Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's Blueprint for Victory

The conclusion of the Ohio-Texas Two-Step has spawned a series of strategy memos and conference calls from the campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), as each candidate's team tries to put a favorable spin on the results.

In attempt to cut through the clutter, we will cull all of the information (and disinformation) being moved/peddled by both sides into two coherent plans -- or blueprints -- that the candidates could use to build a strategy that will snag them the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination.

We'll start this morning with the blueprint for Clinton; the Obama blueprint will follow. Agree or disagree with our assessment? Did we leave something out? The comments section awaits.

THE CLINTON BLUEPRINT

1. It's National Security Stupid! -- The Clinton campaign took a big gamble with their "3 a.m. phone call" ad and they believe that it worked -- framing (finally) for voters the practical consequences if Obama wins the nomination. Exit polling conducted in Texas, where the "3 a.m. phone call" ad ran, suggested considerable movement toward Clinton among late deciders. One in five voters in Texas made up their minds in the final three days of the contest and, among that group, Clinton won by a whopping 60 percent to 39 percent margin. Not all of that is attributable to the ad alone but, according to the Clinton campaign, the commercial is rightly regarded as a catalyst for a broader debate about national security and what is at stake in the election. "The more people have at stake in this election, the better [Clinton] will do," predicted Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) during a Clinton conference call yesterday. Expect the Clinton campaign to push the national security message hard over the next few weeks and, dare we say it, months.

2. Freeze the Superdelegates: The longer Clinton can keep superdelegates from hopping on board with Obama, the better chance she has of eventually winning them over. Clinton's three wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island helped assure that superdelegates will give her campaign more time to makes its case against Obama. And, the best way the Clinton campaign can keep superdelegates on the fence between now and Pennsylvania on April 22 is to push the national security message hard. The biggest fear for the Democratic establishment, which, make no mistake, is what the superdelegates represent, is somehow losing what they view as a clear shot at winning back the White House. The Clinton campaign, by raising questions about Obama's readiness to serve as commander-in-chief, is making a not-so-subtle play on the fears of superdelegates. "We have an obligation as delegates to that convention to make sure we try to figure out who will be the strongest candidate to take on John McCain and the Republican attack machine," Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes said yesterday. Never underestimate the power of fear as a motivating factor in every level of politics -- including the battle for superdelegates.

3. The Votes to Come: Rather than look back at the states that have already cast ballots in the Democratic race, project forward to the 10 states (plus Puerto Rico and Guam) yet to vote. Bayh rolled out this talking point on Wednesday, noting that his home state of Indiana won't vote until May 6; "We have six million people in our state," said Bayh. "They have a right to be heard." The idea of ensuring that more primary votes are meaningful is a powerful one in the Democratic Party. It also enables Clinton to argue that no reasonable assessment of where the contest stands can be made until after Puerto Ricans have their say in caucuses on June 7.

4. Florida and Michigan Must Count: Speaking of making the votes count: how the Democratic National Committee decides to deal with seating the delegates from these two states could be the linchpin in the success of Clinton's strategy. While the Clinton campaign is so far refusing to speculate on how those delegates would/could be seated at the convention (or if a re-vote would be possible), gears in the two states are already moving toward some kind of solution. Govs. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.) and Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) released a joint statement calling it "intolerable" that the delegates of the two states will not be seated at the national convention. The DNC put out a statement late yesterday re-stating its position -- which has been the same since August -- that Florida and Michigan are free to hold re-votes and have their delegates seated. It seems unlikely -- if not entirely impossible -- that the DNC would suddenly change the nominating rules and decide to seat the delegates chosen in what it views as invalid primaries. The Clinton campaign has to hope, therefore, that the re-vote option becomes the dominant choice. If it does and if she can replicate her wins in the non-binding contests the states held earlier this year (two BIG "ifs"), Clinton might be in a position to seriously whittle down Obama's pledged delegate lead.

5. Clinton as Fighter: Throughout this long campaign, the Clinton operation has never seemed to really settle on a way to present the New York Senator to voters. Some within the campaign thought she should emphasize her toughness; others thought showing her soft side was the recipe for success. But, what was somewhat clear after New Hampshire and what is far more clear after Tuesday night is that "Clinton as Fighter" is the image that voters -- especially women -- respond to best. Need evidence that this is the new strategy? Here was the opening line from Clinton's victory speech in Columbus, Ohio: "For everyone here in Ohio and across America who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you," she said. Sen. Chuck Schumer, Clinton's home state colleague, pushed the "fighter" idea in the hours after the Ohio-Texas Two-Step. "Hillary is a fighter," said Schumer. "You never count her out. She knows how to take a punch." Had your fill of boxing metaphors yet? There are MANY more to come from the Clinton operation between now and the late spring.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 6, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate Republicans Lose Candidate in New Jersey
Next: FixCam: Is May 6 the New Super Tuesday?

Comments

Upon my initial review of the previous comment, I detected six obvious spelling errors. Do we need another GW? I don't think so. As a PA voter, Hillary recent alignment with the Republicans clarifies any doubt about who I will vote for on April 22nd (I now intend on driving 8 hours total roundtrip to make that vote happen). One would think a poster would at least review their comments for grammatical accuracy (There are many programs that are now available to perform this type of task for the unintelligent). At least do that much, but, of course, the points offered are so baseless that these type of simple errors make sense. However, it should be noted that when one displays that kind of lack of intelligence, it completely refutes their argument. Hillary's lack of foresight in her recent arguments equates herself with this type of stupidity as well. She would rather endorse John McCain than ever admit any type of defeat (Her comments the other day were absolutely absurd). That, in and of itself, is enough of a turnoff. Her supporters doing the same only add to the overall baseless ness and silliness of their arguments. I really wish that blogs of this type were restricted to intelligent comments only.

Posted by: jonpkelly | March 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Great points! One thing I'd like to emphasoze is that the Democratis delegate allocation ststem is antything but denocratic.
Exlude FL and MI, voters cast 25.4 million votes between Clinton and Obama (source=Real Cleae Politics.com.)
Simple math shows that:

13.0 M votes for Obama
12.4 M votes for Clinton

2588 delegares allocated as of 3/6

15/25.4 x 2588 = 1324.5 Obama

12.4/25.4 x 2588 - 1263.5 Clinton

So, for rounding purpose, I'll add .5 to Obaba's total and add in the superdelegates who've announed so far:

1325
+208
____
1533 total Obama delegates

1263
+249
____
1512 total Clinton delegates

So, Obama is ahead by 21 total delegates. The race is even.

But we hear all the time that Obama is ahead by over "150" delegates. He is actually ahead by 60 pledged delegates (21 all together) in a system riddled with unfair caucuses, something that is anything but democratic.

Clinton wins Texas but Obama wins the most Texas delegates?

Overall, Cinton is behind by 21 total delegares (pledged and unpledged.

Either the race is based on ptoportional delegates (i.e. on "fairness") or it's not.

Posted by: jeffwin02 | March 8, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Great points! One thing I'd like to emphasoze is that the Democratis delegate allocation ststem is antything but denocratic.
Exlude FL and MI, voters cast 25.4 million votes between Clinton and Obama (source=Real Cleae Politics.com.)
Simple math shows that:

13.0 M votes for Obama
12.4 M votes for Clinton

2588 delegares allocated as of 3/6

15/25.4 x 2588 = 1324.5 Obama

12.4/25.4 x 2588 - 1263.5 Clinton

So, for rounding purpose, I'll add .5 to Obaba's total and add in the superdelegates who've announed so far:

1325
+208
____
1533 total Obama delegates

1263
+249
____
1512 total Clinton delegates

So, Obama is ahead by 21 total delegates. The race is even.

But we hear all the time that Obama is ahead by over "150" delegates. He is actually ahead by 60 pledged delegates (21 all together) in a system riddled with unfair caucuses, something that is anything but democratic.

Clinton wins Texas but Obama wins the most Texas delegates?

Overall, Cinton is behind by 21 total delegares (pledged and unpledged.

Either the race is based on ptoportional delegates (i.e. on "fairness") or it's not.

Posted by: jeffwin02 | March 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I think that a video posted on youtube says it better than any script I have read. The music is by a singer/songwriter who campaigned with Bobby Kennedy and marched with the Rev. Martin L. King. It is the real message of hope to a country falling in to a deep recession. Where poverty is growing and rich bankers take homes from working families. Where greed has put more and more money in to the pockets of the mega wealthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN7QMLRRMp4

This is the message that the American people should be listening to.

Posted by: goodmanjt | March 8, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

It is truly amazing that people are saying that Barack is going negative. Can you please define "negative," he simply requested documents that every American has a right to know about. When Clinton makes her negative comments or take a small issue and blow it way out of proportion her supporters thinks it nothing at all. How can they not see? Well, I guess it is like the Bible state: The Blind leading the Blind, and they will both fall into a ditch!

I do not see where Obama's is going negative, I see him as being pushed to become as negative as possible so that she can say, "see, I told you so." She is more than a monster, she is a real B I T C H! She would be the death of us with her fighting spirit. Imagine that fight against Iraq because she is mad that they don't do what she wants. We would be giving our lives to the most temperamental, demanding dictator, self centered witch you have ever seen. She will always do something to prove she is cocky, strong, a fighter just because she is a woman and the world will have to pay for that! Her supporters can look back and see that they have essentially put George Bush back into the chair.

Posted by: afrederick | March 8, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

This has been an interesting discussion. I don't know how much is true. I live in Ohio and I worked the phone bank for Hillary and we did not bash Obama, although I admit that I wanted to. I did my own adlib in the phone bank by pointing out that Hillary is the only candidate that specifically mentions the needs of women and children, McCain is always about security and Obama is giving diatribes about hope, change, yes we can, blah, blah. I don't like his arrogance and he looks mean underneath that tight smile, no warmth there. For those of you who label Hillary supporters as the "uneducated," I am her supporter and I have multiple degrees and licenses. It is insulting for you to infer that we somehow don't see the whole picture, we are the true hard working democrats, the salt of the earth types, not the flamboyant blue blood eastern dems who use the working class as their power bases while they sail their yachts - they are the ones who have adopted Obama. Didn't you study in your history books about carpet baggers? Doesn't Obama's campaign resemble that? She is a fighter, thank the Lord, otherwise, Dems would have to accept this arrogant novice as the nominee. Right now, to use the Obama boy's own words, we still have hope.

Posted by: mkgnor2004 | March 7, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS BACK?

Following the campaigns, I was as surprised by the Obama phenomenon as much as perhaps 'THE Establishment' in this country was. The genie of populism was out of the bottle when they only intended it to bring some respect and legitimacy to the political processes after 8 years of public disenchantment with politics and Washington. However, you will see how the establishment is roaring back in a series of attempts to reign in populism (read obamamania). Mark it, Clinton is going to be the democratic nominee even at the cost of more potentially fatal bruising to the credentials of Democratic Party and the public trust in the electoral process in particular. I will give some instances where if one tries to read between the lines may identify a particular streak in recent days and weeks.


1. The first attempt was to soften-up the mainstream media. A barrage of accusations were leveled against the media over its dealing of Obama' s campaign and the candidate himself. This despite the shamelessly lazy job of the media in not clearing the false rumors surrounding obama about him being a Muslim, being black enough or too black.

2. Blind projection of pick-up lines to discredit the main arsenal of the populist approach, i.e. oratory, is another such attempt. It has started looking as a negative than a positive considering how one can bash someone for coherent expression that connects with the masses. Please draw your own parallels from history on how many policy nuances have been laid out threadbare in stump speeches by candidates who made it to the White House. It only became an issue when a populist approach went beyond the 'accepted' acceptance.

3. Now bring in the issue of media getting tough on Obama. Does getting tough on Obama mean getting loose on Clinton? If not, how come only Obama's 'message' to the Canadians makes the airwaves and not Clinton's to the Canadian PM Office? Is it not an issue that deserves more attention knowing the role it played in deciding a key primary? Add to the list the lack of disclosure on the part of Clinton's records on tax, Clinton papers and contributions to the presidential library. It definitely is all quite on those fronts.

4. Add the media frenzy on Rezko where Obama is not directly indicted and compare it to the indictment proceedings against Clinton in Peter Paul's case. As for other instances from Clinton's history, the less said the better.


I have my doubts about Obama proving an outstanding leader and bringing about meaningful change in the way things work but what I know for sure is how 'the establishment' wants to play it safe by having Clinton and McCain face-off in November. The pattern of dislodging a populist individual is so blatantly obvious it is hard not to jolt anyone who wants to go beyond the headlines. As a test, watch Samantha Powers' comments holding the headlines in the coming days and none of Clinton's Canadian 'wink wink', and disclosures.

Posted by: sahibzada77 | March 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

There is a simple, fair solution to the Michigan-Florida Confusion: http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/a-simple-fair-soluton-for-florida-and-michigan/

Posted by: roadkillrefugee | March 7, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Check out this detailed report - and ponder these questions
Source: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

1. So how much credit goes to Obama for the bills that were passed by the democrats after they regained majority in Illinois Senate? All of it? None of it? Some of it? How about all the other Democrats who fought long and hard on the exact same bills fruitlessly against the Republicans who controlled the legislature in IL till 2004 and endured all kinds of resistance only to see their king maker Majority leader make Obama the beneficiary and in his words 'Make me a Senator'.

2. How come Obama was not able to get ANYTHING passed when Republicans ruled the roost? So there appears to be little proof/evidence of his claimed post partisan political skills?

3. He dissed the original African American woman who invited him to run first and legally outgunned her when she tried to get back on the ballot? So this is not political backbiting of the worst kind?

If this article is not true then Obama should give evidence why it is incorrect or untrue otherwise we can and should conclude his 'magical' post partisan claims are just that - wishful thinking and clever political posturing by a guy who gives steak (or pork) back to his main beneficiaries. How is that for a 'new kind' of politician?

Finally his surrogates call Hillary a monster. How new is that?

Think again folks - check out the emperor's new clothes.

Posted by: prasadx | March 7, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Turns out Hillary uses the same dirty technique that my older brother used to try to use on me. He used to accuse me of stealing from my senior citizen parents while he was trying to get them to sign over the farm on a quit claim deed. Accuse Obama of being the heart of NAFTA while anybody who was an adult in the 1992 campaign will remember that it was Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush arguing for the passage of NAFTA and Ross Perot adamantly against it.It was Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary who were celebrating victory when Bill signed NAFTA into law in 1993. Maybe some people can't remember that , but I do. I also remember that Hillary voted for the Iraq war resolution and the resolution to give Bush a green light on Iran.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

When Hillary answers that phone at 3AM it will probably be Gennifer Flowers with a G, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, or Monica Lewinsky saying "Is Bill there?" Or maybe it will be the gangsters from the Ukraine and Kazakhstan asking for a favor in return for the money they paid Bill in late 2007. Is this why Hillary and Bill won't release their tax returns.Sounds like an IRS audit is in order here. What is a former president doing hanging around with these characters while his spouse is running for president. In fact, why should a former president be hanging around characters like these people at all. They are connected to the criminal underground in those nations.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I want to see Hillary's and Bill's tax returns from 2000- 2007, even if they are Xerox copies. I want to see her White House papers, even if they are Xerox copies.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 7, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris Mathews in his American Irish-Catholic élan vital to redefine T.V. News commentary and invent a twenty-first century neophilia news hegemony hucksters his show "Hardball" with the same resignation held by P.T. Barnum to his listeners et sec: "There is one born every minute!"

He brings to his show a hidden white male misogynistic bias of Hillary shared cloyingly by his male compeers at N.B.C.! The disguised ribaldry begins in earnest when his secret surreptitious screed to elevate Obama to the immaculate pure of heart black man that articulates in holy historic rhetoric of canonized black saints; such as irreplaceable Martin Luther King et al! Ironically he and N.B.C.'s inept entourage of money hungry book pushers pullulated the spark in Iowa and New Hampshire that we as Americans were witnessing an historic social revolution that would forever solve and ameliorate race relations in our American modus vivendi! He conviently forgot to frame the theretofore dominant American social issue of femenism;more specificaly womens civil rights! This is ans was a somewhat minor mistake that will eculate in proporation to Hillaries new found zietguest with the acceptence of the sencecent Great American majority!

Well the best made plans of mice and men sometimes go astray! Chris remember you can always resort to articulations that inspire forgiveness and ultimate dispensation -you know feelings after your caught and go to confession! Sorry Chris the Super Delegates are not among the the ones born every minute!

Posted by: hlmencken | March 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

The pledged delegate and caucuses rules of the Democratic Party for the Democratic primary are not democratic! To put it mildly it is a big disgrace! If the Party had followed the rules as per the national presidential elections, Hillary would have been nominated on Super Tuesday. Hillary has already won New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio and Texas. If all the pledged delegates from these states are given to Hillary which she rightly deserves, there would have been no mess! DNC should have at least followed the same rules followed by the Republican Party so that all the candidates would have the same playing field during the primaries.

DNC made a mistake in not having some compromise before the election with Michigan and Florida regarding pledged delegates as was done by the RNC. Now, without making further complications they should accept the result. In Michigan they should give all the blank votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes. In Florida the result should be accepted. Obama's complaint that if he had campaigned in these states, he would have got more votes is not correct. None of the other candidates campaigned there either. He campaigned more vigorously in Texas and Ohio and still did not win them

Posted by: hcsubbarao | March 7, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama's decision to go explicitly negative suggests that he is unable to make an affirmative case for his candidacy beyond ad hominem attacks. Why isn't he discussing the hearings that he held on the Foreign Affairs subcommittee that he chairs? Why isn't he talking about his travel through Latin America? Why isn't he briefing the public on his comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis now? Why isn't he stumping on his universal plan health care plan? Because he can't and so he is advancing a campaign strategy premised on process and personal attacks.

