but what did he do? GWHBush says his son never so much as talke about governing. It turned out to be TABOO, Bush has said to the press, for him even to ask, much less, offer advice. Obama is - and it's no small thing - a self-made man running a perfectly executed campaign, according to this week's NewYorker.com. Reportedly Hillary has run hers like Bush runs our government into the ground.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 18, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

rpy1 - USMC_Mike has a problem with optimism and he is an Obama voter? I'd say you have a problem with delussional thinking. Obama is all about optimism and integrity and decency and treating working men and women with the repect they are due. Cltinon is all about duplicity and shrill hysterical feminists forming mini-mobs on forums like this and bashing anyone willing to tell the truth. You and hacks like AdrickHenry and all of the other shrill Cltinon Cool-Aid drinkers are just nasty and very very stupid fools.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama and John Edwards left their names on the Florida ballot form so that if they won, they would go back and get those delegates.

Good idea? Yes.

Too bad Hillary won.


i tried to chant "hope" today, but all that came out was "hype"

Posted by: lndlouis | February 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Mike just has a problem with optimists"

I hate hope.

I hate the future.

I hate change.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Mike just has a problem with optimists. Don't worry about him...

Posted by: rpy1 | February 18, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Mike, just a word of caution:

from a Quantum Mechanics point-of-view: "the future looks the same in both directions".

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I have to admit -- as I'm scrolling through the posts -- USMC_ Mike is cracking me up.

Are you high, Mike?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 18, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

James Taranto collects reports on the apparently widespread phenomenon of people requiring medical attention after they faint at Obama rallies. Maybe it's time for the FDA to consider requiring a Surgeon General's warning for Obama events.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120300929392268785.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

All that hope is giving me the vapors!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Too busy to read all the posts today. So if I have missed, forgive me. I just can't help tell wpost4112 that you have been so far the most thoughtful and insightful post contributer here. There are more I enjoyed reading, too, of course, such as Nissl, a Mark, a Brook (was attacked as polluted, though), a Jason, etc.

Posted by: pinepine | February 18, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

If you believe there can be no change without action,

Vote for change.

If you hope for a candidate who believes in hope,

Vote for hope.

If you believe the future is yet to come,

Vote for the future.

Vote for change, vote for hope, vote for the future.

Vote Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

hdimig wrote:
"That NAFTA killed manufacturing jobs is yet another Obama supporter phalacy. "Made in China" killed manufacturing jobs. "Made in Mexico" had little or no impact. Go to Walmart and see what country of origin has more stuff on the shelf. I don't think China was in NAFTA."

Well, it certainly had a big effect on manufacturing jobs in the automotive sector. In 1990, Mexico produced 180K vehicles, almost all for sale domestically. By 2002, that number had increased to 1.3M, 90% of which were sold in the US. Then there are auto parts and sub-assemblies. I always laugh when some yokel starts stomping around with a US flag in his hand singing "I'm a Ford truck man!", completely ignorant to the fact that most of the components in his "made in the USA" truck were actually built in Mexico and shipped here to the states for final assembly.

And on the subject of China, let's not forget that one of Clinton's last acts before leaving office was pushing for China's inclusion in the WTO. Anyone remember those riots in Seattle? In hindsight, the illegal Chinese contributions to Clinton's '96 campaign that Premier Zhu Rongji got grilled about during his '99 visit make perfect sense.

But, of course, HRC had nothing to do with any of that. Naturally.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 18, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

mark, LOL!! Funny, I had always thought of our "che" as male.

Thanks for the links. Awesome stuff!

And since it seems certain that we will elect a Senator to the highest office this year (CW be damned!) then I think this one credential alone is far and away the most important:

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services

One of the three has this designation.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The last Junior Senator to be elected President was a really nice guy and everybody liked him, but despite his vision for a better world, he didn't accomplish anything legislatively. I can't help but be reminded of that whenever I hear the grand schemes Clinton and Obama describe.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." - Edmund Burke

http://writemeinforpresident.org

Posted by: tomc | February 18, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't support Obama because he sounds too much like Bush in 2000. Bush, too, said he would bring change and that he was a uniter.

Obama, likewise, says that he will bring change, and that he will work with both sides of the aisle.

Like Bush, Obama is not specific as to exactly how he will bring about change, or exactly what that change will be. He hints at things, e.g., he talks about racial disparity regarding arrests and sentencing. He doesn't say, though, exactly how he plans to address that problem or what he plans to do about it.

That leaves most black voters believing somehow that Obama will put an end to racial discrimination and injustice. I don't hear Obama saying that he will, or that he won't. That gives black voters that "hope" that Obama is talking about - incidentally, "hope" was also touted by Bush in 2000.

Obama has said repeatedly that the Republicans have had some good ideas. Apparently he thinks some of those good ideas is to try to bamboozle the American people by dangling the carrot of "hope and change" in front of them, and correctly guessing that Americans, particularly black americans, will be dumb enough to chase it right to the polls.

I don't trust Mr. Obama. He sounds more and more like a preacher every day. I have seen him instigate negativity against Clinton, in particular, and then step back and let the process unfold in the media.

I don't like his tactics. I don't like negative attack ads, but they do seem to work in this dumbed down America of ours. Perhaps too many people watch Jerry Springer, rather than read Catcher in the Rye.