Posted by: carlw1 | March 7, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is not fit to clean my cat's letter box. She is as likeable as a rattlesnake, and at least the rattlesnake gives warning. She actually makes my stomach churn, and I have to switch channels or hit the mute button and grab a magazine while I am waithing for her to just shut the h*** up. She is causing so much friction among Democrats, and enjoys appearing "Experienced". She needs to be aware that the Clinton Amnesia may start to wear off, and voters will wake up and remember the Catastrophic Clinton Crap. Hillary claims she was "co-President" during Bill's two terms in the W/H. "They" are after a third term. Bill has too many ties to other nations for his "charities", so why isn't it ruled a conflict of interest? Don't non-profit organizations need to provide yearly returns with donors, donation amounts, payments, payees and amounts? RED FLAG: The charitable "donations" from foreign countries, but no disclosure. Red flags, in triple, for these ventures. Hillary often demonstrates her self-centered arrogance that "rules" only apply if she benefits. She proved while in the W/H how deadly she could be with "revenge" as her weapon. She has no soul, and tries to crush any opposition using any available means. When will the Clintons provide complete documentation of her years in the W/H? This time, will a lie detector test be required to guarantee that no documents were removed? RED FLAG: Sandy Berger had unrestricted access to highly classified terrorism documents at the National Archives. Failure to follow extremely strict security guidelines was a bonus for Berger, he was a familiar figure. He was eventually accused of stealing documents, but claimed that he borrowed a few copies to study, which he later returned. At his trial, the DOJ let Berger off on a misdemeanor charge and surrender of his license. He didn't even submit to a lie detector test. RED FLAG, RED FLAG: It was later learned that the top- secret original NSC documentation, with hand-written notes (no inventory, no copies existed) covering the Clinton Administration handling of the terrorism threats were "missing" from the National Archives. The entire 9/11 Commission report was a waste of time and money, due to incomplete data. RED FLAG: We will never know the full truth about how 9/11could have/should have been prevented. Guess whom Hillary has picked to be on her National Security Team? Give that man a cigar! It's Sandy Berger. Now, does that make you feel secure?

Posted by: Cali-Gram | March 7, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

It is truly amazing to me how stupid Americans are when it comes to voting for Hillary Clinton. What did they base their decision on?? The 3 am call ad just does not hold water...Nobody knows how she or anyone else would react to a crisis in the position of Commander-in-Chief. I spent most of my military career in Command and Control. We as Emergency Action Controllers received instructions from the Joint Cheifs of Staff(both "Real World and Exercise) relating to release of nuclear weapons. In this 24 hour operation, on rotating shifts, the stress was at times,
unbelievable both physically and psychologically. Multiply that many times over and then you have and then you begin to understand the extraordinary pressures of the Commander-in-Chief. Are Americans so ignorant to think that Hillary Clinton is any more qualified to handle these stresses than Barrack Obama?? Being President is a tremendous responsibility and no one is really prepared for the scenarios that can and will develope...they can only train based on theory and intelligence information...and that is just the tip of the iceberg relating to the military.

The Economy--no one is prepared to forsee the future unless of course they are clairvoyant. Clinton, guaranteed will have to make some tough choices when it comes to budget cuts and cannot guarantee anything in this uncertain world...not to mention, if she is elected, she will be inheriting a massive budget deficit that she helped elicit by giving Bush a blank check for an ill-advised and immoral war in Iraq.

Bubble Burst--Personally I am not sure any of these candidates is prepared to march into this uncertain future...however, I would say that Barrack Obama's heart and mind are in the right place and he has integrity; and the outright audacity to instill hope over fear. Clinton's message is really nothing new and in my estimation is a message of fear of the unknown. She caters to an electorate of mostly uneducated, ignorate, and feminate bigots...yes I said bigots...because let's
face it many of you WASPS are not ready for; God-forbid a half breed!! Don't tell me that's just not true if you are a Hillary supporter...don't forget; first I spent 12 plus years in the military; met people from all walks of life, from around the world and I have observed all to frequently the "Ugly American".

Conclusion; I am not telling you how to vote, however, I am telling you to get over youself and examine your real motivation(s) for the choices you make when you go to the polls!!

Posted by: pat52007 | March 7, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS DISHONEST

HE MAILED FALSE FLIERS INFORMATION ABOUT MS. CLINTON.
NOW HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.
HE IS THREATENING TO ATTACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

LOOK AT HIS ATTITUDE WHEN HE SPOKE THE NIGHT OF MAR. 4TH. AFTER HE LOSE OHIO. THAT LOOK ON HIS EYES WAS SHOWING A LOT OF HATE.
HE WAS THROWING FIRE HIS LOOK EXUDES HATE.

Posted by: Multiple1 | March 7, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

WAKE UP

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT TO BE TRUESTED. he IS A LIER.

If you vote for him you will regret like a lot of Illinois residents. Give us their comments. If there would be a way to take their vote back they would do it with no doubts.

B. Hussein Obama's record dictates that he has CHANGED his rhetoric and his mind. He speaks whatever way he thinks the audience wants.

B. Hussein Obama is not qualified for the office of president. He is as qualified for president as a medical school senior would be for brain surgery (NOT).

He is a liar.
HE IS NOT SOMEONE TO TRUST.
HE LIES, HE TWISTES EVERITHING,
HE IS RADICAL.
HE IS AN INSTIGATOR.
TREACHEROUS
DISHONEST

1. HE MAILED FALSE FLIERS INFORMATION ABOUT MS. CLINTON.
2. NOW HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.
3. HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

LOOK AT HIS ATTITUD WHEN HE SPOKE THE NIGHT OF MAR. 4TH. AFTEER HE LOSE OHIO. THAT LOOK ON HIS EYES WAS SHOWING A LOT OF HATE.
HE WAS THROWING FIRE HIS LOOK EXUDES HATE.


Posted by: Multiple1 | March 7, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA DECLARING FALSE INFORMATION

HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.

HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

Posted by: Multiple1 | March 7, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA DECLARING FALSE INFORMATION

HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.

HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

Posted by: Multiple1 | March 7, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons have gone too far with that negative 3 a.m. ad, more like the Republicans/Rove that what I expect from the Dems. Made me think of the LBJ ad that was in such bad taste, it was immediately pulled. Remember the little girl with the flower and H bomb scare, same deal with Clinton. Make no mistake, they will stop at nothing. Fortunately with the LBJ ad people were offended, guess we prefer the scary/negative stuff these days, guess it worked in Texas.

Posted by: w4npx2 | March 7, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Democratic Party Missteps Lead to McCain Landslide

By Jim Barone
Editor, National Media Consortium
Wednesday November 5, 2008


Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential bid came to a screeching halt last night after being unceremoniously crushed by a well organized and well managed Republican juggernaut. While watching the election returns in the company of her family, a stunned Clinton was so overcome with emotion and disappointment that she fainted and had to be rushed to a nearby hospital for observation. A family spokesperson who declined to be identified said that the loss of 40 states to Senator John McCain probably proved to be too much for the tenacious, but devise former First Lady.


After wresting the Democratic Party nomination from her former rival Barack Obama through a hotly contested series of political arm-twisting and what many say were unethical and illegal maneuvers, her campaign seemed to flail helplessly in the wind as John McCain zeroed in on a decisive victory. At fault for the entire fiasco were not only herself and her campaign, but the Democratic Party and very likely millions of voters who were duped into believing that she and not Barack Obama was the best candidate who could defeat the Republicans.


With the Democratic Party torn apart and virtually every Obama supporter thoroughly disillusioned, her campaign stood little chance of success - a possibility that she adamantly refused to acknowledge. For some odd reason, her selfish and narcissistic attitude combined with an ill-advised mantle of self- entitlement, spelled nothing but doom. Sadly, she lost the support of many progressive-thinking white voters, minorities; women and the like because her reckless and unwise attacks on Obama proved to be extremely effective tools that were used by the McCain organization with great precision.


Reflecting on her downward spiral, those lower educated white male blue-collar workers (i.e., the Joe Six-Pack pick-up truck crowd) that she won over from states like Ohio and Pennsylvania (with false and misleading attack ads) ended up to be the biggest losers of the night. Even more disheartening, after reports had surfaced that she had been courting a broad group of voters who would cast their ballot against Obama just because of his race, she quickly lost the vision and focus that she needed to succeed and was headed towards certain failure. This was most likely because Barack Obama actually had the "good judgment" to know that winning the so-called "big states" in the Democratic primary race would not translate into a Democratic win in the general election. He knew that only a very broad coalition of voters from all races, ethnicities, socioeconomic segments, educational and religious backgrounds and so forth could defeat the McCain machine.


As the Clinton campaign progressed throughout the fall, there was growing evidence that it had lost the affection and support of key constituencies such as white women over 50, Latinos, some Asians and others. Unfortunately, it wasn't until after she had torn down and nearly destroyed Barack Obama's call for change, hope and a new direction that those constituencies had finally realized their mistake; however that realization came too late. Unfortunately for the Clintons and the Democratic Party, their legacies may simply end up being remembered as nothing more than a pile of narcissistic rubbish in a putrid political landfill, trumped by a nation's desire for "real" change. Hindsight is 20-20. As America goes, so goes the future.

© Copyright National Media Consortium 2008 All Rights Reserved


Is this story a peek into the future? The Democrats should certainly hope not.

Posted by: nateisback | March 7, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 7, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 7, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 7, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 7, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 7, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 7, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

CHRIS, ARE YOU GOING TO COVER THIS? THIS IS HUGE!

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper's front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama's:

"Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper's chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

"Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

"The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was 'telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.'

"The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

"Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign."

*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser's contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.

Posted by: rileys | March 7, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 6, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who still believes in Obama should see this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama said that he lost Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island because the people were testing him. He really thinks everything is about him. With such conceit, no wonder he's running for president with so little experience. He really believes he can do it and he's convinced a lot of people.

Some years ago a teenage boy convinced his parents and neighbors that he knew how to fly a plane. Since he'd been taking classes, they believed him and got into the plane. Every one of them died when he crashed into a barn.

Actually, he'd never flown before, but listening to the instructor describe it, he thought it sounded easy.

Posted by: Beatrix1 | March 6, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Fla butterfly ballots all over. Fla repubs and probably Jed and Harris crafted that fiasco and the Fla Dem party didn't do their job and see or stop the butterfly ballot.

Posted by: leichtman

Let me state this one more time - the Florida butterfly ballot was in one county only - Palm Beach County. The ballots are designed by elected County Supervisors of Election. It is a county matter entirely and the state government is not involved. The Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections in 2000 was a DEMOCRAT. She thought she was doing the elderly voters a favor with this design. She became a pariah in the Democratic Party over this and lost her bid for re-election. Google florida butterfly ballot palm beach county 2000 and see for yourself. Jeb and Katharine Harris had nothing to do with that fiasco and it is that fiasco which cost Gore the election and saddled us with Bush Lite for 8 years.

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Florida Recount 2008

It's ironic that the King of the Caucus, the grass roots organizer par excellence, mined our nation's prairies and suburbs nationwide for energized new growth, despite the obvious pitfalls, eliminating the elderly, the immobile, the working class, not his demographic?

An election thrown open to the vast hinterlands with a piece meal assortment of voting options, undemocratic, some say, lacking ethical voting requirements or equal protection, like the elections we ridicule in third world nations.

Yet, some are still enamored, perhaps for the result, not for the principles.

Op Ed columnist Gail Collins of the New York Times relays one story from the Texas primary minus the glitz of a win for one candidate, the ambivalence of a loss for the other: while caucus goers waited for more than two hours at one elementary school to open the doors and commence voting, there weren't enough convention packets, there were lines, than there was the rule that no one takes charge until the event begins ....who decided these rules?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sl...

More piece meal voting may be in store to seat Florida and Michigan delegates and give voice to those states' voters. Remember the recount of 2000? Is the underlying impetus for 2008, which no one is talking about, is that we learned votes must be counted? The irony is that these states broke the rules, but despite that, there are those who want the votes counted and those who do not. Imagine the audacity to want your vote to count?

CNN referred to Caucus rules as arcane in January, "The arcane rules governing Thursday's Iowa Democratic caucuses will test even the most organized campaign, but mastery of the process could launch a candidate on a path to the White House."

"Supporters of candidates making up less than 15 percent of the vote in a particular precinct will have the option of making their vote count by voting in the second tally for a "viable" candidate --one who got at least 15 percent of the vote on the first tally. "

The ability of a candidate's supporters to use the persuasion period to win over second-choice voters could be a key factor deciding who comes out on top Thursday night."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses.101/index.html

A vote via coercion, not by individual choice, that sounds Democratic! Surviving this political jungle, as of today, no one has come out with a bestseller, how to...yet. And no one is talking about it either; it's not reverberating, as it should be, over the airwaves or the internet; CNN seems to have forgotten all about it; and the Obama camp contends that their caucus wins carry more weight, but they're not gung-ho about counting votes and seating Florida and Michigan delegate.

Two-thousand all over again?

The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics
www.edenprairienews.com

Posted by: vammap | March 6, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

It's 3 a.m. Hillary answers the phone. It's another bimbo on the line asking for Bill.

Posted by: vitana1900 | March 6, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

harry4: If Obama carries PA and other states, no one is going to stop him. The super delegates will select the candidate based on the momentum at the time of convention. There is no question whether FL and MI delegates will be seated in some form in the convention. The DNC is not going to deny them their electoral rights without creating a convention spectacle. So get ready to accommodate them, whether you like it or not. We will support a winner in the convention, and not because some one has more delegates he has accumulated in states which never vote democratic. Let the convention decide for the democrats.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 6, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

no they don't bruce. The dnc already made it's ruling. No changing the game at half-time.

It's a risk/reward game. I respect yoru posts in the past. think about the risks and the rewards. I know it's fun to destroy a party, I'm been doing to the gop for years now. justifyably so. :)

Beware for chaging the game at half time. the democrats should not want to break this movement. the fact some do, is amazing to me. corruption, in it's many forms. Many democrats like the old way just liek many gop'ers do. Screw them, I say.

One of our problems is carrer politicains. We need representatives again. People who represent us. not people who are carrer politicains out to make as much money as possible defrauding the government. If you or i do that it's a federal crime.

To the topic at hand. Regardless of what russert and cnn and fox and msnbc say. the dnc has to do nothing. they made their decision. to those that want to cahnge the rules at half-time. They should pay for it. Clinton crist and the gop'ers. they want it, pay for it. And only is all parties included, obama and the dnc, agree. this is not the ussr. you people cannot strong arm the system and change the rules whenever you want.

the gop picked their candidate. now they want to pick the 'opposition' ticket. If dean is a wise man he will say it's done.

And for anyone saying this means florida and mi will vote 100% for the gop due to disenfrancisement, your wrong. Republicans will vote for mccain. Clinton supporters will vote mccain, but they would anyway as they are now republcains.

It's over. She has zero chance of winning the nom. She lost. Give it up. Stop standing side by side with the fascst propogandists and pick a side for pete's sake

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Funny, I noticed that All the Obama supporters can't spell worth anything, and the Hillary supporters are the incompetent ones HAHAHA!!!

Posted by: iamgonzo_72 | March 6, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: CommonSense12 | March 6, 2008 08:12 PM

I agree. The only problem is money. Elections are expensive. So, either someone finds some money, or the redos are caucuses.

I suggest that the two campaigns ask the FEC to allow them to jointly and equally finance the redos. Heck, they have too much money already.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is making a "big show" that she is "prepared" to be Commander in Chief. That is garbage. She is not more "prepared" than her opponent. The Clintons, in their desperation, have adopted the "Roveian" tactics of fear and destruction, not discussion of issues. That is truly sad because it denotes not only unscrupulousness on their part, and for such people I have absolutely nor respect. "Win at any cost" indicates to me that they have their priorities totall "screwed up." That puts their personal ambitions ahead of the interests of the Democratic Party and the country. If the Democrats lose the 2008 presidential election it will be in large part to the use of such unscrupulous tactics by the Clinton campaign. They have already disgraced themselves enough without dragging down the entire party and this country with them.

Posted by: rlaitres | March 6, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

If he falters, the democratic party will not sacrifice this election in the name of supporting a movement that can not deliver or close a deal.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 6, 2008 07:55 PM

You, like many commentators and the Clinton campaign fail to recognize one very salient fact. (BTW, you make some other excellent points.) That fact is that primaries and general elections are unrelated. One cannot predict the other. If so, then McCain will win in a walk and Democrats might just as well give up!

It's all "democratic." States decide how to choose delegates. If, like MI and FL, they decide to break the rules, then they choose empty air. If, like IA and NV, they choose caucuses, then that's fine because big brother can't tell them what democracy is. They get to decide. If you don't like caucuses, then get the state parties to change them. The system we have is the system we have. However imperfect, we must work with it as best as we can.

You may not like delegate math, but it's what we have. Obama's lead in pledged delegates will be even further above 100 in another week. More super-delegates are supporting him.

Also, don't forget that all three candidates have no real experience as chief executive of our country and throughout our history, only incumbents did.

Do you wish to count years in elective office. Then, the ranking is McCain, Obama, Clinton. Democrats should not go there!

How about years of service? McCain still wins.

How about judgment? You get to decide.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN MUST COUNT!

Florida and Michigan Must Be Allowed to Vote?

Notice I say "being allowed to vote". The "vote" that occurred earlier was really a "non-vote". It was a fake vote. There was no vote. It counted for nothing. There was no vote ---in accordance with the intent of our constitution.

Our national constitution says the people in these two states have the right to vote and have their voices be heard and be counted, and so do the respective state constitutions of both Florida and Michigan. The fact that the individual state democratic party committees of both states made decisions not in accordance with the national democratic committee is something that the individual voters never agreed to nor voted upon. These state committees can't deprive their own party members from voting and having a "say". They can't do that. That's it.

So let's schedule those democratic party primary elections in Florida and Michigan, and let's do it right away....or "someone" or some group is forcing unconstitutional behavior on the registered democratic party voters in these two states..... and excuse me please.... but now we're talking.... bring out the lawyers. Thank you. That's all we need is more work for the lawyers, but I see that as a high possibility.

Common Sense - Bruce

Posted by: CommonSense12 | March 6, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Super-delegates can do as they please, and many already have.

Saying they should vote as the people do is not so clear. If one candidate wins by 0.1%, do all super-delegates from that state vote that way. Or, should a super-delegate vote according to the constituency: Congressional district, state (for senators and governors), country (for DNC people), city (for mayors), etc. What a mess!

Super-delegates were created to prevent a repeat of the McGovern debacle. I love George, worked for his election, sent him lots of money, and so on (after all I was fighting Nixon). The super-delegates are there to stop a popular phenomenon from nominating an unelectable candidate.

Based on polling, both candidates are electable. If you believe the polls, Obama is a bit more so than Clinton. If one candidate wins most pledged delegates, most states, and most popular votes, and that candidate appears to be more or less as electable as the alternative, then the super-delegates are supposed to go along with that choice. Indeed, if the most pledged delegates and nothing else go to one candidate, then that one should not be overturned by the supers -- if you believe in the role of these unchosen overseers of the nominating process.

Unless someone can convincingly make the case the Hillary can win against McCain and Obama cannot, then it looks a lot like the nomination is already over. In nomination terms, Hillary is "dead woman walking."

The Michigan primary is clearly nonsense as Hillary was on the ballot and Barack was not.

The Florida primary is suspect because the voters who bothered to show up for a beauty contest knew it was a beauty contest and paid an appropriate amount of attention.

One way to finance a redo is to split the costs between the two campaigns. Perhaps, the FEC will have to give special dispensation, but it would work.

By sometime in May, we'll know if any of this hot air is worth the calories required to heat it.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I think it is time people realized that Caucuses are capricious events and donot give a verdict of the people at large, but simply of a limited number of people who can find enough time to chat for a few hours in a cafeteria. It is not a proper democratic election because of the limited number of participants in the caucuses and the lack of proper control in the process. Therefore the super-delegates should weigh the results of the primaries rather than the caucuses in their overall judgment of popular sentiment. If Obama can win some important battle ground primaries, he will be a winner. He hasm't done that yet. He should try to win in the remaining major primeries like Pennsylvania before asking to become the nominee for the democratic party. Winning republican states like Wyoming, Kansas, Utah etc. adds a few delegates for your delegate math, but doesn't add to electibility in national elections. He can still demonstrate his popular appeal in the primaries in Pennsylvania, which is a true battle ground state. If he can't win in the democratic base in Pennsylvania, he is not electible in November. So let us see how Pennsylvania votes. Any attempt to muzzle the delegat math to pressure the super delegates is likely to cause disaster in November polls. He already had a golden chance to show that he is more electible in the crucial state of Ohio, but the people didn't buy into it. Delegate math is not going to protect him from competition and momentum. He still can win Pennsylvania and get back the momentum. He can also promote the idea of new primaries in Florida and Michigan and defeat Hillary there. His delegate math without the super-delegates and Florida-Michigan delegates is not going to give him the nomination of the democratic party. If he sees racism in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Texas, I have news for him. He will have to confront racism by the Republican right in its true manifestations in the contest prior to November just as it found expression in the monolithic black votes for him in the primaries and caucuses. He may be satisfied being a nominee for the democratic party, but the democrats want a winner in November. So the nominee should be a winner in battle ground state contests in which Hillary is now the leader. Let Obama show that he can win in crucial states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, Michigan etc.. If he fails, he has to move over for Hillary, and accept the VP spot. If he wins especially in the crucial test case state of Pennsylvania, he should be the nominee. I hope he accepts his challenge and confronts Hillary head on in Pennsylvania, and demonstrate that he is a winner.
Some people say that Hillary won democratic states like NY, CA, NJ etc., where every democrat has a chance to win. That is what McGovern thought with his anti-war movement during the Vietnam war. Movements typically energize young people, but the voting groups are special interest groups, and in a vast and diverse country like this this will remain so. The latinos want their piece of the pie, the black want theirs, the senior want theirs and women want their share of power. The youths may not see these divisions in their support for Obama, but these are real drivers in the election dynamics. Obama is fine if he is the nominee with the momentum during the convention; he can not get the support of super delegates unless he regains his momentum in Pennsylvania and other battle ground states. The excitement in his rallies is great. He had his excitement in CA, MASS etc., and look what happened. With all the money he has generated, with the vast youth network of support, with the oratorical gift that is unmatched, with a parade of high impact endorsements at crucial moments of election cycle, he should have won in all these states. The reason he lost is because well-meaning people want to see a record of accomplishments before they vote for a candidate. Obama's record is minimal. His two major issues against Hillary carry no conviction. The NAFTA trade issue was a trick, as the canadians have disclosed. The Iraq issue is even less convincing. Mr. Obama gave a great speech in 2004 in the democratic convention praising John Kerry, the nominee. Kerry's Iraq vote was exactly the same as Hillary's. How did it become a bad judgment for Hillary, but not for Kerry? And, what else did he do to oppose the war, other than an anti-war speech in 2002? Why didn't he support the real anti-war candidate Howard Dean in 2004? We need answers, not empty rhetoric. It was childish of Obama to bring the NAFTA issue the way he brought it into Ohio. Look, we all want to see the better candidate win. Hillary has her strengths and flaws, Obama has his. Let us not allow a movement called Obamamania to hijack the destiny of the democratic party in 2008. If he can win it fair and square with demonstrated momentun for super delegates to side with him, then we will support him. If he falters, the democratic party will not sacrific this election in the name of supporting a movement that can not deliver or close a deal.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 6, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I think Brad1 posting at 12:02 says it all about Rush Limbaugh .He did more damage to Obama then Hillarys 3:00 am commercial.

Posted by: jthompson76 | March 6, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"Will the Democrats' extended fight for the presidential nomination help or hurt their party?
Help 29% 9160
Hurt 71% 22832
Total Votes: 31992 "

And a cnn poll no less. clinton news network. wow. YEt they and the rest of the media fight for her. makes ya think

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

If i didn't mispell words the internet police and authoritarian anti-free speech police would ban me in a second. By mispelling words people like you feel less threathened by me. Also, I don't want to sacre you republcains away. It's not us liberals holding up progress. Me preching to them is preaching to the converted.

I draw the gop in, to help them grow and get out of the 50's and 60's. So they can attack and mock me. you/they can't touch my posts with a ten foot poll. I must sacrafice my ego. otherwise I get banned or the gop runs in fear.

understand. It's not always abou tyou tough guy. sometimes when you win, you really lose. Sometimes when you lose you really win.

I'm just trying to effect chance in a small way. mental change cannot come without mental conflict. make no mistake I will never bow to the authoritarian's. Not the gop's and not the old school dem's. To allow you to chang eme is to give you my power. something I will never do. not as long as we still live in a "free" country.

But only the gop has free speech. the rest of us pay for what we and they say. I must sacrafice my ego. It's a small price to pay for the chance to save people. And effect change. Still haven;'t changed cc I see. Maybe I reach one person. Maybe that person is the person who does big things.

We all have a role to play in the grand sceme of things. Allow me to play my part. you play yours

Army Infantry 11B for obama

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's strategy: Destroy the DNC.


This TRAITOR needs to be kicked out of the Democratic party:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_mccain_has_crossed_com.php

Posted by: info23 | March 6, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I must be good. If your only grip is spelling everything I say must be fact.

i misspell to give you gop'ers something to attack. you can't touch my posts. In playing authoritariam elementary school games you show your face.

also I open this site up. I am more left than anyone here. this opens people up to be free to say what they really think. i know that is scary for you gop. I know freedom is yoru enemy. I know I am a boogyman.

Do you tough guy. Let the histroy books and non partisan independant thinkers decide is correct.

If all you can do is mock. Lie spin and discredit, YOU SHOW YOUR FACe.
Do you. I'll definatly do me. If i am lying call me on it. If I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time) call me on it.

To play elementary school games shows YOUR authoritarian gop face. It has nothing to do with me. Work on you. you gop'ers can control you. you no longer can control us.

Now. the substance of your post.

"You say Super-delegates should have to follow the popular vote in their state"

When did I say that? If it's on this blog please reproduce. I never said that and do not believe it. SOME obama supporters may or may not have. We are not the gop clone borg. We don't think as a block. We are all free, until you goper's


"means they can throw their support to Obama OR Clinton. Get it? "

Then we're in agreement. What's you beef?

I merely say if obama wins the delegates up to the convention, if he's leading, the supers should not overturn the people. If clinton is leading with delegates she shoudl be the nominee. I think your confused. I just have a problem with the old style clinton freinds negating the will of the voters.

Please produce my post that says I think the supers should vote with their state. I never said that. your embarressing yourself.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti,

STOP! DO NOT START RESPONDING UNTIL YOU HAVE READ MY POST THOROUGHLY. If you still have trouble comprehending what I have written, then show them to someone who understands words and their meanings before typing out your spew (and not well, I might add - once again, computers programs come with spellcheck for a reason, tough guy).

You say Super-delegates should have to follow the popular vote in their state. I say please do, because if that is the case, Clinton wins the nom. But, if you had actually read and understood (a bit more difficult than walking and chewing gum at the same time for you I guess), you would have noticed I said "Super-delegates, as the system in the DNC is set up now, are free to vote for any candidate they see fit". That means they can throw their support to Obama OR Clinton. Get it? Understand how it works? I am not advocating anything except, in this election, letting them do whatever they feel is the right thing to do. THEIR DECISION. Ok Tough Guy?

Oh, and if you feel the need to flee the country because there is a chance someone you don't agree with COULD (read, not will, but could) get elected, please do go.

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama's movement existed before he did. He tapped into it. A ground up movement. From the bottom up. if obama doesn't represent us, we do not represent him.

tha tis the differance between this movement and the monarchy gop cult. they are top down. Slaves to their propogandists and "leaders". that is not america. that is why they cannot win, anymore.

ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE

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

"Conservatives love to claim that Obama supporters have excess reverence for their candidate and see him as some sort of transcendent messiah figure. There is a small minority of Obama supporters -- as is true for most candidates and political movements -- who probably expect more from Obama than it is healthy to expect from political leaders generally.

But listening to this objection from the right-wing movement is the ultimate irony. There has not been a political figure in a long, long time who was revered, worshiped and transformed into a grotesque Icon of Transcendent Greatness the way the Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush, has been. For years and years, the Right sustained itself as little more than a glorified Cult of Personality around the Great, Conquering War Hero.


And here is how they spoke of him:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
And:
I had the opportunity this afternoon to be part of a relatively small group who heard President Bush talk, extemporaneously, for around forty minutes. It was an absolutely riveting experience. It was the best I've ever seen him. Not only that; it may have been the best I've ever seen any politician. . . . .

The conventional wisdom is that Bush is not a very good speaker. But up close, he is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not. He was by turns instructive, persuasive, and funny. His persona is very much that of the big brother. . . .It was, in short, the most inspiring forty minutes I've experienced in politics.

And, George Bush is "one of the most decisive, successful, and in the US at least, popular leaders of our time." Not only that, but the invasion of Iraq was "the gift George W. Bush has given to the world" and he is the "best presidential speaker since Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

Bush's election was divine, mandated by God:

"This was Providence . . . . Anybody looking at the 2000 election would have to say it was a miraculous deliverance, and I think people felt it again this year." By allowing Bush to stay in office, God is "giving us a chance to repent and to restore some moral sanity to American life."
When introducing the Commander-in-Chief at the 2004 GOP Convention -- that Orwellian orgy of unprecedentedly creepy, relentless hero worship -- Gov. George Pataki said: "He is one of those men God and fate somehow led to the fore in times of challenge." The righteous Gen. Boykin said: "The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." Rudy Giuliani added: "I say it -- I say it again tonight -- I say it again tonight: Thank God that George Bush is our President."

And here is how they dressed up the Great War Hero when he addressed us all at the Convention:

In 2006, even Bill Kristol acknowledged to The New York Times that the "conservative movement" had become little more than a Bush-revering cult of personality: "Bush was the movement and the cause." And this is to say nothing of their ongoing canonization of the God-given Patron Saint of Freedom and Goodness, Ronald Wilson Reagan. He brought Morning to America.

But remember: what Rich Lowry and his friends find "scary" about the Obama campaign is simply that they think it's unhealthy to venerate a political leader too much. They're really against doing that.

-- Glenn Greenwald
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Pick a side clinton supporters. please. If your republicans, fine. Be honest.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"And there are no set of rules governing the Florida and Michigan situation. These were decisions made by the DNC and can be reversed, refined, or left alone. Basically, as with the Super-delegates, the decision on what to do is up to the DNC as they see fit."

And they made their decision. Why won't you people live with it? Why is the media like cc here and all the news running with this nonsense? Money. that's why. They want to prolong the fight so they can make money off reporting it. if the american people can't see that. We deserve the gop again as we are a lost cause. Mccain could have his world war. i am now a christian man. i will be fleeing persecution FROM this country, like my ancestors did when they fled TO this country

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

"JKrishnamurti ,

And what exactly are the rules you and others keep talking about? It seems it is the Obama supporters are the ones trying to change the rules. Super-delegates, as the system in the DNC is set up now, are free to vote for any candidate they see fit.
"

Right. like kerry and kenneddy supporting obama, unlike their state. Who's trying to change the rules tough guy? He's getting supers and she is.

People take issues with those superdelegates over ruling the will of the people. Justifiably so. No one on my side is changing the rules. though we do think the will of the people should not be overturned by old sytle politicans and back room deals. If hillary wins more deleagtes then the supers shold vote for her. more power to ya. good luck. I read she will have to win 97% in the remaining states. If she can do that she should be the nominee. If she cannot win 97% of the remaining votes (WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS OBAMA GOES TO JAIL) she shoudl drop out.

Change the rules? Enlighten me as to who and how on my side is doing that.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Good night and Good Luck...come April 15th you better have some answers!

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

First lady papers...tax returns...guess who called out the vetting dog.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"AMEN--and leichtman--1st order of business by the DNC should be some standards and standardization of the primary process.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 05:44 PM
"

Great idea. LEt's fix it after obama wins. Not in the middle of the process when your candidate is losing. Obama will fix the process. just like he will put bribery on front street, by making bribe takers famous. though i would prefer 30 years each for bribery. their names on the web is plenty for me. I would also like to see as far as endoremenets who got paid, or who got favors.

Baby steps. We can't change the world overnight or in the middle of the porcess. Who started, in washington, this new change washington movement? clinton? hahahah

now everyone is on the change bandwagon. Let the man you stood strong when he was needed and started the message bring it. hillary with her "yes we will", is second bananda. riding his coattails. She needs to stop the sabtoage.

How does it feel to be standing by and fighting along side with rush fox and ann coulter clinton supproters? I woudl never know. I've been fighting them for years. do you feel guilty fighting with them, as the rest of your party is fighting agaisnt them?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

its still unbelievable 'Floridians' tolerated that but we see how the Jed Bush/Harris machine worked.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you didn't leave anything out. You, as always, did a good, objective job (rather rare for the media these days.)

Against all odds Senator Clinton again rose to the top. Senator Obama is an astute politician who, perhaps until now, has gotten a free pass from the press.

As James Carville said 15 years ago, "It's the economy stupid." It is also national security; not in the scare fashion of the current administration, but it is a factor that needs to be acknowledged.

Mr. Obama's turn will come in about eight years. Right now we need the experience and judgment of a seasoned professional - Senator Hillary Clinton.

I do not understand the vitriolic hate that spews out agains Mrs. Clinton. Hey guys. Hate is not a redeeming quality.

Posted by: Kansas28 | March 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

no she won 3 states and 12-25 more delegates as many are still undecided until state conventions. B.O. won Missouri right? And that was a blow out in delegates for b.O. in Mo as well right? Not. So now every Clinton supporter is a Republican. nice touch.

As to 2000 if Republicans were so convinced they won why did they go to the Supreme Ct and fight it. W won by maybe 500 votes in Fla, maybe the AP research says otherwise and says Gore's actual vote was 90,000 higher. I can't imagine a vote for local dogcatcher being as close as 500 disputed voted and not getting a recount in 2000, its still unbelievable that Republicans tolerated that.

BUT ONE MORE TIME--NO ONE IS ASKING FOR A RECOUNT IN FLA-- Why don't you seem to understand that?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"And yes, those Republicans sure are screwed up using such an unfair system like winner-take-all. My lord, what an insane thing to do, award all the delegates to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Seriously, where do they come up those crazy ideas?

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 05:30 PM
"

iF YOUR A REPUBLAIN, be proud. support your party. Don;t come in here and sabotage. be proud of who and what you are. Quit being a cartoon. an evil james bond villian spy. :)

I saw your post later down the line tough guy. EASY. they dont go by those rules, and are not going to. So your 'exercise" is noting. Just another bogus attempt to justify you and clinton detroying the opposition ticket. We see you people now. You need not pretend you are not republcains. The question becomes, who are the american people with. the gop and the their moderates sell-out sabotuers in the democratic party. Or are the american people with the people fighting them.

According to polls, votes and money raise the american people are not with you sabotuers. Majority rule remember. Please stand down

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Again...just a reality check for you Hillary folks. Go drink a bunch of whiskey or take some really good drugs then go to CNN.com and play the delegate game. No matter how outrageous you set the numbers the answer is the same...Hillary loses and the American people win!

Yeah America!

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the primary and caucus process as well as the date to hold them are decided in conjunction with the Republican state party on a certain date. The dnc can not dictate how each states conducts their primary or caucus but certainly they should have a large say in them and their needs to be consistancy from state to state. We should never be put in a position where Dems are attacking Dems b/c the delegate vote is virtually a tie. Dean should have seen this train wreck coming when he decided how to mishandle Fla and Michigan and he needs to fix this mess, now and fairly to both sides.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"jkrish B.O. outspending his opponent 3 to 1 and losing one state by 95,000 votes and Ohio by 200,000 votes is a win? Sounds delusional but if that is what you want to believe, go for it."

It's nto about money. that's what you republcains never understand. money is just a means to an end. It is not the end all say. Spin a voctory if you wish. clinton's chances (% wise) went down after she "won" texas and ohio. Less delegates for her means less change to overtake him

I asked what the delegate "win" she got was. I heard it was a net gain of 4. that's 4 delegates. conversly obama won 9 in little washington dc. Learn about the democratic process. I know you are playing by your parties (republcain) rules. But the republcain rules do not apply. you can talk about "what if's" all day long. What is the delegate count? If she won, by how many delegates? 4? 8? 12? WOW.

She's down by over 100%. And texas was a big state. HAHAHHA

Propogate on miss

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Obama needs to bone up on his ability to respond to lies, fear, and rumor. This is the GOP game plan that Hillary is trying to copy and he needs to look at this as a two for one opportunity...the chance for some great practice before the general and the chance to give it to Hillary just the way she wants it.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"leichtman

One more thing, the Miami Herald and the NYT funded a "recount" of disputed ballots to see what the impact on the results would have been with a more liberal interpretation of ballot marks. They found that Bush still would have won if "arguable" ballots were accepted (an analysis of the chads). It also found that of the over-votes (votes for two candidates on same ballot) most would appear to have been for Gore and he would have won. However, there is no way that ballots with votes for two candidates could be awarded to a single candidate.
"

Jim makes a good point. Wasn't it the republcaisn who fought to not have a recount in florida? I saw republcains protesting. Maybe I'm wrong I wasn't involved back in thsoe days.