I don't see Obama as the great "hope" for America.

I see Obama as the great "hype", which will cost America in the long run. Obama would be a weak, ineffective leader who will take too much time pondering what he should do instead of taking action, and when he finally would decide to do something, there would be fewer options and it would maybe be too late.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the other side; I'm sure the GOP is licking their collective chops at the thought of running against Obama - a race that McCain would surely win.

Posted by: kentuckywoman | February 18, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It's not surprising that so many people want another Kennedy, but the truth is, he wasn't a very good President. Sure, he had the inspirational rhetoric, but that's about it. He didn't have the stuff to cancel the Bay of Pigs; he ran a personal vendetta against Castro; he dug us deeper into Vietnam; and he didn't really care about civil rights.

Reading Seymour Hersh's "The Darker Side of Camelot" did him in for me. Not so much because of the womanizing, but just because it revealed his superficiality and laziness.

As it was, it took someone history holds in much lower repute -- Lyndon Johnson -- to actually accomplish what Kennedy said he was setting forth to do.

Posted by: wolpertt | February 18, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Concerning plagiarism:

Campaigning in New Hampshire last December, Obama said:

"But you know in the end, don't vote your fears. I'm stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it's the right one, don't vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe."

Nuff said for me.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Everyone should compare and contrast HRC, BHO, and McC at govtrack.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

When you use this site, you will find the "ideogram" either interesting or annoying.

Since I am a big fan of Dick Lugar, I find it interesting. You can see which Senators
all along the spectrum actually pass bills.

One of these three does...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Gator-ron: "This is Obama's time"

Our Messiah has come.

The hope of the future.

The change we've been waiting for.

I believe in hope and change.

I believe in B. Hussein Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

proud, at least that idiot who called herself "che" is not posting here any more.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"Interestingly, Hitler wasn't randy at all. And we know how impotent he turned out to be."

Hitler was a pervert though. Maybe he was just suppressing his randiness due to past bad experiences (Geli Raubal). Maybe suppressed randiness creates dictators? Interesting ....

Posted by: hdimig | February 18, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama's time, not JFK, not HRC and certainly not GWB.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

what about ?

Posted by: katherinekcarr | February 18, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

If you believe the future is NOT now...

...and NOT in the past...

Vote Obama

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The strange thing is that most "great" leaders in history were notorious philanderers. Something about that generative/procreative urge that translates into leadership.

There are exceptions, Abraham Lincoln being the one the most quickly comes to mind.

Most non-randy sorts like him however become spiritual leaders rather than secular, which may be why we view Lincoln as more of a spiritual leader.

Although even MLK was known for his randiness.

McCain has it. Of course, it's not the ONLY trait found in the great leaders.

Interestingly, Hitler wasn't randy at all. And we know how impotent he turned out to be.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart"

That NAFTA killed manufacturing jobs is yet another Obama supporter phalacy. "Made in China" killed manufacturing jobs. "Made in Mexico" had little or no impact. Go to Walmart and see what country of origin has more stuff on the shelf. I don't think China was in NAFTA.

Posted by: hdimig | February 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"Becuase the future is ahead of us

And the future has come before us

And the future has yet to come

A vote for Obama is a vote for the future."

LOL. Brings back memories of formal logic.

Posted by: hdimig | February 18, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"It seems to me that Barack Obama is the triumph of flesh, color, and despair over word -- that's to say, he offers an appealing embodiment of identity politics plus a ludicrously despairing vision of contemporary America (sample: "Trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart")...


A few days ago, a local news team went to shoot some film at the Houston campaign headquarters for Obama. Behind the desks of the perky gals answering the phones were posters of Che Guevara and Cuban flags.

Do Obama's volunteers even know who Che is? Apart from being a really cool guy on posters and T-shirts, like James Dean or Bart Simpson, I doubt it. They're pseudo-revolutionaries.

Very few people in America want a real revolution: Life is great, this is a terrific country, with unparalleled economic opportunities.

To be sure, it's a tougher break if you have the misfortune to be the victim of one of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs or a decrepit inner-city grade school with a higher per-student budget than the wealthiest parts of Switzerland.

But even so, to be born a U.S. citizen is, as Cecil Rhodes once said of England, to win first prize in the lottery of life. Not even Obama supporters want real revolution: They're messy, your cities get torched, the economy collapses, much of your talent flees.

Ask the many peoples around the world for whom revolution means not a lame-o Sixties poster above your desk but the carnage and horror of the day before yesterday.

Poor mean vengeful Hillary, heading for a one-way ticket on the oblivion express, has a point. Barack Obama is an elevator Muzak dinner-theater reduction of all the glibbest hand-me-down myths in liberal iconography -- which is probably why he's a shoo-in.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGJkMWFmZmIxMDY0M2Q5NzdjN2I0ODU4MGFiNDdmNzA=

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

If you hope for a candidate who believes in hope,

vote for hope

vote for Obama

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

As others have pointed out, the country could do a lot worse than the likes of TR or Ike.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Jefferson, though. C'mon, where's the love? Architect, scholar, statesman, diplomat, agitator, farmer, artist, scientist (well, "naturalist" at least), author of what is arguably the most important and persuasive document in the history of our country--the very definition of a renaissance man.

Given, owning slaves doesn't play so well in the 21st century, but I have a hunch that he probably wouldn't own any were he around today so I'm willing to let that slide for the sake of our hypothetical scenario.

All I'm saying is that he was clearly brilliant, talented, and a proven leader. I'd vote for him.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

If you believe nothing will change if we don't do anything,

Vote for change

Vote for hope

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

This is so pathetic talking about JFK like he was a saint too! No person is perfect, but time has a way of clouding peoples' memory. It's a known fact JFK cheated on his wife while in the White House, how many times we'll really never know because the office was protected from the press. And as far as foreign policy goes, JFK had the Cuban Missile crisis he created and thankfully averted disaster. The Obama base is mostly fresh faced teenagers who have never voted and are star struck with an image. If the American people elect another president on likability as opposed to experience we are in BIG TROUBLE!

Posted by: jeiken | February 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Becuase the future is ahead of us

And the future has come before us

And the future has yet to come

A vote for Obama is a vote for the future.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama wins the Presidency, I think the odds are just as good he comes out looking like Carter."


And Hillary could look like Pelosi.

Who knows?

None of us.

Just got to go with our gut.

One thing that does bother me is that a President's success is often determined by the expectations he or she has established.

In that sense, McCain and Hillary may surprise us because the expectations for them are so low. If they are mediocre, ok, we expected that, if they are successful, they will be hailed as outstanding leaders.

Bama could well suffer from sky-high expectations, and when the heavens don't open, people will ask, "why not?"

I support Bama but realize that this is a problem he will have to deal with...as will we all. Best he work hard to de-deify himself.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 -- see above.

Long story short: Read the news.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"I would argue not"

well said Proud

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"More proof that Obama's a plagiarizing fake:
...
"We are the ones we have been waiting for!""

Obama also paraphrases MLK like 15-20 times per speech. Very annoying. BTW: does anyone have evidence of Obama acting as a "great unifier"? Legislators are not typically thought of in such a way. JFK was different in that he commanded in the Navy in WWII. Reagan was Govenor of CA during a difficult time. Obama? I can't think of anything he took a lead on in the Senate except that Excelon bill. How exactly will Obama get Republican votes? Republicans think McCain is a liberal. Most of them support the war. How will Obama unify them after tarring Hillary's judgement on that vote? If Obama wins the Presidency, I think the odds are just as good he comes out looking like Carter.

Posted by: hdimig | February 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the Obama/Clinton solution as opposed to the Clinton/Obama ticket is that while Obama would help lift Clinton's candidacy Clinton is more likely to drag Obama's candidacy. Obama is running a campaign where one of the central themes is to escape the baggage of the politics of the last few years and adding HRC would seriously undermine that. LBJ had the capacity to make Kennedy a stronger candidate especially in the south. As far as I can tell HRC has no non-duplicable positives that outweigh her negatives. Obama is better off with Sebelius.

Posted by: cmsore | February 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"Why is is every time someone says a negative thing about Obama people declare it to be 'Clinton slime", or other such epithets?"


Agreed. Above all, it's just downright unimaginative and literarily lazy.

I don't think the plagiarism scandal is all that meaningful, but it's valid to ask why. The answer given seems reasonable. But it will undercut his message a bit. Probably a good thing. He veers towards an arrogant laziness at times. Good to slap him upside the head every now and then.

I just find it hilarious that the Clinton camp is so distressed about Bama's words after having spent so much time telling us they don't mean anything anyway.

Now, that's funny.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"People ask why a few of us presidential junkies would like to see Presidents' Day changed back to Washington's Birthday. The technical explanation has to do with a misguided law called HR 15951 that was passed in 1968 to make federal holidays less complicated.

The real answer is simply this: George Washington is our greatest president, and too few American children know why.

George Washington earned the respect even of his former enemy, King George III, by doing something exceedingly rare in history: When he had the chance to increase personal power, he decreased it -- not once, not twice, but repeatedly.

During the American Revolution, Washington put service before self. His personal example was his greatest gift to the nation. It has often been said that the "Father of our country" was less eloquent than Jefferson; less educated than Madison; less experienced than Franklin; less talented than Hamilton. Yet all these leaders looked to Washington to lead them because they trusted him with power. He didn't need power."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzg3YjRjY2NlODFkNzA5NDg3ZDQ5NTJjZjA1MzE2NjA=

Selfless leadership. Do Hillary or Obama (aka "the Messiah" in today's WaPo:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/obama_the_messiah.html) exhibit selfless leadership like Washington?

I would argue not.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"Why is is every time someone says a negative thing about Obama people declare it to be 'Clinton slime", or other such epithets?"

Because Clinton's campaign originated this accusation.

Read the news.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"brigittepj -- it's not plagarism, and everyone knows it.

That accusation is just Clinton slime.

Posted by: USMC_Mike"

Why is is every time someone says a negative thing about Obama people declare it to be 'Clinton slime", or other such epithets? An awful lot of Obama supporters have said some very churlish and nasty things about HRC: do we call these Obama slime?

Can we cut the evil rhetoric people? Can we allow the race to be a hard and well fought won? And can we all unite around the eventual winner? Or is that asking too much of some of you. Note the point made earlier: The great (to many) Camelot period came about AFTER the two very opposite candidates, JFK and LBJ, decided to run TOGETHER.