Oh how things change when the shoe is on the other foot. Now they are fighting FOR a recount, yet refuse to pay. We'll see who buys it. the media, like cc russert matthews fox blitzer are demanding it. Let's see if the media out ranks americans politicans. They do on the right (rush fox o'liely hannity). They dare not (mccain excluded. he won due to his military service and record and military experiance) go against their propogandists for profit and their alternate gop universe. what about the d's?

Let's hope somebody is independant out there and will not sell-out to the gop

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

when I made my comments I was speaking to Florida state elected officials.

Sen Bill Nelson is (thankfully) a respite from this.

And while she may be contreversial Corrinne Brown is definitely not weak willed.

I think my explanation is mostly concerning state and local.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Should say "Before speaking about "rules", learn them first". My apologies.

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's gonna have to fight the other traitor for McCain's VP position...good luck with that.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I personally think most of our elected Dems are SO weak willed and just trying to play the Reps game--except for Dems--no vision, no purpose just selling us out to the dominant Reps.

Of course I think the best thing for Florida voters would be to get rid of the state House and go unicameral.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

its not a recount.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti ,

And what exactly are the rules you and others keep talking about? It seems it is the Obama supporters are the ones trying to change the rules. Super-delegates, as the system in the DNC is set up now, are free to vote for any candidate they see fit. They do not have to follow the popular votes in their states or districts (but hey, as a Clinton supporter, I would be ok with that, because that would give Hilary the nomination if the present numbers hold). Nor are they required to throw their support behind the candidate that won the total popular vote. As the rules stand right now, a Super-delegate can vote any way they see fit. If they go for Obama, that is their will, as it would be for Clinton.

And there are no set of rules governing the Florida and Michigan situation. These were decisions made by the DNC and can be reversed, refined, or left alone. Basically, as with the Super-delegates, the decision on what to do is up to the DNC as they see fit.

The only rules that govern should be the rules of common decency, something the Obama-ites seem to lack in a landslide over the Clinton-istas (of which I am one, proudly).

Before speaking about "rulre", learn them first.

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

jim52 if that is true then there are idiots in the Fla State Legislature, I won't defend them. Would like to see a link to that though. Is that stupidy justification for disenfranchising millions of Fla democrats to gain a political advantage. Again is that not practicing politics as usual? Sounds like Fla butterfly ballots all over. Fla repubs and probably Jed and Harris crafted that fiasco and the Fla Dem party didn't do their job and see or stop the butterfly ballot. It cost Gore and this country 8 years of misery. Are you suggesting that b/c Fla politicians of whichever party scrwed this up, that we should punish Floridians or the legitimacy of having a complete primary result?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

correction--primary/caucus process. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the most telling item since the TX/OH/RI/VT primaries is Obama and his supporters saying that what hurt him most was how negative Hillary was toward him. Is negative campaigning a surprise to anyone? It's going to happen. In fact, it has to happen. The fact that Obama and his supporters are so sensitive to even the slightest criticism is what worries me most about Obama in a general election. So far, the press has given Obama a free ride on just about everything. I constantly read articles about how inspiring his speeches are, and how well he comes off at the debates. That's just falsely building the man and his supporters up, and does nothing to prepare him for the all-out blood bath the Republicans will bring to him this fall. Make no mistake about it, if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, there will be no end to questions about his cocaine use, his history in the U.S. Senate, his personal financial dealings, and on and on. And I seriously doubt that the man is up to the fight.

The truth is that the Democratic presidential contenders in 2000 and 2004 didn't fight hard enough, and that is what cost us both elections. We need a candidate who can take the fight to the Republicans. Not someone who will stand there getting whipped to defeat by swift boat ads and sleazy innuendo. Bill Clinton is loved by the overwhelming majority of the Democratic party (and a whole lot of independents and even some Republicans) because the man can fight a good fight. No matter what it takes, Bill Clinton will go toe-to-toe with anyone who wants to take him on. I think Hillary has that in her, as well. Like her or hate her, there's no denying that she has brought more substance to this primary than any other Democratic contender.

Of course, the flip side to Hillary is that she will always carry the burden of being a "Clinton" and will always be subject to the irrational prejudices that some people have against the Clintons. I'm sure that if Hillary is our Democratic nominee, there are some Republican Senators and Congressmen who will start making a list of ways that they can bring impeachment proceedings against her the day she moves into the White House.

Posted by: kdecker | March 6, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

hispana--i agree with you on this:

It is time that the Democratic party has major reforms and simplify the process all through the country.

AMEN--and leichtman--1st order of business by the DNC should be some standards and standardization of the primary process.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

and...

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"Reichmen you gonna waste the taxpayers money or is Hillary and Bill gonna foot the bill. I think the state DNC needs to check themselves and pay the cost for defying the National Party."

this guy frank is on point.

Great suggestion. If the gop wants the recount (clinton included), let them pay for it.

Is it true, like the above statemnt says, that if they re-count the two states (which I'm not for at all), that the delegates needed goes up? Is that true? I had never heard that? No wonder.

the gop is strong in florida with their old people and new yorkers. What with the econmy of MI, she COULD WIN. There's one way to play the game gop. Put all your eggs in teh places clinton/the gop is strong.

Still. If obama loses on this nonsense the party is destroyed. for what? Is it worth it gop? Dumb question. Of course it's worth it for the gop. a win-win. What about the country. What about NON-republcains. you had your chance gop. for decades on end. you wasted it. please stop the sabotage.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

after a nominee is decided fixing the broken primary system should be the dnc rules commitee'se first order of business. I presented a resolution for our state convention to consider to end our 2 staged caucus process here in Texas. I saw no elderly folks, handy capped, or people working the night shift at our caucus. How in the world should that be fair? We give Texans a full week to early vote which is great and 45 minutes precisely b/w 7:15 and 8 pm to sign in to our caucus. That sure doesn't sound like democracy to me. Could you imagine a general election where we told voters they only have precisely 45 minutes during their day to vote?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

leichtman

Let me say it again - the bill to move the primary was introduced in the legislature by a DEMOCRAT. The move was supported by most of the Florida Democratic establishment.

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"She loses her Senate seat by pulling herself and the party down in the process...again if she is already saying that McCain is better than Obama and she is like McCain...then the writing is on the wall..she is more important than the party and will only show that as she goes forward."

well said frank. this is why I think she's playing for mccain's vp. If she loses, after all she has done to rip her party apart, she will not get elected unless it's as a republican.

think about it clinton supporters. She cnanot win the democratic nomination with changing the rules. You do that the party is gone. the dnc won't risk that. Either you are republcains, or you don;t realize what you are doing. I know big dreams die hard (the first women president). shortly. It's not about race or sex. It's about the gop and those fighting them. If she would have took the same stances as obama (war funding withstanding) I would be with her. not only did she infadically fight for the war, but she has been with di fi biden and the rest of the moderate sell-outs since.

nothing to do with her sex or obama's race. But you know that. this is why we have to assume when you amek these crazy claims you are gop propogandists. Either you don't know what your talking about of lying. Help us help you if you don't know. Otherwise please stop the sabotage.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I wonder who gives the right to anyone here to crucify anyone here that you disagree with? We are all entitled to our opinions!!!
I guess some of the Obamites can't stand any criticism or questions raised and if it bothers you it must be for a reason.

The time to raise questions is NOW!!

As far as the CAUCASES, there is a good deal of opinion circulating that it is an outdated process and UNDEMOCRATIC process and it will cause major problems for Obama if he gets elected on the fact that it was the process on the majority of states that he won.

It is time that the Democratic party has major reforms and simplify the process all through the country. Perhaps this could mean winning an election, so go for simple primaries and eliminate the delegate apportionment which causes a mess. Whe are we going to get our act together?

And NO I don't need any medication. I am a happy retired federal worker voicing my opinion!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 6, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti |wrote:

gop rules? I bet you reven couting mi and fl in that to aren't ya?

HAHHAHAHAHAHA

thanks for illustrating my point gop. Crate wahtever new ruls you wish clinton supporters. go down the rabbit hole with fox. We'll see who's with you, other than republcains of course.
_________________________________________________________

Thanks so much for the laugh - exactly what i was hoping for from you Obama-is-my-crack heads. BTW, you conveniently left out the bottom of my post that said this was a hypothetical exercise for my amusement and for you to draw your own conclusion, not a cry to change the rules. You also ignored the later posts adding that I did not use delegate counts from Florida & Michigan. And you should really try Spellcheck. Taking the time to spell correctly is not only good manners, but helps people take your points, no matter how out of left field, seriously.

And yes, those Republicans sure are screwed up using such an unfair system like winner-take-all. My lord, what an insane thing to do, award all the delegates to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Seriously, where do they come up those crazy ideas?

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

actually mcgrupp: actually I recall a call into the Ed Schultz show from a fla dem claiming(can't confirm) that he received a robo call telling him to vote for B.O.in Orlando, so I guess the Obama campaign was concerned about his supporters staying home.Perhaps your side protest too much b/c you want ton practice politics as usual and just shut out floridians or as a BO supporter ridiculously suggest just give him half of the fla dedelegates, that certainly sounded fair don't you think?There is no other fair answer than a revote, the question is where fla gets $25 million and a broke michigan probably $10 million and no the dnc can't and should not shell out money they don't have and reward the Fla Republican party's meddling.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

chad

Yes

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. Martin of Georgia. Ethics and hypocrisy. Keating and savings and loan scandal. Change in attitudes and votes on countless issues since 2000 and a stunning tack to the extreme right in the Republican nomination certainly doesn't scream ETHICAL and deeply held BELIEF to me? McCain has had major conversions late in life ... it is one thing to say as a younger man I felt one way but now that I am older and wiser I feel differently. His conversions on abortion, taxes, immigration, and on and on occurred in his 60s and now 70s. Outside of his bedrock and steadfast service to this nation as a warrior 40 years ago, I find little to admire in him politically. Heck Lieberman likes him and that's enough to disqualify him in my Democrat opinion.

Posted by: alan.armitstead | March 6, 2008 03:56 PM
"

OK. Gop mccain love. Ok your supporting mccain. Cool.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Frickin republcains these days. think about the future. the gop with their infiltration tactics and sabotage of the OPPOSITION ticket is going to destroy politics in america. More so than it already is. If that's possible. think about the future. Maybe after eight years of obama the dem's don't have a candidate. maybe the r's do. Will you whine and cry then? I pretty sur eyou will. No, you will have rules to make sure it doesn't happen to your party by then. Frickin hypocrite gop

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

jimd52


excellent post--I learned a lot--aren't you also from J'ville?

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

abcde3 wrote:

"Solutions? If another primary can be held between now and the August convention, fine, let's do it. If not, the Florida and Michigan results should count, such as they are. In other words, Clinton should receive her proporitionate share based on her shares of the vote she received in both states, and Obama, who received no share of the vote in either state, should receive no delegates. Not a perfect solution, especially for the Obama team, but this is probably the best option from a lot of less than ideal choices"

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

Are you high, or just stupid?

Its not even an option. That goes against any rational idea of democracy.

No elections! Just appoint HillBilly.

Florida and Michigan paying for a Mulligan Election, is one thing. But there is no way in Hell she will just be awarded free delegates.

WHAT ABOUT EVERYONE IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WHO STAYED HOME & DIDN'T VOTE?
Those citizens stayed home because they were told these are FAUX ELECTIONS.

So much for democracy. END DYNASTIC RULE. NO MORE BUSHES, NO MORE CLINTONS and for that matter no more Adams or Harrisons. But lets Bring back the Roosevelts.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

jkrish B.O. outspending his opponent 3 to 1 and losing one state by 95,000 votes and Ohio by 200,000 votes is a win? Sounds delusional but if that is what you want to believe, go for it.

I worked for the Jim Webb campaign that helped take back the US Senate. Don't think that the Webb campaign behind by 4% points days before the Va 2006 election or the makeup of the US Senate would have counted a Jim Webb loss by 4% (he too was down by double digits to Sen macaca) would have been a victory. John Kerry was down by a large no. in Ohio and then lost by only 80,000 votes. Would you call that a win too for Pres. Kerry/

so IF Obama should lose Ohio in Nov by a mere 200,000 votes and then losing Ohio and the whitehouse, you promise to return to the fix and tell us how you actually won. Right?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

leichtman

One more thing, the Miami Herald and the NYT funded a "recount" of disputed ballots to see what the impact on the results would have been with a more liberal interpretation of ballot marks. They found that Bush still would have won if "arguable" ballots were accepted (an analysis of the chads). It also found that of the over-votes (votes for two candidates on same ballot) most would appear to have been for Gore and he would have won. However, there is no way that ballots with votes for two candidates could be awarded to a single candidate. These overvotes were mainly in Palm Beach county. The bottom line - Bush won narrowly but, if the voters had all marked their ballots to correctly mirror their choice, Gore would have won.

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

That's what i'm talking about.

Great post:

Michael A. Martin
Atlanta
March 5, 2008

Posted by: michael538 | March 6, 2008 03:43 PM


That's what i'm talking about. Obama supporters. you need not fight in the treanches with the gop. allow soldiers to do that. Ignore the gop 9clitnon included0 peanut gallery. that is how thye fool you. post your posts like micheal here. Leave the verbal battle to people like me. that's why I blog. To direct the fascsit pig propogandists away from you and to people like me. Ignore if you must.

but post your posts free and unafraid. do not fear the fascsits. The only power THEY have is the WE, as americans, give them. Don't give them your power.

they like to rile you up. they are not americans. Choosing party over country is treason. Let the traitors play their elementary school "I know you are but waht am I game". The worse thing you can do is engage the fascists. Call our their lies and falsehoods. But do not engage. The gop is done. the moderate clinton sell-outs are trying to drag the demcoratic party down with them. Don't give the gop that credibility.

jsut a suggestion. Post you. Ignore the peanut gallery. School yard tough guy bullies who giggle like school girls when you get angry. Don't play their game. The gop is now irrelevant for a generation. Allow them to be. Post your posts. Call out lies and propoganda, if you choose to. Do nto engage them. It's a waste of time. they wil never change. they don't blog to grow and change and help this country. Quite the contrary. they blog to propogate. they blog to SABOTAGE and divide us. Don't give them your power.

Again, just a freindly suggestion. do your thing america. The gop is done for a generation, if we allow them to be. (clinton included)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

leichtman

As a Florida resident, I must correct some of your misstatements.

The bill to move the Florida primary date was introduced by a Democratic legislator and had strong bi-partisan support. The Florida Democratic party leaders were enthusiastic supporters.

Florida is in a budget crisis and the voters would go ballistic if they spent $25 Million on a redo.

The Florida butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County was designed by a DEMOCRAT. She thought it would be easier for the large number of elderly citizens in that county. She was, of course, tragically wrong and lost her bid for re-election.

The Florida Supreme Court authorized a recount and the US Supreme Court stopped it. Of course, a Republican legislature was against a recount at the time. If the roles were reversed, can you seriously argue that a Democratic legislature would support a recount if Gore was the apparent winner? In any event, that wasn't a decision for the legislature it was decided in the Florida courts. Now I will agree that Katherine Harris was a joke.

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

You can't use the results of Florida and Michigan as they are; the contests were held on the presumption that they wouldn't count. The candidates agreed not to advertise or campaign there. Lack of campaigning and focus on local problems undoubtedly affected voter turnout. You can blame the stubborn party guidelines or the overzealous state governors, but the time to raise hell was when this decision was first announced. As they stand, the existing results are based on the sly presumption that "the DNC is just bluffing; they won't REALLY exclude our entire state from the convention". An election that everyone said isn't going to count but--psst--we think it will count anyway.

The DNC has implied it would support the results of new primary contests held by the rogue states now that they wouldn't be breaking the party rules. As a resident in a state who got to vote AND be counted, I have no cause to oppose this. However, in the big picture, virtually nothing will change. Unless one of the candidates makes a MAJOR bumble--bigger than anything we've seen thus far--between now and whenever these contests would take place, the "loser" would still get 40%-50% of each state's delegates, and the new nomination "finish line" would be incremented to accommodate the no-longer-excluded delegates.

Nothing changes. The final decision is still going to be up to the superdelegates.

Posted by: ComfortablyDumb | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Future...its about the past and the old glory days of the 90's...yeah all shucks...and how to hide a BJ from your wife and the GOP. Been there..done that.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Fl democratic party! You know what I mean...they should be accountable..what are they saying? Clinton is the one ranting with the GOP. Who gambled?

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Obama PURPOSEFULLY took his name off the Michigan Ballot. This told us in Michigan that he DOES NOT CARE about the people of Michigan and our issues. Shame on you Barak Obama SHAME ON YOU! We voted for Hillary because she understand the plight of the American worker and National security issues."

WOW. Some peopel are just beyond reasonable discussion. WOW.

I think she would win michagan the same way she won ohio. I won't elaborate. I'll be nice and leave it at that. Still. not like this. Not soveit style, one candidate elections. Give it up. you are playing a risk/reward game clinton supporters. think about the future.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter. I am indeed very saddened that suddenly the illusion of HRC's irrevocably changing the landscape has seized all the Clinton sycophants. They are now gorging on her raw red meat tactics, (the diabolical kill or be killed, self aggrandizing machinery evidenced during his entire presidency). I voted for the Clintons and will vote for her if she is the nominee. Having said that--I feel that the real drama going on here is not between the Clinton/Obama factions but for the 'new order' of Democrats which is like a woman in labor who is having an infant shoved back into her!

We are having normal albeit acute 'labor pains trying to'evolve into a 'New Order'. HRC the 'fighter'( which is no more than a euphemism for a devouring, grandiose self aggrandizing human being) is reacting to fear; fear that this man, Obama is exposing her and her damn ego, wallet and power hunger are being threatened. She can't stand it. I believe on the basis of the debates; just watching them, that she is secretly in awe of Obama but the fact is that she is a lifelong career politican. She is frightened of authenticity.
I do agree that at the risk of Obama compromising some of his 'I'm the good father' intentions, he needs to fight fire with fire--its the only thing this viper understands!