I still favour a Clinton/ Obama or Obama/ Clinton candidacy. I prefer the first, but would vote for the second too. And the reality for those too young to know or to unversed in history to have discovered it, is that the race between JFK and LBJ was every bit as potentially divisive as the one we are seeing now. Those candidates came together for their party and for their country: if BHO and HRC genuinely believe in the future of Amercia and the race continues to be as close I remain hopeful that this is one lesson they will take from recent history.

As should thier supporters.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Mark-in-Austin

What I meant by minus the 'Big Stick' part is that while the quote is not bad the quote is actually about using our military muscle/economic power for semi-imperial control of the Carribean and Central and South America. The 'big stick' diplomacy to me is just code for a bad neighbors foreign policy that has popped up in both parties for most of the last century. It's how we built the Panama Canal. Domestically TR was top notch but his foreign policy is a little too semi-imperialist for my taste.

Posted by: cmsore | February 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I'd pick George Washington because I'd want to hear his insights on how the country has changed since he was president.

I'd pick Abe Lincoln to heal the blue state/red state rift that once again threatens to make us a house divided.

I'd pick Teddy Roosevelt so he could stop the threats to the remaining wild places in America he held so dear.

And I'd pick FDR so he could put the terrorist threat in perspective by once again reminding us that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

All that is idle dreaming though. For 2008 we need Barack Obama to bring us together and solve America's problems.

Posted by: optimyst | February 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a political rock star for the MTV generation. He looks good, he words his speeches well (well, most of them, if you do not count the ones he stole from other people) and he has a maniac following.

Problem is that they do not care about the issues, they do not ask how the visions will be turned into realities and he carefully keeps his message vague.

It is wrong to compare Obama to Kennedy, because that was a different time. Since then, America has lost some of its innocence, because of Vietnam, race conflicts, Watergate... Kennedy, if alive and running today, would be similar to Obama in respect to likability and charisma and use of media. And there is another similarity:

When Nixon and Kennedy battled on TV in a debate for the first time in TV history, researchers later asked the public about the performance of the two candidates and the results were amazing: people who only heard the debate on the radio favoured Nixon, because he had the better arguments, while people who saw it on TV favoured Kennedy, because he looked better, more presidential.

If Obama gets elected, I do hope that he turns out to be a president at least half as good as Kennedy (and that would be 11.5%, just behind Clinton ;-))

Posted by: flosstoss | February 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Voters who wish to relive the 1960 election should be happy with 2008's remaining Dems. The only figure in American history who can hang with Tricky Dick when it comes to paranoia, sleazy political tactics, and self-pity is Hillary Clinton (and the only two-term Prez lazier than Ike might be Bubba - how's that for parallels). For the 1% that want Nixon back, they must be very pleased to be able to vote for Hill.

Posted by: bondjedi | February 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

nissi -- I agree with much of what you say about Senator Obama, but I will have to disagree with your point about Camelot being a post-period reconstruction by Jacueline Kennedy, I was 21 year-old in 1960, voted for JFK, and lived in those Camelot years. They were very real at the time, and I enjoyed all the very good parts of them. Despite the real threats from Russia, those times were such that we were proud to be Americans,we were proud of our President and his First Lady,and we believed that life could be good if we all participated in efforts that led to the common good.

Posted by: marmac5 | February 18, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

My bet is that those cretins who polled for Raygoon did so several times.

Posted by: kase | February 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

cmsore -

"Speak softly."

What kind of a political statement is that?

Or:

"Speak softly and carry a wee bitty stick."

Is that what you meant?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

brigittepj -- it's not plagarism, and everyone knows it.

That accusation is just Clinton slime.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

That really speaks to the short historical memory of the American electorate. The top two vote getters were the most recent inspirational candidates of their respective parties. Good to see Abe hit double digits though.

I guess that the presidents of the 20th century that I wouldn't mind seeing our next pres take after are:

T. Roosevelt (minus the Big Stick); FDR; Truman; Ike & Kennedy. It's kind of sad that none of the presidents of my life time (Reagan era baby) seem particularly attractive.

Posted by: cmsore | February 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

brigittepj: "We are the ones we have been waiting for" is an old phrase. Obama does not claim to have invented it. It's been attributed to the Hopi Indians, though that's been disputed by some commentators. Quoting a phrase is not plagiarism.

But let's pretend that it was plagiarism, that Obama stole an iconic phrase from Lisa Sullivan. Why would that matter even the slightest bit? Is that really the sort of issue that you think should decide a presidential campaign? You're really grasping at straws.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Nissl above -- I would like to see Obama go with public funding for the general, but it isn't an issue right now. With the amount of money that Senator Clinton brings to the campaign, Obama can't compete if he accepts the restrictions from public funds.

If he goes back on this in the general, I'll be disappointed.

bridgette, are you actually trying to argue that Obama plagarized "we are the ones we have been waiting for" with your quote above? Really?

Posted by: rpy1 | February 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"Lisa's legacy is continuing though countless young people who she inspired, challenged, and mentored. But there is one thing she often said to them and to all of us that has stayed with me ever since Lisa died. When people would complain, as they often do, that we don't have any leaders today, or ask where are the Martin Luther Kings now? - Lisa would get angry. And she would declare these words: "We are the ones we have been waiting for!""