Posted by: jtannen | March 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

This inspired me-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om9bGFHPpjg

This scared me.
www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

Posted by: darlamc | March 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"thecrisis: your campaign outspent the Clinton campaign 3 to 1 in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island how did that work out for you. Howard Dean and John Kerry also raised enormous sums of money, last time I checked neither won the presidency either.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 03:26 PM
"

It worked great. he was down by 30 points. he only lost by a few points. Great comeback. And the delegates? You do the math

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

frank if you are saying the state parties scrwed up that is nothing new. If you are saying screw the voters b/c Dean and the Republican legislature created this please explain how that is not politics as usual something I have heard your side does not like.
Right frank the fla DNC needs to pay it back. There is no Fla DNC(that stands for Democratic national Committee) and the national party doesn't have the money. The disgraced Fla republican state legislature should be shamed into coughing up the $25 million, they caused this. Its the same bunch that refused to recount the Gore vote and created the butterfly ballot. Why should we trust the Fla Republican party. It is these types of Fla political stunts that manipulate our Presidential elections in Fla and Dean needs to finally stand up to them.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"harry4: Would campaign finance laws allow them to just pay for a redo of MI and FL with campaign funds? I was thinking a separate fund because of campaign laws and because differences in the campaign's funds and incentives for having new elections differ. Seems easier to have the DNC set it up. What do you think?

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 03:02 PM

"

THE GOP IS OUSHING IT. i SAW THE REPUBLICAN governer crist on blitzer. He will not pay for it. he doesn't want the tax payers of florida to pay for it. HE won't pay for it.

Not only is the gop (clinton included) demanding for a recount, the gop is demanding how it is paid and who pays it.

May work with republcains and their media. I pray it doesn't work with DEMOCRATS. You know, the people who's process this is supposed to be. Maybe it's just me but the gop has a litle to much say in the democratic nomination process. AMybe next time the street will run both ways and each side will get to pick their own candidates.

I say screw the gop. The opposition party is called that for a reason. Screw em I say, in this case. Mccains' potential vp candidate calling for a change of rule sin the democraitc process. No conflict of interests there.

I don't blame the fascsit gop cult for trying it. Will the moderarte sell-outs on the democratic side CAVE TO THE GOP YET AGAIN. That is the real question here.

i don't think they will. But i also didn't think the american people were dumb enough to fall for the media/clinton/gop trick last week, to steal an election. I was disappointed then.

I no longer underestimate the CAPULATION of the democratic party anymore, due to cowardance. Your right clinton supporters. I am not a democrat. I am an independant for this very reason. Where's the spine. Can't vote gop. Where's the brain. so i toil in obscurity for decades waiting for representation. I have it now, for the most part, as millions others do. Are we americans, like you gop. You have much representation. you have pleanty of bais "news".

I know you fear what happens when the left get's power and corruption is rooted out. I know you feel it will eliminate you party. think about it this way. What if there was only Pepsi. No other drinks. Why would they improve their product? you claim to be about the fre market and letting the "market" decide. Why not in poitics. Why cheat stack the deck and supress votes? Free market (of ideas)?

i know it's scary gop. If you love this country please practice FOR YOUR PEOPLE what you preach for everyone else.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat, the "Red-Phone" ad really made me think long and hard........

After careful thought I don't think I want EITHER of these candidates are truly qualified to pick up up that phone.

I'm going with McKane as long as his VP choice is not totally right-wing.

Posted by: kenstee | March 6, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Even if you toss in the Mich. & FL. results Hillary still loses...its not about who it helps its about playing by the rules that you agreed to at the start.

Standing by your word...another strange concept.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Do you wear boxers or briefs? (Both candidates, please respond)

McCain: briefs

Obama: boxers

Clinton: "I go commando."

:)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh...yeah...I think its time to bring out Peter Paul since it has much more to it than the empty Rezko accusations...taped lies...illegal fundraising...check it then come back and explain it to me.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Reichmen you gonna waste the taxpayers money or is Hillary and Bill gonna foot the bill. I think the state DNC needs to check themselves and pay the cost for defying the National Party. If you don't want to play by the rules and try to force yourself in you pay the price and here it is. It was a gamble and the voters lost. The state Dems need to face the music. They should resign and pay back the party for the money they wasted if they have a re-do.

Accountability...strange concept.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

In Pennsylvania, an important issue that has not been addressed will be the determining criteria for my vote.

Do you wear boxers or briefs? (Both candidates, please respond)

Posted by: nitnyleo | March 6, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

neecee--I get your point--absurdity and unfair--check, got it.

You were convincing in getting me to see that having a redo might NOT be the best thing.

However, there is also the practical argument that dave puts forth--there is no good solution, just just do your best.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton, McCain just the same! Clinton, McCain just the same!

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Then ask yourself, honestly, why Obama refuses to answer the questions regarding his 17 yr relationship with Rezko, if there is nothing to hide. None of this would seem so distasteful, except that Obama paints himself as above "politics as usual". I, for one, refuse to be scammed. The politics of hope and change? My ***.

Posted by: rosietheriveter4 | March 6, 2008 09:13 AM

*****************************
Your a** indeed - what questions would you like answered , riveter? You base your whole premise on innuendo and lies. There has been nothing in the indictment that puts Senator Obama in legal or ethical hot water. He also took the donation and gave it to charity. What else would you, the ohhh so objective *cough* McCainiac *cough* voter like him to answer? Perhaps you, svretarder and hispana should get together and form a club. You can post to each other all the disproved "facts" as you know them and repeat them over and over again. And cut pictures of McCain and Bush together and sigh... they are dreamy, aren't they?

Posted by: LABC | March 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

split them evenly(fla and michigan delegates) even though BO didn't win 1/2 those delegates, yea right that seems real fair, in fact I would call that B.O. Politics as Usual. You are kidding rigt? Support a revote, Fla and Michigan need to do the right/fair thing for their citizens regardless of who it helps.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

She loses her Senate seat by pulling herself and the party down in the process...again if she is already saying that McCain is better than Obama and she is like McCain...then the writing is on the wall..she is more important than the party and will only show that as she goes forward.

Democrats will not accept that kind of talk if she keeps it up and there will be a price. Mark my words. This is fact, not emotion or empty talk.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The stubborness of the Michigan and Florida Democratic committees shouldn't disenfranchise the voters in those states.

I vote for a do-over. And the DNC and state committees should kick in part of the cost.

It would be a travesty if the DNC decided to seat the delegates without a do-over, since neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned in those states and Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot.

Posted by: johntadams | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

And if you need a "pick-me-up" just go play the delegate game on CNN.com. Go worse case or best case and the conclusion is the same...Obama wins!

And a fair solution to Mich. and FL....split the delegates evenly between them, so those guys can be penalized and seated...then move on...everyone's welcome at the convention, but rules is rules, especially when you said okay at the start.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Don't get upset at her for staying in. She wants to lose her Senate seat as well. let her show her true colors.
Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 04:10 PM
---------------------------
How does she lose her senate seat by staying in the race?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

when ads are run about foreign policy crisis and the idea that there are real crisis for the next pres to deal with they should look at the crashing stock market, economic recession, and massive home foreclosures.there are is a real economic crisis now and Hillary had plans to deal with home foreclosure and an economic stimulus plan months before it was a glimmer in Sen Obama's eye. If Hillary can do 1/2 the job Bill did for the economy, that in itself will be good reason for her to win the nomination.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

On the subject of Florida and Michigan, Sen. Obama's supporters keep telling me about these "rules everyone agreed to play by," and so on. Nonsense, with all due respect. No one agreed that Florida and Michigan should be ignored.

"We just won't seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida." That was just a bad idea, poorly executed, no thanks to Mr. Dean and the DNC. In fact, the reaction from many the first time that plan not to seat delegates from those two states was announced essentially was "if things are close that is going to turn out to have been a very bad idea."

Dean and the DNC handled the Florida and Michigan business stupidly, and that was grossly apparent before the primaries there even took place. A screwed up situation in case of a tight race was very, very predictable.

Now everyone appreciates the problem. We hardly can pretend that those two states don't exist, and deem Obama the party nominee based on what would be a fraud (a fraud in respect of a presidential election in Florida? My goodness!).

It isn't the fault of the people of Florida and Michigan that their primaries were scheduled at a time that was inconvenient to party leadership. I don't usually bang the drum for state's rights, but what the hell? They can take their primaries whenever they want to, as far as I am concerned. A divisive, suspect nomination is going to do a lot more damage to the party than a couple of states holding early primaries.

Solutions? If another primary can be held between now and the August convention, fine, let's do it. If not, the Florida and Michigan results should count, such as they are. In other words, Clinton should receive her proporitionate share based on her shares of the vote she received in both states, and Obama, who received no share of the vote in either state, should receive no delegates. Not a perfect solution, especially for the Obama team, but this is probably the best option from a lot of less than ideal choices.

One more opinion - this very expensive and divisive screw up, which casts the entire process in a very ugly shadow, should cost a few bozos at the DNC their jobs, and I mean the folks at the top.

Posted by: abcde3 | March 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Haven't heard a valid defense of Hillary's hypocricy on NAFTA - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

Posted by: RollaMO | March 6, 2008 01:21 PM

To catherine 4, svreader and all those who 'value' Clinton so much - you really should check out this breaking story from last night - RollaMO, thanks for the link!

Clinton lies, cheats, tries to divide and conquer with a twisted devisiveness such as I have never seen in my life...

All I can ask is this:
Hillary, what kind of an example are you trying to set for the youth of this country?

Hillary, the way you are trying to win is just showing what a loser you are.

Posted by: ndolan622 | March 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Don't get upset at her for staying in. She wants to lose her Senate seat as well. let her show her true colors.

Obama will remain calm and steady while she goes off on mood swings based on what's happening that day. That may appeal to some older folks who have loyalty to her because she's a Clinton and a hard fighting woman, but it will ultimately lose her the nomination. Remember old folks vote.

If you want to do something with that energy help get some more younger folks to the polls, especially in PA. That will be her brick wall...seven weeks and two Obama wins away and she could be toast...at least in everyone else's mind.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

sequoiaqueneaux: you wrote
"...And I'm really tired of these childish, tantrum threats from Hillary supporters AND Obama supporters insisting they will vote for McCain of their preferred candidate doesn't win the nomination.

Grow up."

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

Very good.

I am an Obama supporter.

I'm a New Yorker who still sees Hillary as a carpetbagger robbing our Seat in the Senate.

If Hillary uses faul-tricks to beat Obama at gaining the nomination. I'm not saying that I will then vote for McCain. I will however listen to both candidates arguments and plans before deciding whom to vote for (rather than against). Although, I won't be thrilled by it; that would most liekly mean siding with Clinton on the issues.

That being said. I HOPE Obama clubbers that b*tch; that way I won't have to, vote for her. I GET TO VOTE FOR OBAMA, again.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Concerning Hillary being a fighter: I'm a 32 yo male Latino who just voted for Hillary in Texas. If it means anything, two months ago I was leaning towards Obama and his message of hope/change. Clearly he is a smart politician who could really make an impact just by being elected president, but I have to admit that the 'Hillary as an experienced fighter' storyline won me over.
The 90s were great for my family economically, and Bill Clinton was a great foreign policy president. I remember the Republicans throwing everything at the Clintons. Yet, they fought back and withstood the onslaught. Most importantly they governed well and protected my interests and those of my family, community and country. Seeing her criss cross Texas and Ohio, getting up at 5am to be at a plant shift change in Toledo, losing her voice. It reminded me that despite everything thrown at her she is still trying to make things happen for working people. While I'm not a big fan of a dynastic Presidency, the fact is she does have more experience in Washington and she has proven that she will fight for my interests. I haven't seen the same fight in Obama. If Senator Obama wants to win over Latinos like me he needs to show us that he cares and that he is willing to go toe to toe with the other side on issues which matter (Social Security, Health insurance, paying our soldiers better and caring for their health). Hillary and her husband take attack after attack but they keep fighting for my interests. This impressed me. That is why I voted for her.

Posted by: martinez | March 6, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

It is rather pathetic to watch Hillary Clinton engage in this scorched earth policy for her own personal benefit; seems to have learned it from her serial liar impeached President of a husband. Honestly, get ready to see all of Bubba's dalliances, Marc Rich, and the whole sordid tale told all over again.

She has two chances in the general election; slim and none. Few things will motivate the GOP base like seeing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Plus, how many African-American voters are going to stay home (usually reliable Democratic voters) because of her husband's foolish comments about Obama? Who's her base? The old, white, and dumb. Not exactly a broad constituency.

If she's the nominee...President McCain. Write it down. Honestly, I didn't think the Democrats could possibly screw this up; was I ever wrong about this.

War Hero Republican v. Wife of Draft Dodging, impeached ex-President; Kerry is looking better and better.

Posted by: jcurrin | March 6, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

You reap what you sow...ticket to exile and irrelevance.

It may be painful to watch over the next few months, but she will go down and in the fashion of her choosing...I can't wait until April 15th! Will she move those goal posts as well?

Yes we can! Yes we can!

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse


proudtobeGOP wrote:

"You must be refering to my dog, who clearly has more experience than the junior senator."
____________

Nope, I'm referring to Senator Obama who has earned the same place in the national government as your candidate.

Oh, but he's not as "experienced" at being bought and sold by corporate America, crashing airplanes in Vietnam, sucking off Bush and starting pointless 100-Year Wars in the Middle East.

I'll take Obama over a borderline senile octengenarian with an anger management problem and no knowldege of anything outside his own corrupt Washington world.

Oh, no!

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I am so damn mad.

I posted here before but this crap is ridiculous.

you all are trying to kill the best thing America has going for it

why is this a game to the media?

this "game" the media "reports on " ( CREATES ) translates into people's lives, life and death. The "contest" between Bush and Gore/Kerry led us to the insane Bush doctrine of killing to spread democracy to "keep us safe".

CAN WE NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY IN THIS COUNTRY!!

screw the archaic "democratic" party rules and the electoral college while your at it.

if this country had any balls we'd revolt

whoever gets the most votes should win.

there is almost no honest or even possible way for Hillary to do this

stop keeping her in the race

she is bad for this country

everything is not 50/50. she is often wrong where Obama is right. This is obvious. No one ever brings up Lewisky, Whitewater but I just saw an update on Rezco. Obama is pretty obviously clean of any wrong doing here so why does the press update me like this is a Anna Nicole Smith custody preliminary hearing? ( now that would be important right Larry? )

stop buying the clinton crap. it's over. most people have moved on. texas and ohio is not the whole nation. he's killing her. 55 million in February. 12 states in row. she lost.

Hillary Clinton has Lost.

this is the story.

( or it should be... and will be )

Posted by: jrak | March 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will enjoy her two days of praise for moving the goal posts yet again. What happened to having to win big in TX and OH to go on...it's a numbers game people and she's losing.

She was ahead by 20 points in those states a couple of weeks ago. She won by only 10 in OH and only 4 in TX and will most likely lose the caucus. She gained nothing meaningful except more hot air.

Is the Clinton campaign just begging Obama to question her credentials. And come on...saying that she and McCain have a lifetime of experience and baby Obama has none.

Give me a break you traitor...comparing yourself to McCain and holding him up while hanging Obama out as worse than McCain. Obama has not stooped so low nor will he Benedict Arnold!

Time will tell and she will be begging for the VP job. No dice traitor!

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

neecee - I think a do-over is less unfair than anything else. It is obviously not a perfect solution - there isn't one. Edwards took his name off the Mich ballot also.

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Martin of Georgia. Ethics and hypocrisy. Keating and savings and loan scandal. Change in attitudes and votes on countless issues since 2000 and a stunning tack to the extreme right in the Republican nomination certainly doesn't scream ETHICAL and deeply held BELIEF to me? McCain has had major conversions late in life ... it is one thing to say as a younger man I felt one way but now that I am older and wiser I feel differently. His conversions on abortion, taxes, immigration, and on and on occurred in his 60s and now 70s. Outside of his bedrock and steadfast service to this nation as a warrior 40 years ago, I find little to admire in him politically. Heck Lieberman likes him and that's enough to disqualify him in my Democrat opinion.

Posted by: alan.armitstead | March 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

frednginger: EXACTLY!

FLOTUS is not experience to be POTUS

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

You did not mention that she was on Sam Erwin's Watergate staff. Her husband was Atty General and Governor of Arkansas at the time she worked as a lawyer. Sam Walmart would not have tolerated the abuses of his company by his son's operation today so that argument is bogus.

I am glad to see Gen X involved today, I was just disappointed that they refused to stand by Sen Kerry in 2004. And what about Iraq sir. Last night I posted Sen. Obama's vote in 2006 on the John Kerry resolution to end the war and start bringing troops home. Feingold and Durbin yea, Sen. Obama nea. You are welcome to have your opinion but please look at the entire record including Sen Obama's missing critical US Senate votes and voting the wrong way on Iraq since he has HAD A VOTE in the US Senate. If you want Sen McCain to choose the replacement for Justice Stephens that is certainly your business as well, but again read the whole story and understand that Sen Obama is no Russ Feingold or Kucinich when it comes to the war.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

neecee wrote:

"If the DNC doesn't figure out a way to give Hillary the delegates she EARNED in our state, then myself and many others WILL be voting for McCain this fall if Hillary isn't the nominee."
________

That's really mature.

Obviously there needs to be a re-vote if Michigan and Florida's delegates are to be counted. Obama wasn't even on the ballot because the DNC, not the Obama campaign, was penalizing Michigan for shady primary maneuvering. So you are punishing Obama? That's so stupid.

And I'm really tired of these childish, tantrum threats from Hillary supporters AND Obama supporters insisting they will vote for McCain of their preferred candidate doesn't win the nomination.

Grow up.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Choosing the USA president is similar to choosing the CEO of a global company. Who will do the best for the shareholders? (American voters). In business to bring about change, you need to understand the mindset of the influential role players. Do not delude yourself with the notion that "votes" for Obama will result in change. He has virtually no network in the Forbes top 40. The only person that can facilitate change is an insider with the desire and influence amongst the powerful corporates that dominate the USA economy.
Given her global experience and genuine desire for change, I believe Hillary is the only option for Democrats desiring change from within, that will convince the existing powerbrokers to adapt and deliver the "New Democracy" to to the USA.

Posted by: erich.henning | March 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Ain't it sumpin?

Even today after its clear that Hillary scored solid enough wins with the electorate to prove she's still very much in the Race, the Media and Obama focuses on her "Tactics". While on the other hand when speaking of her opponents, Obama or McCaine, the Media seems to focus on their
"Message".....When will the "Liberal" and the "Conservative" press stop insisting on a double standard when it comes to the Clintons!


I for one refuse to belive that for all the money and lawyerly minds that have been arrayed against Hillary, that her opponents can not but see that her supporters love her for WHO she is and what she represents to us, NOT for her 'Tactics' Or even a secret 'Mmmmessage' she may hold for us.

No,Hillary (and Bill) represent much more than any 'message' to her supporters. They represent to US just exactly what Hillary spoke about in her Victory speech from Ohio the other night.....They represent what it is like for "Anyone who has been counted out BUT refuses to be knocked out".
No, in its most basic form, (first Bill) and then Hillary represent to us all the effort and sacrifice the little guys and underpriviliged people in this country must make just to survive to carry-on another Day!

Yeah, we DO know the Clinton's feel our pain....And we do know that they will NOT give in to the almost overwhelming overpriviliged and self entitled elements that have grown So strong in Washington and the Corporate board rooms of this Country over the last few years......

If you guys in the Press room are serious in describing to the rest of the country what the "Message" of the Clintons REALLY is, try this on for size...ITs the real message if you are interested in anything BUT spin..


Birddog

Posted by: Birddog08 | March 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis, but I think the Clinton campaign should emphasize her economic plans moving forward and remind people of how good the economy was under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. In times of economic stress, the issue overrides every other to voters. With so many people looking at 'upside down' home values, the real estate market still crashing, foreclosures rising, gas heading to $4 per gallon and health care costs spiralling out-of-control -- its all about the economy this cycle==just like 1992.

Posted by: jamkarmel | March 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis, but I think the Clinton campaign should emphasize her economic plans moving forward and remind people of how good the economy was under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. In times of economic stress, the issue overrides every other to voters. With so many people looking at 'upside down' home values, the real estate market still crashing, foreclosures rising, gas heading to $4 per gallon and health care costs spiralling out-of-control -- its all about the economy this cycle==just like 1992.

Posted by: jamkarmel | March 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

chadibuins:

You completely missed the absurdity in my comment, that was the point! Its ridiculous to have us revote when the circumstances were completely different than they are now. It's absurd to make tax payers of both states pay for a 'revote' when half the candidates didn't want to be considered by the voters in the first place!

Because revoting would be absurd, then every other state that had Edwards on its ballot should have a revote too, get it? Its just simply absurd!

The DNC got it wrong and is punishing the voters whom they will sorely need this fall. Its simply undemocratic to get to vote twice because one person didn't like the results. Of course, if you're in Texas, you do get to vote twice, but that's a whole different issue.

Posted by: neecee | March 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Legal, registered residents of voting age can participate in a Caucus to ultimate elect their pledged delegates. The caucus process is certainly a more democratic and inclusive process than is the use of Superdelegates.

In regards to the 3 am ad, Penn stole that from McCain and it will come back to haunt Clinton's campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/was-clintons-3am-ad-xe_n_89449.html

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

People would think it's insane to hire as a CEO someone who claimed they had "experience" because they were the spouse of a CEO. People would think it's insane to hire their investment banker based on the fact that they had been married to an investment banker. Yet, inexplicably, people believe that Hillary has "experience" for this very reason. (But only for what is now considered "the good stuff"...after all, she had nothing to do with Nafta) What kind of feminist is this that claims "experience" based on her husband's achievements? Thanks, I have my own degrees and experience and I support Obama.

Posted by: frednginger | March 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

harry 4 and Illinois--what do you think about neecee's point on the unfairness of the do-over?


any one else?

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Will the media please stop discussing the FL and MI delegates as if they factor into the 2025 delegates needed for the dem nomination. IF FL and MI are counted (whether there is a re-vote or not) the number of delegates needed for the nomination will increase to 2208. In other words, seating these delegates in all likelyhood will have little to no impact on who wins. Thats not to say seating these delegates is not the right thing to do, but pushing this idea that it will win the race for HRC or lose it for Obama is pretty silly.

Posted by: william.dorseymd | March 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

still no Obama blueprint and we're heading into hour 10.

c'mon CC.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"he is a brilliant political mind with the potential to be a healer in some respects"

You must be refering to my dog, who clearly has more experience than the junior senator.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

neecee said: "It simply would be unfair and undemocratic to allow Florida and Michigan to vote TWICE. Especially since John Edwards was still a viable candidate at the time these states voted. Therefore, if Michigan and Florida revotes, it would only be "fair" if every other state that had Edwards on the ballot also gets to revote."

While I found the rest of your post to be drivel--you did make an excellent point here.

That is very true and just made me rethink my support of a do-over--and again-I am a Floridian and Obama supporter.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

THE DEATH OF HOPE: THE YOUNG DEMOCRATS

It is a special thing to witness a political candidate, or for that matter- anything political, that fires up our young with hope and enthusiasm. Being a white male baby boomer, I haven't seen this level of youth political fervor since the 60's. And I have loyally stood with them in support of Barak Obama. I personally know of no major accomplishment in my own life that wasn't preceded by hope. Our youth know this. It is obvious that many of us lost it a long, long time ago. The saddest thing for me is to observe a candidate cynically mocking a fellow candidate that is truly successful in empowering those that will follow us. I no longer find America to be the land of patriots, rather a sad scape where we listen to our fears and despair more than we listen to the hopes of our children.

After decades of continued political dominance by the same families, these "veteran" candidates espouse their privileged experience. I shudder at the thought of the experience they speak of: Catering to special interests, deficit spending, hidden backroom politics. I guess this is the type of experience that many of us want; as opposed to someone that challenges us, someone bold and new, someone that just might finally restore faith, honesty, and accountability to the Beltway. And perhaps most important, someone that is NOT experienced in all the things that disenfranchise us, the common citizens. Or maybe we find it best to pass our own mantle of hopelessness, despair and marginalization to our children, that they might enjoy the American political system as much as we have. After all, our kind tend to favor what we know as opposed to what we want; Something that the politicians of fear know all too well.

As for me, if Mr. Obama is swindled out of the nomination by the same old dirty politics of innuendo, lies, and fear- I will definitely vote for McCain. After all, Hillary speaks of her lofty experience (starting as a Walmart lawyer). This "experience" is miniscule compared to McCain's years in office. And Hillary's public service? I don't think she spent six years in a prisoner of war camp. Financial transparency? The Clintons won't even show us their tax returns or the funding for Bill Clinton's library (special interest to the hilt). I guess she doesn't want to show off how she is just a humble commoner like the rest of us. What about Iraq? Simple, Hillary sided with Bush. And spending? John McCain has never even added an earmark to legislation. Transparency and the public interest? Do any of us remember when as First Lady, Hillary held closed door sessions on health care? None of us had any idea what was being discussed about our common good (talk about fear and politics).

Looks like the issues that Hillary took up with Mr. Obama aren't going to hold much weight against McCain, but I am sure she and her ilk will be hunting for dirt around some rusty old water cooler somewhere. In such a scenario and in consideration of ethics and hypocrisy: John McCain will have my support.

Michael A. Martin
Atlanta
March 5, 2008

Posted by: michael538 | March 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

25 retired General including Lou Shelton, Jo Sestack are speaking right now about Hillary's support from the military and her bipartisan bill with Lindsey Graham to extend death benefits to our brave soldiers and extend tricare to our reserves must sound terrible to some of you calling her a republican. Apparently standing up for the miltray and reaching across party line to secure benefits for our military makes her a Republican. Not in my eyes or the nation's. She has a real commitment to our men and women in uniform that I am proud of.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Message to Obama supporters from a fellow Obama supporter (7 votes in my immediate family for him in our primary here in VA). First, any of you who could vote for Obama but not Clinton need to get your priorities in order. For the life of me if you can even remotely entertain thoughts of voting for McCain if Obama somehow loses the nomination then you shouldn't have been an Obama supporter to begin with. There is about a gnat's width between them on the major issues facing this counry ... there is a chasm between either of them and McCain. Second, if you think Obama has been on the receiving end of "negative campaign ads", just wait ... you haven't seen anything negative. Should O win the nomination there will be endless negative spots from the Republicans and the right, McCain's protestations aside. Third, there has got to be some MUTUALLY acceptable resolution to the Michigan/Florida delegation issue. You will not win in the fall without Michigan and Florida will already be tough to win and would be impossible if you disenfranchise millions of Democrats. Remember, it wasn't the voters who chose these dates. It also isn't the Michigan and Florida Democrats who permit unrepresentative Iowa and NH to go first. Don't penalize voters when the issue is with the leaders. Fourth, caucuses are the LEAST representative way of selecting a candidate and we Democrats need to ditch them forever after this race. And please spare me the crud about commitment to a candidate and all that hooey. The bottom line is given 12 hours to vote (and absentee ballots) there is little excuse on the part of a committed voter to not vote. Limiting a voter to a few hours in the evening virtually assures less participation from those on lower socio-economic ladders. So be happy ... this is a good race, both candidates will benefit from it and whomever ultimately prevails is without doubt the only option for this country in a race with McCain.

Posted by: alan.armitstead | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

It simply would be unfair and undemocratic to allow Florida and Michigan to vote TWICE. Especially since John Edwards was still a viable candidate at the time these states voted. Therefore, if Michigan and Florida revotes, it would only be "fair" if every other state that had Edwards on the ballot also gets to revote.

Obama PURPOSEFULLY took his name off the Michigan Ballot. This told us in Michigan that he DOES NOT CARE about the people of Michigan and our issues. Shame on you Barak Obama SHAME ON YOU! We voted for Hillary because she understand the plight of the American worker and National security issues.

If its Obama v. McCain, Michigan and Florida Will go for McCain. At least Hillary has a chance keeping Michigan and Florida in play this Fall. Michigan can't afford to have another contest, our economy is awful. If the DNC doesn't figure out a way to give Hillary the delegates she EARNED in our state, then myself and many others WILL be voting for McCain this fall if Hillary isn't the nominee.

Posted by: neecee | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

dsbtog said: "Obama hasn't been doing well in the polls the last couple of days, but interpreting the results from March 4 as "the tide has turned" is uncritically repeating the Clinton campaign's talking points."

I have to def agree with you there!

Fine she won--I have no problem admitting that but winning a state by 10 points that you were ahead in by 20 points 14 days before is hardly a call to repudiate Obama--

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote: s

"seq --

I guess you haven't heard. The tide has turned. Hillary Clinton won 3 of the lasst 4 primaries."
____________

Oh, yeah! The tide has turned. That must be why two weeks ago, Hillary was supposed to gain nearly 100 delegates from Tuesday's contests and ended up net gaining about 4. WOW! She lost 25+ point leads and barely squeeked by in Texas by 3 points! What a comeback!

I wonder if that's how Obama managed to raise $20,000,000 more in February. It's so OVER for him. LOL.

svreader wrote: "Why are you so in love with Obama?"
__________

I'm not "in love" with Obama. I respect his intellect, foresight, policy stances, the fact that he is a man of the world and is truly symbolic of the generational and cultural shift so badly needed in the USA. Despite his opponents' smears, I consider it a very good quality that he knows about and respects other cultures and can intelligently approach the clash of civilizations our world is struggling pointlessly through. I do not think he is a messiah figure like you mindlessly vomit out constantly, but he is a brilliant political mind with the potential to be a healer in some respects.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

HILARY is by far the best choice for the Dems and this Country! It is a travesty that gross SEXISM is tolerated and condoned, but everyone tries to play nice on RACISM. Obama was getting cuddled by the media because they were afraid of being labelled racist and having Al Sharpton come after them! On the other hand, Hilary, an accomplished and distinguished woman is pilloried, and bashed without fail and no one bats an eyelid. The next president of the US inherits a huge mess from GW - a broken economy, two wars, terrorism fears, and a divided congress - all those fancy "Change" sermons from Obama is not going anywhere - are Dems so stupid as to think the republicans will just roll over and play dead?? You need a tested Democrat who can fight not just for the party but for ALL OF US. Finally, Howard Dean should better fess up and count the FL and MI delegates, if not, the Dems can kiss the Presidency goodbye and we will end up with not only a war champion, but a champion of the surge that is not working!! For those of you threatening to vote McCain when Hilary wins the Nom, go ahead!! You will soon be drafted into the Army for the upcoming 100 year tour of duty in Baghdad!!

Posted by: kobasgroup | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote
--------------
seq

I guess you haven't heard. The tide has turned. Hillary Clinton won 3 of the lasst 4 primaries.

Why are you so in love with Obama?
---------------


Clinton has been ahead in TX, OH and RI the whole primary season - so although she won those states, her victories were expected and hardly qualify as "tide turners".

Obama hasn't been doing well in the polls the last couple of days, but interpreting the results from March 4 as "the tide has turned" is uncritically repeating the Clinton campaign's talking points.

Posted by: dsbtog | March 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign just announced $55 million raised in Feb!

Posted by: alexander.arensberg | March 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I'd have to agree with JKrishnamurti --

Hillary is campaigning as though she'd like to be McCain's VP!

Posted by: hermanSF | March 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

ddepuemd said: "Everyone, especially Obama, criticize Hillary for her vote in 2002 to invade Iraq. Ask yourself now, how did you feel then? Ask your friends. We were all lied to by our president and his men and so was Hillary. More than 75% of the public believed Hussein had WMDs and agreed that he should be stopped now. Ok, so we were all wrong. Don't pin it on Hillary, pin it on Bush."

I am not a crazy anti-war liberal--I knew it was jacked-up and made-up and F&#ked up to go into Iraq--I knew we had not given enough time to determine if the WMD's Rummy sold him in the '80's were still being used. I had enough sense to know that neither Iraq nor Saddaam were behind the 9/11 attacks--I knew it was a distraction.

It should be pinned on Bush-I agree with you there--but I think to say that only hippy/free loving/anti war fanatics were knowledgeable of the shadiness and coercion of Bush/Cheney is wrong.


Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

sounds like a blueprint for ripping the party apart. It's time for the Democratic leadership to let the Clinton campaign know that her negative campaign is destructive and unacceptable. Senator Clinton's teardown approach will only come back to haunt the party whether Obama is the nominee or she is. While I have no problems with a vigorous campaign for the nomination, it is entirely counterproductive to set up arguments that will be used against Democratic candidates in the fall.

If this is how the Clinton campaign envisions winning the nomination, they will end up alienating a large number of potential Democratic supporters in the process, not just for the Presidential election in the fall but for many other elections. I can say for myself that if Senator Clinton continues a destructive campaign, and if she wins the nomination in this way, I will not be supporting her and I will no longer be supporter of the Democratic leadership that stands by idling and allows the party to implode. I know of many other life-long Democrats who have very similar misgivings about the strongly negative approach that the Clinton campaign has used at various times (prior to the South Carolina campaign and most recently in Ohio and Texas). It will be a truly costly win for Hillary Clinton if that's the road she plans to take. On the other hand, an aboveboard discussion of issues is entirely appropriate and should be that path towards the nomination.

Posted by: hermanSF | March 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

i have not seen ANY mention at all about clinton's speech on tuesday. None.
"YES WE WILL".

HAHHAHAHA

Biters.:)

Sad and pathetic. It's calling scoring cheat political points.

Is it because even the gop (and clinton supporters) thought it was lame and ridiculous? YES WE WILL. HAHHAAH

Not without he rest of us. Mccain's vp slot is all that is in her future. Let's see who clinton supproters really are then. Would that make you "democrat" clinton supporters angy? Or do you still support her? Just for my knowledge.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

It must be hard to be an Obama fan having believed his message of Change and doing away with 'politics as usual' in Washington. Senator Obama has no qualms letting the 'old guard' in Washington pad his Washington Resume by making him Chairman of an important committee in January 2007 knowing he was going to be unavailable to actually chair his Committee. Chairpersons are never such a Junior Senator such as Senator Obama and he allowed 'politics as usual'. Senator Obama is also not adverse to employing 'politics as usual' by having the old guard politicians in Congress and active in the DNC encourage the voters and the media that this should be a one candidate campaign at this point 'for the good of the party'. Dirty politics is not defined as raising questions about one's opponent as that is part of being in a campaign. Yet again, Senator Obama picks and chooses when raising questions is considered dirty play. If Senator Clinton raises questions or claims she is better at something than Senator Obama, then it is called dirty politics. When Senator Obama raises questions or claims he is better at something than Senator Clinton it is considered a duty or obligation and not dirty politics. Fortunately there still are a good number of citizens who are not blinded by nice words.

Posted by: mjokerk | March 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"Never underestimate the power of fear," you say.

Will it ever stop? After 7 years of fear-mongering and appeals to our base, reptilian instincts, Barack Obama offers an alternative: thoughtful, respectful discourse that appeals to our capacity for generosity and unity. Unfortunately, as the Texas 3 a.m. add showed, Hillary is just offering more of the same . . . unthinking fear and reactionary, combative rhetoric.

If Obama isn't our next president, I'm not sure I want to be an American any more. It all makes me so weary, and it's so self-destructive. Why are we doing this to ourselves?

Posted by: rbaker8 | March 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"First candidate to suggest sharing redo expenses wins big PR victory."

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

Look Out Another fake staged victory for HillBilly.

It is clearly in her own benefit that a re-do happens. So of course she will try to buy PR by saying she'll pay for it.

IT AIN'T HAPPENING!

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis: your campaign outspent the Clinton campaign 3 to 1 in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island how did that work out for you. Howard Dean and John Kerry also raised enormous sums of money, last time I checked neither won the presidency either.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Everyone, especially Obama, criticize Hillary for her vote in 2002 to invade Iraq. Ask yourself now, how did you feel then? Ask your friends. We were all lied to by our president and his men and so was Hillary. More than 75% of the public believed Hussein had WMDs and agreed that he should be stopped now. Ok, so we were all wrong. Don't pin it on Hillary, pin it on Bush.