So, is that plagiarism or honoring an old friend of his by making it a major riff in some of his speeches? You think every other candidate in this race hasn't tried to remake themselves as the "change" candidate?

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - JFK

Obama is no f-ing JFK, excuse my language.


It's a shame the Democrat party has veered so far to the left that they no longer can stand for America without Koz/Moveon putting a political "hit" out on them.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Too many people do not give Hillary enough credit in her ability to lead.

Speeches are nice, and they do count for something, but we Americans know that action counts for more.

Both her and Obama have very similar policies.

For example, actually beginning a major drawdown of US forces in Iraq speaks louder than any words.

Hillary will lead primarily by action, as will Obama. No difference there.


Posted by: camasca | February 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"No other former presidents scored in double digits. (The lowest scores? George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush -- both of whom received just one percent of the vote.)"

I have a hard time believing anyone voted for Fillmore, Taft, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Garfield, Hayes, Arthur, or either Harrison (William Henry or Benjamin). So techincally, GW and HW Bush scored just slightly higher than these guys.

Posted by: JohninMpls | February 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

wpost, my only caveat is that the issue is not between BHO and HRC, but between BHO and McC, the only R who ever would have dared to make this pledge.

Still, if he restated his pledge now and stuck by it in an agreement with McC we would
see a departure from the "old way".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"I haven't done the research yet, but if he indeed made such a promise and backs down, I won't be able to support him in the primaries."

It's not as cut and dried as McCain or Clinton would have it, of course. Obama won't commit to *anything* until after the Democratic nomination fight is resolved. I think there's little reason not to commit, it's $85 million for 60 days, how much more would he raise otherwise? He can legally have some advisors move to the DNC and work with the extra money that piles up there - just not in explicit coordination with his campaign. Plus it will pile up more dough to spend on downticket races.

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

More proof that Obama's a plagiarizing fake:

From a story posted in 2006 at socialedge.org:

"...One of the best street organizers I ever met was Lisa Sullivan. Lisa was a young African American woman from Washington DC, a smart kid from a working class family who went to Yale and earned a PhD. But Lisa felt called back to the streets and the forgotten children of color who had won her heart. With unusual intelligence and entrepreneurial skills she was in the process of creating a new network and infrastructure of support for the best youth organizing projects up and down the East Coast. But at the age of 40, Lisa died suddenly of a rare heart ailment.

Lisa's legacy is continuing though countless young people who she inspired, challenged, and mentored. But there is one thing she often said to them and to all of us that has stayed with me ever since Lisa died. When people would complain, as they often do, that we don't have any leaders today, or ask where are the Martin Luther Kings now? - Lisa would get angry. And she would declare these words: "We are the ones we have been waiting for!"

Why can't you all wake up and smell your lattes?

Posted by: brigittepj | February 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

OK. Here's the relevant info regarding public financing of the general election. I don't see how Obama can go back on his word. I think it would be a serious mistake and cause him the loss of many supporters:

On November 27, 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic and public interest groups based in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, released the results of a questionnaire that they sent to all of the presidential candidates.

The following question was on the questionnaire:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?

[You] answered this question as follows:

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
................

Or am I missing something??

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary and Bill Clinton have been careful to note that the New York senator is running on her own merits and not on the accomplishments of her husband. Even so, the message of the campaign is clear: If you liked one Clinton as president, you'll like the other one too."

The more The Clintons revive this theme, the more it recalls for media revisitation the dynastic character of the present enterprise. Likewise Chelsea's outspokenness -- especially with coverage of her reported dissing of a questioner who asked about her mom's vote for the Bush-McCain Iraq war.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"I want to see BHO take up McC and the League of Women Voters on the challenge to stick by his pledge to take public financing if McC does. It may not be a make or break issue for anyone, but if BHO ultimately reverses field on this matter, it will be a telling sign of "business as usual"."


I am a supporter of Obama, but have to agree. If he gave his word, he needs to keep it. I haven't done the research yet, but if he indeed made such a promise and backs down, I won't be able to support him in the primaries.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, you mean a vote to CYA? I thought it was beneath Obama's dignity."

Well, a vote to CYA for democrats in less safe districts, and one that was coordinated with Planned Parenthood.

Can you understand why your distortions get Obama supporters angry?

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Here is a brief bio of the person I support for president.

* Degree in Int'l Relations
* Community organizer in poorest Chicago
* Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law
* President of Harvard Law Review
* Civil rights attorney
* Constitutional law Prof for 10 yrs
* IL State Senator for 8 yrs, passing healthcare for 150,000 people, ethics reform, videotaping interrogations
* US Senator for 3 years; Senate Foreign Relations Committee, bills incl weapons threat reduction, gov't transparency, lobbyist reforms, veteran's disability help

Is it wrong that he is also inpirational? Is it wrong that I can't support a continuation of Iraq forever and bomb bomb Iran, tax cut and deficit spending? I will take the hope of change for something I can support, especially since Obama seems prepared.

Posted by: jswallow | February 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I suppose nobody learned about Lincoln, Washington, and TR in grade school, high school, or college. I guess Korea and the Cold War are figments of my imagination.