Posted by: ddepuemd | March 6, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

To those that are blessing these CAUCUSES, why don't you DO a little research and thinking to see how discriminatory they are!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 6, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Sr. Foreign Policy advisor has articulated part of his new campaign blueprint in her MSNBC interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumIz2bajus

Posted by: mo897 | March 6, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

opps

"rockafeller (though he is supporting clinton to cover is backside now"

obama

man I'm slipping.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

All this talk of superdelegates being "un-democratic" is starting to wear really thin. Wake up people, our federal government is not a democracy and never has been. It was founded as a democratic republic, and superdelegates are right in line with the best traditions of that republic. These are not random giants of industry, or wealthy landowners, or titled lords as in the British Parlaiment, these are your elected officials. People that we have selected to represent us and our interests. I should hope that all of them would be influenced by the voice of their constituents as demonstrated in the primaries, but ultimately we have elected these people (in theory, at least) because they best represent both the short and long term interests of those they represent. By no means does this mean trust them blindly. If they no longer represent your personal interests then vote against them next time they are up for election, and write or petition them relentlessly in the interim. But at the end of the day, this is how our nation is designed to work, and the sooner we all realize this the sooner and better it will work.

Posted by: clearbeard | March 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Hispana--take your Prozac.

The caucuses are legal and are democratic, they may have issues that make them unattractive in our modern age; but they are not illegal nor are they discriminating.

They are actually more "old school" democratic where people get intimately involved in the process. Democracy is messy and the more democratic you are the messier it gets such is life--but HARDLY are they illegal.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"

Still, voting yes more disqualifies someone to be sitting in the Oval Office than in the Senate.

I wrote many letters that day. I am thankful that some Senators don't just vote according to winds of public opinion or to the whims of their big contributors.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 02:50 PM
"

Well said harry. to me di fi clinton rockafeller (though he is supporting clinton to cover is backside now) biden reid. Republcians. Where where they when we needed them? the same place they are now. Hiding behind the gop and their media horde.

At the very least we can call them on it can't we? At the least. I say let them go the liebrman route. let us work with the republcain in-party sabotuers. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with this blueprint?

It fails to explain how Clinton will overcome her deficit in pledged delegates, even if Michigan and Florida were allowed to have a "do-over."

Its simple...Superdelegates override pledged delegates determined by the people, Clinton loses in November, Democrat party loses a generation of voters.

Posted by: emedina | March 6, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"OBAMA RAISED $55 MILLION IN FEBRUARY."

It looks like he could afford to pay for the MI and FL re-dos all by himself!

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

tonycastaldo,

Your idea for an ad occurred to me a couple weeks ago. Here it is on YouTube:

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

Posted by: rippermccord | March 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

With all this time on our hands while the Dems try to extricate themselves from the murky quagmire of their nomination process, there'slenty of time to consider some important issues...one is the Illinois senator's claim to be the new "post-partisan" leader to bring Rs and Ds together.

McCain and Clinton have earned reputations for doing that, though Mrs. Clinton rarely mentions it.

But, Sen. Obama has no real record of voting and working across party lines on high profile issues like judges, immigration, intelligence reform, troop funding and energy.

Why, Mr. Obama, have you failed to engage on these issues since your election to the Senate? McCain, in particular, has well-earned scars from tackling many of them.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 6, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Double-crossing snitch is the new black.

LMAO 2 funny :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

How about a major descrimination complaint filed against these illegal caucuses that descriminates against a great majority of voters?

Houw about any of you so journalists doing an expose on this process and the manipulation exercised by the Obama camp ? After all, it smells of dirty Chicago political tactics!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

wideblacksky --I read it too and I agree with your post.

Illinois2--as I was educated on earlier today, our FL legislature, while led by Reps and the idea was first floated and encouraged and would have passed by all the Reps--but our sale out Dems chose to vote in favor of it and it won "unanimously" I guess the thinking was "No one would really not campaign in Florida". So I don't think our Dem legislators have anything to stand on.

Again I say the best course of action is a 3 thirds funded re-do.

I agree with Harry4--1st candidate to suggest it gets MAJOR PR kudos.

Wish I knew the personal cell phone numer of Plouffe. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA RAISED $55 MILLION IN FEBRUARY.

Eat that blueprint, Hillary!

Posted by: thecrisis | March 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mjno | March 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

seq --

I guess you haven't heard. The tide has turned. Hillary Clinton won 3 of the lasst 4 primaries.

Why are you so in love with Obama?

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

you will 'give' women Real Freedom it's pay equality you want? Not freedom of REAL equality. Ok. Point taken.

I would argue going our route you can have both


Jkrish--"OUR ROUTE, Real Freedom," sounds like RNC talking points. Fine if you come here as a Republican troll just tell us that.

Enough already about drugs, those lame arguments do not represnt the beliefs of any Clinton supporters that I know and is certainly beneath the level of civil discourse and needs to be left to the tabloids like The Globe and Star magazines.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see the Fix posting
HRC press releases.
Payola?

Posted by: imright | March 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Just because I find it fun to see all you Obama supporters go absolutely crazy over any article, op-ed piece, or comment that doesn't crown your candidate our lord and master, I decided to see what the delegate count would be if the Dems used the same winner-take-all primary and caucus system the Republicans do (a far superior system I've always thought - especially now). Here are the results:

Obama: 1539
Clinton: 1738
"

HAHHAHAHA

gop rules? I bet you reven couting mi and fl in that to aren't ya?

HAHHAHAHAHAHA

thanks for illustrating my point gop. Crate wahtever new ruls you wish clinton supporters. go down the rabbit hole with fox. We'll see who's with you, other than republcains of course.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

"Yesterday's press conference was Obama's "macca moment" and the beginning of the end for the cult of Obama."
_______

Um, NOBODY CARES about your imaginary press "blow up", either. You are really desperate for something to stick and truly living in an alternate reality, aren't you?

OBAMA IS WINNING because he's the better candidate and is running a fantastic campaign. But you just keep underestimating him. How has that worked out so far?

LOL

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, well, well, ....

Looks like it was Hillary who played two-face with Canada on NAFTA.
I think this may effect Pennsylvania, if not her credibility and ability to criticize Obama.

Americans hate a hypocrite. Male or female.

Wonder if SNL will do a skit about that??

Double-crossing snitch is the new black.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Bulletin: There is a right wing conspiracy FOR Hillary. Rush has laid it all out on his EBN network. A sager voice has confirmed it. David Brooks says he can't find a Republican operative who would rather run against Obama than Clinton. There is evidence that Republicans did cross over in Ohio to vote for Hillary.

Does anyone doubt that Hillary's nomination will unify & energize the Republicans? And while McCain may not gut Hillary himself, the rest of the Right will have a field day (and plenty of money for TV). The spectacle of Bill and Hillary fending off the many legitimate (much less all the illegitimate) attacks on their characters and conduct will dominate much of the media coverage.

The truth is that Hillary is not well vetted, in part because Obama has taken the high road and the media doesn't have the appetite (yet) to explore this territory on their own. While it may be true that Obama will lose some of the Reagan lunchbucket Democrats to McCain, it's a lot more worrying that Hillary will lose huge numbers of the young, independents, and African American voters. She will depress this voter turnout and send other's into the McCain camp. Look at the demographics. If Obama is gutted by Hillary and loses a brokered convention, don't expect him to kiss and make up readily, or his supporters to buy into it if he does.

Posted by: fjwas | March 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

chadibuins: I think you're probably right that the states should pay part of this, esp. FL where the R-led government chose the primary date over the objections of the Dems. Not sure the FL gov. will go along with that though...
Does the FL Dem. committee have any legal recourse against the leg. for putting them in this position?

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The Democrat primary is shaping up like 1968 all over again! Some of you may remember, others may have read about it, I was there...maybe of few of you were there also. It was a divided Party then. Clinton's strategy is bad news. She is busting apart the Party like a bull in a China shop.

In terms of re-voting, or holding caucuses in Florida and Michigan -- Hey, what's a few million dollars more? The federal budget is near $4-trillion, the national debt is $9-trillion. And, Americas are trying to elect their next president.

I'm not so sure many of those who oppose new elections or caucuses in these states really know the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion. It figures.

The campaigns have already spent about $400 million on such stellar adverstiements like Clinton's phony red-phone, white phone adv. They can kick in a few bucks to defer the costs.

Straight ahead OBAMA! Don't sweat the small stuff. Make your decisions that hold you coalition together and that will accumulate delegates.

Senator Clinton and husband will soon bite themselves. They are making a mess of the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | March 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

We better nominate a candidate who can win in the fall not just be a feel good candidate until then. Democrats did that in the 70s and 80s. Its time we win again! Hillary 08!

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

Well, if you want a candidate who can win in the fall, it better not be Hillary since most polls show she can't beat John McBush and Obama can.

Posted by: katie11 | March 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

That was a stupid article. The title made it sound like it would actually analyze how Hillary could find enough delegates, but instead it was just a rehash of all the ways she could drag things out without changing anything.

Posted by: wideblacksky | March 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I know why Bill is so desperate to see his wife become the President? There is a plan to make Bill the VP in case Hillary become President. Bill knows that being a VP comes with some special perks lately. With Dick declaring that VP neither coming under executive branch nor legislative branch, Bill can do his extra curricular activities with interns and claim immunity and never have to take any oath to reveal the truth.

Posted by: jj2000 | March 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Hispana said: "illegals CAUCUSES!!!"

You may not like them, but they are hardly illegal.

Can we have ONLY rational thoughts from any and all sides!

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"1932 Harvard
1936 Harvard
1940 Harvard
1944 Harvard
1948 --
1952 --
1956 --
1960 Harvard
1963 --
1964 --
1968 --
1972 --
1975 Yale
1976 --
1980 --
1984 --
1992 Yale
1996 Yale
2000 Yale
2004 Yale
2008 Yale or Harvard or US Naval

Posted by: BillfromLA | March 6, 2008 02:38 PM
"

Fear the yale plan. Give someone else a shot.

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

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney attended Yale, although he did not graduate. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

And we see what they have gotten us. The battle is deeper than any old people think. We have the internet now. USE IT. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

illinois2,
I think that re-dos are probably the best of a bad situation that was created by the DNC and those two states. I don't, however, think that the people of those states (or the rest of us) should pay for it. I believe that the citizens paid for the first elections and should not be asked (forced) to do so again because of some idiots boneheaded decisions. I think that Obama, Clinton, the Dem parties in MI and FL and the DNC should all contribute equally to fund a primary (not a caucus) in both states for early June.

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Excerpt From: newsday.com

"A trip down memory lane:

Eight years ago, when Hillary parachuted into NY to become our Senator, she and Howard Wolfson became completely obsessed with opponent Rick Lazio's tax returns, which he did not release until the end of August..

They talked about them at every opportunity. In early July, Hillary called it "frankly disturbing." A guy in an Uncle Sam outfit was dispatched to be a nuisance at various Lazio events in August. Howard himself showed up once to try to rattle Lazio by offering him a copy of some Chappaqua property tax receipt after Lazio said he'd release his state returns as soon as Hillary released hers (which didn't exist, because she had just moved up here)."

Posted by: valskeet | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Illinois said:"Regarding MI and FL:
Is there any good reason, other than money, that MI and FL shouldn't have a re-vote? I think their votes should count, but that assigning delegates according to the Jan. vote is deeply unfair to Obama. I'd be willing to throw a few bucks into a fund specifically targeted to help the FL and MI Dems. pay for new primaries. Would others go for this? Is this just a goofy idea? (I mean this as a serious question)"

I am reposting it for you--I thought it was a great idea--UNTIL I saw HARRY4's post
which is an even better idea.

They could split the cost of the redo--or at least a compromise between both ideas--each candidate gives 1/3 of the cost to each state with each state paying for the remining 1/3.

Now THAT is a win/win/win.

chadibuins AKA "Henry Clay"

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's experience and judgment come from having lived through and thought deeply about both domestic and foreign policy issues. She was in a position to receive information as Bill's wife that Obama would not have known. She has made the judment calls in her own mind already. Obama's eight years in the Illinois legislature can not compare.

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

Ok, she has the "experience" in her mind. Yeah right. That's real reassuring. Talk about a stretch.

Posted by: katie11 | March 6, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

PhilTR:

You are to the point on your comments about the states that changed their rules and have not been penalized. Is this DEMOCRATIC?

What about running a campaign with CAUCUS that cater mainly to Zealots and elites and ignores the majority of the population?

So, for those of you supporting the DNC decisions, be aware that if Florida and Michigan are not allowed to be participants all of this will surface and be the ruin of the party!!!

Obama has won majorly due to these illegals CAUCUSES!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 6, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

BTW, my hypothetical winner-take-all count did NOT include Michigan and Florida delegates.

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Virginia has 13 electoral votes. blah-blah-blah

Posted by: reportertex | March 6, 2008 02:55 PM

Winning against Obama in primaries vs. winning against McCain: There's simply no comparison. One does not imply the other in any conceivable way. Do not buy into this Clinton talking point. It's total nonsense.

Winning in Nov requires that independents and some Repubs vote for the Dem as well as mobilization of Dems. Barack has shown that he can do that. Hillary has shown the opposite.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

harry4: Would campaign finance laws allow them to just pay for a redo of MI and FL with campaign funds? I was thinking a separate fund because of campaign laws and because differences in the campaign's funds and incentives for having new elections differ. Seems easier to have the DNC set it up. What do you think?

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Uh to reportex...you seem to forget that if she gets the nomination she will lose the Obama vote...so Miss Hillary will not win those states in electoral votes...the republicans will. Wake up idiot!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Webster51 | March 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps a Hillary fan here can tell us exactly what it is in her background that makes her more qualified around national security than Obama? Is it because she was the first lady for 8 years and went to foreign countries and shook hands with the leaders of those countries?

When asked on a recent news conference by a reporter from Slate Magazine, her handlers not only could not come up with anything she had done proving she was more qualified to answer the phone at 3:00 a.m., there was total silence for about 5 seconds after they were asked the question.

It's time for Obama to take off the gloves and start fighting Hillary at her own game. I don't want him to get down and dirty like Hillary, but I would like to see him be more forceful in how he is confronting her. I would love to have him challenge Hillary to tell us exactly what she has done to be more qualified on national security. I would also like to have him as her to tell the country exactly what her "35 years of experience" is comprised of. When you look at it objectively, Obama has more experience in government than Hillary does. He has his 8 years in state government and two years in national government. All she has is her 8 years in the national government.

Posted by: katie11 | March 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

HEY CHRIS, THERE IS ONE THING YOU FORGOT..

DELEGATES. HILLARY DOES NOT HAVE THE DELEGATES.
AND NOW INFO COMING OUT HOW BILL GOT IN TOUCH WITH THE CANADIANS ABOUT NAFTA. AND HOW BOUT THOSE TAX RETURNS SHE WON'T PUT OUT.
HILLARY HAS NO EXPERIENCE.

Posted by: lgb2931 | March 6, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Marsf --

Its Obama supporters that should be weeping. Obama blew up at reporters and ran off stage when they asked him tough questions about REZKO.

OBAMA LIED ABOUT REZKO ON NATIONAL TV DURING THE DEBATES.

Yesterday's press conference was Obama's "macca moment" and the beginning of the end for the cult of Obama.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"JK --

The answer to the problems caused by Republican rule is three simple words --

Elect Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 02:50 PM
"

Not base don her histroy n the sentate. While bush 43 was destroying our great nation, bill clinton was touring the world with his dad.

Where was she when it counted? the same place she is now. Behind the gop. not because I say so. I hope you see that.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

First candidate to suggest sharing redo expenses wins big PR victory.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Uh Hillary did not win Michigan and Florida...Obama wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan (because he abided by committee rules and she didnt) SO HOW DO YOU SEE A WIN ????? And in Florida...where I live...40% of the population didnt vote...democratic...because they knew their vote wouldnt count. So dont see a Florida win there either. I guess all you Hillary fans are just like Hillary..change the rules to benefit me right. And that is just the kind of white house you will have too. Then you will all be whining about her...but oh well too late.

Posted by: Webster51 | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Or are you ok with false racially divisive statements as long as it favors your candidate?

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 02:43 PM

'

Who's using race? I'm just wondering why only obama has to fight the opposition candidate, his own party AND the media. I'm just confused on why only certain rules apply to obama and no one else. That's all. you know me dave.

I'm not a racist or sexist. Obama represents raising above those petty battles of the 60's. we cannot grow in the current state we are in. We are going under if we don't come together on common grounds like immagration and foreign policy and others. We can't fight liek this forever. We can't isolate ourselves fromt eh world forever. WE lose in all aspects if we do that. Economic, militarily, hearts and minds, domesic. We can't keep this up forever.

you know my only goal is to marginalze and point out those like fox rush clinton and those dividing us. You know that dave. You've been here longer than me. you know where my movement was when it started and what it is now, though you deny it.

Stand down gop (clinton included). you had your chance. you sqandered it. please stop the treasonous sabotage. If obama does not produce effiective change vote him out in four years. But al least give us the oppurtunity. you had decades on end. Give us four years to see what we can do for pete's sake. He can't do worse than bush. Ratehr than ripping the man to shreds why not do what america used to do. BAck the man, support him. Let's be one nation under god again. Bush deserves his hate and legal problems, some would argue he shoul dbe in jail. tha tis his and his parties doing. Not obama, not the democrats, nto the media.

Jsut us a chance. let's do tis together. to me those who continue divide and conquer for money or power are traitors choosing party or outside influence over nation.

That time is over and done with. Let's end it dave. It has to be mutal. you know fox rush hanntiy and those like him attack all day everyday. Please get them off the air. As a peace offering. It's not the other side keeping them on the air.

You people do that we can fix the nation. Choose party over country and I'm not so sure.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

On the sharing of the redo costs in MI and Fl by HRC and BHO, note that Hillary would likely get more delegates than Barack, so it's to her benefit from that point of view. The current delegates will NOT be seated.

For Obama, he'll still be ahead and will show that he cares about a fair election.

It's a win-win. Why has no one suggested this yet?

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

"seq --

You're probably too young to remember, but rumors of Cocaine use almost sunk GWB's campaign.

You are suffering from Obama-mania, which is usually followed by Obama-depression when people find out he's just another politician and that his claim that Republicans would do what Democrats want if we were just "nicer about it" is just plain stupid."
______

Nope, I rememeber and it didn't matter. It didn't sink any campaign and nobody really talked about it ever again. NOBODY CARES. They didn't care in 2000 and they don't care in 2008. You are basically the ONLY person in literally thousands of political posts I've read that even mentions it. Nobody cares. Move on.

I have no delusions about Obama. I know he is a politician. He's alos the better Democrat in my opinion and the more likely to win in November.

And typical of the Hillary supporter - if I don't agree with who is the better candidate, I'm just swept up in some cult!