John F. Kennedy 23%
Ronald Reagan 22%
Bill Clinton 13%
Abraham Lincoln 10%

Dumber than dirt.

I want to see BHO take up McC and the League of Women Voters on the challenge to stick by his pledge to take public financing if McC does. It may not be a make or break issue for anyone, but if BHO ultimately reverses field on this matter, it will be a telling sign of "business as usual".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Obama undertook them as part of a broader legislative strategy"

Oh, you mean a vote to CYA? I thought it was beneath Obama's dignity.

Posted by: hdimig | February 18, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The 23:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


AS far as I can tell, none of those few who lost their seat did so because of their vote.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It should be noted that even Bill Clinton was trying to become the "next" JFK. How many times did we see the photo of him shaking Kennedy's hand when he was a teenager? Note that I'm not criticizing this, a I'm sure JFK WAS an inspiration for WJC; but was The Fix pointed out, everyone is looking for the next Jack!

Posted by: gso-chris | February 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Check the rhetoric of Abraham Lincoln against the rhetoric of Obama. - the pursuit of unity is the same.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/15/lincoln-less-gettysburg/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 18, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"Would we have rather had all of the Senators and Congressmen voted out of congress at the time?"

Of the 23 Senators who voted against the war resolution, how many were defeated as a result of that vote? Several have retired since then, but their vote on the war had nothing to do with it. Chafee was defeated in 2006, but he was a Republican, so he lost in spite of his position on the war. Voting against the war didn't hurt anyone's career, and it wouldn't have hurt Clinton's or Edwards' either.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Pining for JFK? They must be pining for Obama, too.

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

Posted by: parkerfl | February 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Hdimig, "What was the final Iraq War vote? 77-23." 23 Democrats voted against it. All of them should have voted against it.

"Obama surely would have voted "present" if he was in the Senate at the time." You must know by now that "present" votes in IL are equivalent to "no" votes, and that Obama undertook them as part of a broader legislative strategy (e.g. the Republican smear abortion bills) or as protest votes against bills he supported but thought were badly designed (several bills that were unanimously passed except for his "present" vote and that of 1-3 others.) Please be honest about Obama's legislative record rather than trying to score points.

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Nostalgia is a pernicious thing and ultimately not helpful to the present.

We need someone in the moment. Not a JFK, not a Reagan, not a Clinton, not a Lincoln.

Someone who breathes today's air and through whom today's blood surges.

McCain is still living Vietnam. He cannot leave that torture chamber (bless him).

Hillary is still living the 90s. She cannot ditch the baggage of Bill. The rancorous vapors never dissipate.

Barack is now. Unique. A blending of races, religions, and ideologies. A teen-aged pot-smokin hoopster who cleaned up his act and was elected to head the Harvard Law Review. He is not JFK, not Lincoln, not anyone but Barack Hussein Obama. An American original.

But what of us?

Do we have the courage to vote for now? Or do we fall back in fear of the future and vote for the security, however sordid and out-dated, of the past.

Where is the American pioneer spirit?

If we want to live in the land of the free, we must show that we are still the home of the brave.

Close your ears to the fear-mongers, those who say we cannot do it, those who want to do it for you.

Be brave. Vote for your future. Vote for the person who will give you hope as you work to make this country great again, to make your life great again.

You can.

We can.

Yes.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Nissl - you misunderstood my post. I can't stand Hillary, either of the Clinton's actually. But, I would support and campaign for and vote for a woman: say, Nancy Polosi. But, there are people who wont vote for any woman. As for your stat's, they are a bit off. The only poll I have seen has about 9% of voters who will not vote for a woman or a person of color. That is not insignificant, but it isn't anywhere near 25%. Obama really can be elected President and I hope and believe he will be. He certainly has my vote and the votes of my family.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The reason why both Kennedy and Reagan scored so high was because they were each, in their own and unique ways, uniters. They spoke to our higher possibilities. They called for - and got - the support of the VAST middle ground. And so they were able to get things done (whatever you might happen to think about the details of the things themselves).

Uniters bring us together and together we can do things that we cannot do divided by 50%+1 majorities.

It isn't about nostalgia, Chris. It's just plain old common sense. We need another uniter to get us out of this 16-year long stalemate.

That's why we need a uniter - to give us hope for the future (not a replay of the past).

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton's Iraq war vote"

What was the final Iraq War vote? 77-23. At the time there was tremendous pressure to show a united front as a nation on the brink of war. "Support Our Troops", ribbons, and flags everywhere. The blame for Iraq goes to GWB and has very little to do with how Hillary (or Edwards) voted on that resolution. Obama and DFA flaming every Dem who voted for it ("Bush Democrats") pisses me off. Do we remember how powerful the Republicans were at that time? Would we have rather had all of the Senators and Congressmen voted out of congress at the time? Obama surely would have voted "present" if he was in the Senate at the time.

Posted by: hdimig | February 18, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't think people are necessarily pining for JFK, but they to want a leader, and someone to get the people's work done. Obama taps into our hope and idealism, but he clearly understands that power should and does indeed reside with the people. If he is the nominee he will ask the voters for a mandate for two or three big agenda items. If there is a crisis, Obama will be able to pull the country together to pull for the common good.

Posted by: welchd | February 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

bsimon writes "Whom we need is one reincarnated Theodore Roosevelt, post-haste. Progressive Trustbuster, Nobel Peace Laureate, Rough-Rider, conservationist/naturalist, speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick,"

I agree! And, wouldn't ya know it, President Roosevelt just happens to be one of John McCain's favorite presidents, too! He has been quoted as saying that he strives to live like TR ...
"This is all so transient," McCain says. "It could all end tomorrow. My philosophy is just to just go, go like hell. Like Teddy Roosevelt did it. Full-bore."

And he strongly believes, as Roosevelt did, in the greatness of America. I have some advise for you youngsters...don't underestimate the old Navy pilot; not on your best day.

(The age-ism I'm seeing here is pretty remarkable, and I liken it to other -isms, like racism and sexism which are unacceptable and are employed only by the ignorant.)

Check out this clip: Very Roosevelt-esque.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=13a36cf4-72f5-4c5d-bf3b-9a8079ccfc4d

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Hey TruthbeTold, quit posting that baseless smear. One would think the Clinton campaign would run with this if they thought there was any basis to the story. Since you mention it, here's what thesmokinggun actually had to say:

Slanderous Kook: I'm a Slander Victim

Man sues Obama, Dems over response to his tawdry sex-and-drugs tale

FEBRUARY 14--Ratcheting up the crazy, the Minnesota man who last month posted a YouTube video in which he claimed to have engaged in a sex-and-drugs party with Senator Barack Obama has filed a federal lawsuit against the presidential candidate and the Democratic party, charging that he is being subjected to a vicious slander campaign.

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton would be most like Nixon -- lots of enemies to seek revenge against. Her henchmen are strictly 1980s -- Bill Clinton is channeling his inner Lee Atwater, and Howard is playing the role of John Sasso to perfection.

Posted by: louish | February 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I am not looking for any return to a former self. I don't need Clinton or JFK, Reagan or Bush. I am looking for a new direction, a new perspective on what America means in the 21/22 century. I am tired of politicians putting party before country. I was hoping there might have been room for someone the likes of Bloomberg. Obama might feel this need but I am so diametrically opposed to many of his ideas, but at least he listens.

Posted by: clwhitworth | February 18, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Hdimig, DFA and moveon are outside of Obama's control, and you shouldn't expect them to be happy with Clinton's Iraq war vote and refusal to apologize. You want to discuss 527 smears, we should talk about the deceptive claims of AFT, AFSCME, and Emily's List.

Brigitte, that wasn't plagiarism and you darn well know it. Obama and Deval are friends who have discussed many a line. Obama deviated from his written speech because that point occurred to him, probably from the recesses of his memory. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. But I suppose the Clinton campaign has to try.

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The reason that JFK strikes a note with the younger set is that his presidency has been the only source of inspiration for Democratic-leaning people for years. Growing up in the Reagan era, we had to look back to JFK, as Carter was a mess and LBJ was tainted by Vietnam. Clinton's time in office was too scarred by scandal and mixed messages to inspire.

What's sad about the poll is that FDR did not make double digits.

Posted by: dfortin | February 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Kepmeister, conspiracy theory much? Isart, Obama won't take Clinton as his VP. But milbrooks, the problem isn't that she's a woman. Every anecdote I've seen suggests it's the same 25% of the country that won't vote for either a woman candidate or a black candidate. The problem is that she has huge negatives (45/53 fav/unfav today) and completely undermines his outsider/change message without helping him win anywhere he would actually need help. Not to mention that the two of them are not particularly fond of each other.

I could easily see Obama nominating a red-state female governor with high favorables and a reputation for excellent managerial ability. Napolitano and Sebelius would best fit this bill. I prefer Sebelius because she's a more polished and charismatic speaker, monotone SOTU response notwithstanding. (She does great anywhere she actually has a crowd and isn't reading off a teleprompter.)

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama is no JFK. He is the biggest phony to ever hit the campaign trail. His entire campaign reminds me of the movie "Sybil". He's compared himself to Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK, FDR, and Cesar Chavez. The only policies he has are plagiarized from Clinton and today we find out even his latest speech is plagiarized from Deval Patrick. Give me a break!!

Posted by: brigittepj | February 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that the Clinton campaign is trying to use inspiration AGAINST Obama. Since when is inspiration a bad thing? Inspiration is one of the most important qualities a leader should have. People act like the president will be single handedly running the government but it's not true!

A leader must inspire people so we can all work together and achieve our common goals.

If you haven't done so already, add yourself to the Obama supporter map. Pass it on to all your fellow Obama supporters! Goal is 4500 people by the end of February, we're at 2300 now.

Obama Supporter Map: http://www.obamaworldwide.com/SupporterMap.aspx << GET ON THE MAP!

Obama Supporter Inspirational Messages: http://www.obamaworldwide.com/Posts.aspx?pid=6

Posted by: ObamaForPrez | February 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Newsflash, Americans are failing at history again.

FDR - knew something about bad times and leading a nation.

Truman - strength of character and managed to lead the world into a new paradigm that avoided a nuclear holocaust. In 1989 a new age dawned and 3 Presidents have all chosen to drift along rather than chart a new course. Could win Missouri for the Dems.

Ike - knew how to control the military and enforced the courts decisions whether or not he agreed.

Washington, Adams, or Jefferson - their fingerprints and signatures are all over those founding papers. They may know a thing or two.

If you think business is too powerful and the environment is getting the short end, you could go for Teddy.

Posted by: caribis | February 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses."

I used to like Obama OK. Now I can't stand him. I will no vote in the fall if he wins. Obama is no saint nor is he a JFK. Can you believe The Obama people use groups like "MoveOn.org" and "Democracy For America" to smear a fellow Democrat? Despicable.

Posted by: hdimig | February 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Yikes. I certainly am not an Obama supporter because I yearn for a return to Camelot. (After all, I was born in '81.) I've read enough to understand how much of Camelot was a posthumous construction of Jackie O.

I'm for Obama because I'm looking for someone with new solutions on foreign policy. (Iran, Iraq, need I say more.) I also want someone with the ability to win a big enough mandate to push through well-designed progressive legislation that is long overdue. (Independents: Obama 57-McCain 39, McCain 52-Clinton 31). I prefer his less paternalistic approach to a variety of issues as well, from health care to video game censorship to economic stimulus (the mortgage rate freeze proposed by Clinton is a terrible idea for a number of reasons, and many of her other stimulus proposals create new bureaucracy and would take years to have the desired effect. No thanks.) The general thrust of Clinton and Obama is similar in many domains, but there are some substantial differences as well.

Posted by: Nissl | February 18, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Meh. Whom we need is one reincarnated Theodore Roosevelt, post-haste. Progressive Trustbuster, Nobel Peace Laureate, Rough-Rider, conservationist/naturalist, speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick, what's not to love?

Posted by: bsimon | February 18, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins it would be a tragedy to put Hillary as his VP. Just like JFK and LBJ. My best guess is 18 months and she'd be President. Make of that what you will.

Posted by: Kepmeister | February 18, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

isart - The reason you wont see an Obama-Clinton ticket are many, but one of the chief ones is that there are some bigots who will never vote for a perosn of color and there are others who will never vote for a woman. Putting both on the same ticket is suicidally silly and wont happen. Couple that with the loathing people feel for this woman and it ain't going to happen. The most likely tickets are Obama-Edwards and Obama-Biden. It doesn't matter who Hillary might choose because her candidacy will mark the end of the Democratic Party, will loose big time, and will wreck anyone, however remotely connected with her.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 18, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The Bushes tied with Nixon. I'm amazed that even 1% of respondents want Nixon back. That 1% must be made up of aging comedy writers, or people who spent the 70s honing their Nixon impressions.

In the raw results (http://www.gallup.com/poll/104380/JFK-Ronald-Reagan-Win-Gallup-Presidents-Day-Poll.aspx), I notice that older people are more likely to say FDR. Probably because they remember what he did, or at least heard about it from our parents. Surveys like this are always heavily biased by how much people can remember about the past.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I am far from being convinced of the JFK-messiah myth WaPo loves to sell, so don't try to push the "Obama as the new JFK" myth either.

Posted by: pgr88 | February 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I would be happy with either Obama or Clinton but do not see her taking VP.

Either way they should be able to wipe the floor with McCain. Seeing him with Bush today made me realize how old he is next to the Dems.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

A speech given shortly before he died by President John F. Kennedy is perhaps the best refutation of the Clinton approach to politics, and captures the Obama magic ...

"When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses."

America is tired of the arrogance, corruption and lack of that elusive thing called grace that characterized Bill Clinton's "co-presidency" with Hillary.

Or, to put it another way, as the ancient Romans said: "When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, 'Let us march.'"

America is on the move again.

MARTIN EDWIN "MICK" ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 18, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

One has to be on Social Security to remember the 1960 election which elected JFK & LBJ after a very hard fought campaign.
Jack did not receive the nomination (over LBJ) until late in the ballot count at the convention. He then announced to his staff that he intended to select Johnson as VP which caused Bobby (the campaign manager) to annouce that he would quit the race if LBJ was the VP. There was real hatred there.
Jack reminded everyone that to win the Electoral College they would need Texas (and a couple of wavering southern states) and Johnson would bring them along.
LBJ was the VP, brought Texas, Bobby did not resign and they won.
An Obama/Clinton or Clinto/Obama ticket would bring together two "Movements", unite the Democratic Party and win, like 1960. A resemblence to Jack Kennedy is not that far afield.

Peter L.
Sun City Roseville, CA

Posted by: isart | February 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Who do you predict will win the Wisconsin Democratic Presidential Primary?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1748


.

Posted by: PollM | February 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama is the overwhelming favorite it would appear now:

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

But does he have what it takes to make the hard changes and decisions that he will be faced with as leader of this nation, at this time in history? JFK did.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I think the only way America can start moving forward again is for us to have a new and inspirational leader. We desperately need this NOW (not eight years from now as the Clinton's might imply while waiting for Obama to become more seasoned). Barack Obama does have amazing management skills, besides his ability to inspire, or he wouldn't be running neck and neck with the Clintons for this nomination. But even if his experience is not as long as that of the Clintons, his inspirational abilities will help him to take America much further. It IS time to usher in a new era.

Posted by: shannons1 | February 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company