NEWSFLASH: Only brainwashed people perpetually insist that everybody who doesn't agree with them is brainwashed.

Meanwhile...it's YOU who thinks Hillary can magically overcome mathematical realities and become the nominee! Obama should "drop out" despite the fact that he has the nomination in the bag.

Good grief.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I still think it is too early for the Democrats to go negative. They should save it for the general. That's the way it played in 2000, and it worked quite well.
-Trevor Wynne

Posted by: trevorwynnewhitehouse | March 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Read it and weep, Clintonistas!

Obama raised 55 million in February.

90% small donations of $100 or less, 75% first time donors.

Guess Hillary is going to have the Monsanto Lobbyists hold another fundraiser for her.

Posted by: marSF | March 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Best way to resolve MI and FL --

Hey, two candidates are raising incredible amounts of money. Have them share the expenses of a redo. Maybe we can show that Dems can unite after all, even in the middle of a very tough contest.

This solution would save us from watching a few extra political ads too.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Virginia has 13 electoral votes. California has 55; Texas, 34; New York, 31; Florida, 27; Pennsylvinia, 21. If Clinton wins Penn., she will have won in states with a majority of electoral votes.Obama would have to win all the remaining states, including Penn. to do that. He's been running up the vote totals in small states but hasn't been able to win any of the big states. He's like the college football team that runs up the score against small schools, but can't win big games.

Posted by: reportertex | March 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: guyfawkes | March 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

As for the drug questions who cares?

As long as its not an ongoing thing it makes no difference.

Who will legalize them is the only question?

Bill Clinton told Rolling Stone mag. after leaving Office that there is no reason for marijuana to be illegal. Will he tell Hillary to act on that advice? He should

---------------
Al Gore was a DeadHead. You think he tried LSD?

Ann Coulter saw the Dead like 66 times; its the only complimentary thing I can say about her. She must have had a bad trip that she never came down from; it would explain a lot. Like how a DeadHead becomes a conservative whence.

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

Drop Acid Not Bombs :)

Which ever you choose; play it safe.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

What do Obama supporters say to the fact that Obama voted for the war, repeatedly, once he got to the US senate.

He never voted against the war.

That's a "fairy tale" invented by Obama supporters.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Why do we want a strategy or blueprint for Clinton to win? - do you not see in the light of day even after Ohio, Hilary is still well behind Barack Obama in the Delegate Count! that is what counts, not a FIX! for her.

We are sick and tired of the Dynasty and Politics of the Past, the old boy network of Washington, we want CHANGE! okay her nasty lies and dirty personal attacks may be delaying the day bit let the grandees of the Party be warned if they do anything, Yes anything to go against the will and mandate of the Voters they party will suffer real damage.

It is time for them to visit Hilary now and tell her for PARTY, COUNTRY and herself she must pull out from the race now! and no, we don't want her on any join ticket.

Posted by: jaybs1 | March 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

JK --

The answer to the problems caused by Republican rule is three simple words --

Elect Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the war vote is an excellent litmus test of courage. My two Democratic senators split on this vote. The day after, I sent thank you letters to every senator who voted no. The intelligence was spotty. The results were obvious at the time and have played out as such.

Some senators read the NIE. Some did not. Some just reacted. Some thought long and hard about their vote. The ones who voted no went against the popular sentiment and were not worried about whether they would run for President and be seen as soft on terrorists.

And, yes I would like to get rid of Feinstein and keep Boxer.

Still, voting yes more disqualifies someone to be sitting in the Oval Office than in the Senate.

I wrote many letters that day. I am thankful that some Senators don't just vote according to winds of public opinion or to the whims of their big contributors.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

lmmauld wrote:

"Everyone keeps talking about Hillary's Clinton vote on the Iraq war and yet their own Senators of their states also voted for the war. I don't hear any talk about removing them from office."
____________

Actually no, I live in Maryland and both my Senators could see through the obvious charade and voted NO in 2002. But Hillary either didn't have the courage or the wisdom to oppose Bush's warmongering.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Where's the math?

I'm sorry, but this is no real 'blueprint' for a path to victory for Hillary Clinton.

What you are doing here is trying to analyze the race in January terms. As if the things that matter are the message, posturing and momentum. That was reasonable back when there were scads of states and delegates on the table and anything could happen. But we are far beyond that now. Any analysis of where the race stands and how either candidate can win MUST show the delegate math and demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of how delegates are parceled out in each remaining state or else it's just a lot of pointless bluster.

The situation is even worse than that Slate calculator suggests. When you start looking at how delegates are portioned out in each state from now on by at-large delegates and those by CD, and when you do the math, even if Hillary Clinton won by a 25% margin in every state plus Puerto Rico from here on out, she would *still* be around 50 pledged delegates short of Barack Obama.

If Obama really does have those 50 extra super delegates in his back pocket as Tom Brokaw said, then even if Hillary wins by moderate margins every race except Oregon, Wyoming and Mississippi (giving those states to Obama), Barack Obama would hit a total of 2,025 delegates, both pledged and declared super delegates, on May 20th.

The math is all that counts now. No more spin, no more talk about branding the candidate one way or another. You've got to show us the math now and you aren't doing that.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | March 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"JK --

Yes. Rush Limbaugh should be put into jail, and the sooner, the better.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached and jailed as well. Again, the sooner, the better.


Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 02:26 PM
"

Ok. good point. so your a purest. Ok.

So only obama should face the consequences to his past teenage drug use? your saying no, but in a round about way, you say yes. Scotter libby? I'm sure you would say yes.

Teh rolling stones? All music? Movies? Throw them all in jail of leasuire activities? Your harder than me. How much would that cost you and me? If everyone who ever tried drugs goes to jail, there would be no room for all the people. Nor woudl their be enough money to pay for their prisons.

the war on drugs is a false "war". It's a police action agaisnt americans. Personally I don't care about people's leasuire activities. Thanks me.

I'm for jailing the sellers and producers. Not the users. But ot each his/her own. vote based on whateve reasons you will. I just think it's funny to see republcains saying he can't be elected because he tried cocaine, yet you elected bush who TIRED and used cociane and was a drunk.

I guess it's more gop control and false rules. what you say we can do we can do. Everything else is illegal. Yet you say teh liberals and demcorats want to impose to much rules and restrictions.

Be hypocrites gop. clinton can smoke, bush can do cocaine. not he black man. He should be in jail. Be hypocrites gop. See who buys it.

Of course I speak for myself not any candidate or any party. I do think it's time to halt the war on drugs. Use those 50 billion a year (or more) on america. Not fighting a war agaisnt america. for what? control? Econmics?

America the free? not anymore. bow to the gop and their propogandists mccartyites, or go to jail. without an oppositiion party to fight them they do whatever they want and make any rules they want.

Accountable to know one, yet the holders to the keys to the jail sell.

Who WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F

I do. Americans do. you do not rule this country like a monarchy gop. you are not americans if yo udo not love this great country and it's freedoms. you are merely fascsits living here.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

seq --

You're probably too young to remember, but rumors of Cocaine use almost sunk GWB's campaign.

You are suffering from Obama-mania, which is usually followed by Obama-depression when people find out he's just another politician and that his claim that Republicans would do what Democrats want if we were just "nicer about it" is just plain stupid.

Obama has nowhere to go but down.

The longer this campaign runs, the more Obama's hype will fade, and the more peoplle will realize that he's not "Jesus"
but just another politician.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Just because I find it fun to see all you Obama supporters go absolutely crazy over any article, op-ed piece, or comment that doesn't crown your candidate our lord and master, I decided to see what the delegate count would be if the Dems used the same winner-take-all primary and caucus system the Republicans do (a far superior system I've always thought - especially now). Here are the results:

Obama: 1539
Clinton: 1738

Draw your own conclusions. And once again, a purely hypothetical exercise.

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I will dare any of the Washington Post so called journalists to do an expose on the Rexco trial and Chicago politics!!! The truth could be coming out!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Laura Bush has more national security experience than Hillary. Bush and Laura are in the same bed when the phone rings at 3am.

Obama, you have my blessing. Go after Hillary with a hammer.

Posted by: tchanta | March 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Reposting this, because I'd really like an answer and this got buried above.

Regarding MI and FL:
Is there any good reason, other than money, that MI and FL shouldn't have a re-vote? I think their votes should count, but that assigning delegates according to the Jan. vote is deeply unfair to Obama. I'd be willing to throw a few bucks into a fund specifically targeted to help the FL and MI Dems. pay for new primaries. Would others go for this? Is this just a goofy idea? (I mean this as a serious question)

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

rufus - "Dave is a known gop'er. Please ignore. What stake does th gop have in teh democratic nomination process other than sabotage. Just an fyi."

Get it right. I am a known conservative. The stake I have in this is that people that level racist charges should be called out on them when they are false. I would think this would be an area where we could agree, rufus. Or are you ok with false racially divisive statements as long as it favors your candidate?

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Everyone keeps talking about Hillary's Clinton vote on the Iraq war and yet their own Senators of their states also voted for the war. I don't hear any talk about removing them from office. As a matter of fact, when time come sto vote for your representatives, everyone of them will be sent back to Comgress. What's up with that. It's okay for you to vote for the war as long as you are not running for President. Besides that, we need to stop looking backward and look forward. If all Obama can talk about is how he did not vote for the war, that tells me has no isight into the future. Had Obama been able to vote for the war, given the same information he would probably have voted for the war. The war has and still is being fought, let's move away from who voted for the war and move to how do we get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan without tearing hurting the Iraqi people as well as the US. Furthermore, we have troops ( they are called peacekeepers)all over and no one is talking about bringing them home. I personally would like to see American troops brought home from everyone. Let these other countries learn to take care of themselves. As far as the threat of terrorism goes, everybody needs to stop trying to scare the American people. There is no such thing as security, if some group wants to hurt us, they will, no matter what kind of security we have. Let's get on with how do we keep people from going to bed hungry, or keeping a roof over the heads of our children, keeping jobs for our people. NAFTA needs a lot of work. It is good for those of us here in Texas, but it may not be good for other states. Every state in the union needs to benefit from NAFTA. Let's talk about the oil companies making more money than any other industires and yet they don't pay as much taxes as the rest of the us do. They find all kinds of loopholes. One last thing, Hillary Clinton needs to be judged on what she can or will do, not on what her husband has done. We need to give her or Barack Obama a chance. Make sure that you are voting for a person not because of their race or their gender but for what they can do for this country. John F. Kennedy was a great President domestically, but people forget that he almost got us blown off the map. Being able to take care of domestic problems are fine, but that person needs to also be able to handle foreign issues too. Remember, the President of Iran, the President of North Korea, Russia's new President, and Hugo Chavez can hurt us before we will ever know it. If you will notice, all of these men have sat down with Condoleeza Rice and Barbara Walters and they were all civilized. When they talked to men, they always threatened us. Makes you think doesn't it.

Posted by: lmmauld | March 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign's reaction to the 3AM phone call ad was laughable and to me, sounded like spin from any other campaign and not the campaign that pledges to change the atmosphere of Washington.

First, they want to call the ad a deplorable act and that it was "Karl Rove-like" in its attempts to stir up fear in everyone. When that spin didn't take off, they decide that the best way to attack the credibility of the advertisement was to satirize it and make it seem like a joke itself. This ultimately did not succeed either because it really wasn't that clever (and seemed kind of petty - almost like a "kitchen sink approach" to make it go away).

But the part that gets me the most is the line that Obama is the one - the ONLY ONE - to oppose the war in Iraq. I opposed the war in Iraq also but like Obama, I had no say in the decision so it was easy for me to voice my opposition from the sidelines. If I want to vote for someone just because they opposed the war in Iraq, I'll write myself in.

Posted by: LiLi5612 | March 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

jklorman wrote:
"I really wish the Clinton backers would get a grip and stop whining about the delegate counts and how they have been achieved. The fact is that the way delegates are allocated, be it by caucus or primary, has been established for a long time."

Could you please tell the Obama supporters to stop whining about Hillary continuing her campaign in a perfectly valid nomination process without ending it early? Plus, tell them to stop whining about superdelegates and how, if they hand Clinton the nomination, she has stolen the nomination? After all, this set-up and process has been established for a long time (1982, I believe).

Posted by: hitpoints | March 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Looking at numbers, and giving Clinton Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Puerto Rico, it looks to be 1670 to 1542 in pledged delegates by the end of the primaries. Looking at the super delegate picture on March 6, Obama thus needs 148 additional super delegates, of which 50 are expected to go for him this week. Leaving him with 98 to go, from a pool down to 296. Thus, he would need just 33% of the remaining supers to win the nom.
Currently, Clinton has 242 supers pledged, with 207 supers for Obama. This from a pool of 795, leaving 346 to decide. (again, with 50 expected to go to Obama this week, taking it down to a pool of 296. )

Clinton on the other hand, with 1542 delegates at the end of the primaries, will thus need 483 Superdelegates to win the Democratic nomination. She has 242, and will need 241 more, from a pool of 296. 81%, Or, let's assume that Obama's 50 don't declare this week, as expected. That leaves a pool of 346. A pool of 346 that Hillary needs 241 from. 70%. Hmmmm.

Let's consider Florida and Michigan then. Which the Clinton-ites might wish they never called for a revote in. For gaming's sale, let's assume that Hillary gets 55% of each of the states votes, which is unlikely at least in Michigan. With 366 delegates total, let's give Hillary 55% of them, and Obama 45% of them. 201 for Hillary, and 165 for Obama, a better split than Hillary got in Ohio. This would give Obama a total of 2092 delegates, with the expected 50 supers on board. He would thus need 115 of the remaining supers, or 39% of the remaining pool, to win the nomination. As to Hillary, let's say she gets the 201, bringing her up to 1743 for the run, with 242 supers pledged, or 1985 in total delegates. She would thus need 222 of the 296 remaining delegates, or 75% of the total, to win.

The odds of Hillary getting between 70 and 80% of the unpledged superdelegates are slim, to none. For all intents and purposes, the election is over.

Now, if Obama ties Hillary in Pennsy and Michigan, he gets 183, such that he might need only 97 of the 296, or 32% of the supers. Hillary would thus need 240 of the 296 available, or 81%.

Given that Obama should win the popular vote, and will have a pledged delegate lead no matter what happens, there is no way on this planet that the Democrats will give Hillary more than 55% of the super delegates. Given that she needs a minimum of 70% of them, under the best scenario, the game is over. Denial being the word of the day.

Posted by: robertell | March 6, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"On the other hand, it saddened me yesterday to see McCain accept Bush's endorsement. Wow. Like isn't that a surefire way to lose votes?"
Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC

I feel like what's going to emerge in November is which candidate can turn out the higher number of not-yet-hacked-off supporters.

In the GOP camp, there's an awful lot of folks that don't think McCain is conservative enough. Are those folks going to stay home? (They're not gonna cross over to the Democrats, Ron Paul or Nader).

In the Democratic camp, it's a question of which side is going to be angrier to sit out - will it predominantly be older white feminists if Obama becomes the candidate? Or will it be predominantly be African American voters and 20-something voters if Clinton becomes the candidate?

While there's been a great turnout for these primaries, I could envision a sizable number of people staying home on election day unless they manage to put aside their emotions and go out and vote the PARTY, not the candidate.

Some "change".

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 6, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

You Hillary supporters who are so interesting in keeping the Rezko "scandal" alive and kicking, maybe you should look at the reality- If you are a politician, sometimes someone scummy might give you a donation. Just ask the Clintons.

What Goes Around Comes Around- From Daily Kos:

Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin 'Tony' Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago's "Operation Board Games."

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama's political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

Rezko's trial is scheduled to begin March 3. The legal cases comprise several indictments of Chicago political and business figures on multiple counts of fraud, extortion and kickbacks. Rezko's co-defendants include Chicago businessman Stuart Levine; construction executive and Chicago Medical School trustee Jacob Kiferbaum, who is cooperating with the investigation, and Bear Stearns executive P. Nicholas Hurtgen; and attorneys Joseph Cari and Steven Loren, doing business for the Teachers' Retirement System. Mr. Loren has not been a significant donor.

Meanwhile--

That Rezko donated over the years like a political junkie, and may have been one, has already been written about by Buzzflash. Rezko himself gave mostly to Dems, with the largest amts going to central committees, other donations to national figures incl GWBush ($4000), and frequent contributions over the years to IL politicians incl Rod Blagojevich, Luis Gutierrez, and former senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Peter Fitzgerald as well as the donations to Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton pointed out.

Predictably, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that the national co-chair of Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigo, also got Rezko donations.

Here is the rundown on his fellow defendants, from FEC data via www.opensecrets.org, in descending order by amounts donated:

* Stuart Levine: 210 donations for federal candidates, totaling $255,350, mostly to Republicans. Biggest contributions to Illinois Republican Party and to National PAC. One $5000 donation to the Illinois Democratic Party. Most individual donations to GOP candidates from GWBush on down, except for a few $2000 donations to Joe Lieberman, Mark Green of NY, who now appears frequently on MSNBC as a Clinton supporter, and Illinois State Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes, whose father, Thomas C. Hynes, was formerly a Cook County Assessor. Dan Hynes was among Barack Obama's primary opponents in the Illinois U.S. Senate race in 2003. Levine donated $1000 to Bill Clinton in 1995. Levine has not donated to Obama.

* Joseph Cari, Jr: pulled out his checkbook 137 times from 1993 on, giving $193,836 under Joseph and $8958 under Joe to candidates for federal office, mostly to Dems. Further donations from family members incl $1000 to Bill Clinton in 1995. Biggest Cari donations went to the DNC and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Individual donations, usually $1000 apiece, to Dem candidates across the country incl the natl figures--Gore, Kerry, Kennedys--and others incl Robert Torricelli in NJ, Chuck Robb in VA, and even the late Paul Wellstone in MN ($250). Cari donated $2000 to Bill Clinton in 1995, another $1000 to Clinton campaign manager David Wilhelm, $500 and $1000 to Hillary Clinton in 2000 and 2003, and donated twice to HILLPAC in 2002. The Hillary Clinton campaign has apparently returned the $1000 but not the other donations. Cari also donated several times to Southern Wine & Spirits, a PAC donating to both major parties which has also donated to both Clintons. Cari has also donated to several Illinois Democratic candidates including Gov. Blagojevich and former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski. No contribution to Obama individually is listed, but the Obama campaign has returned $1439 from apportioned committee contributions.

* P. Nicholas Hurtgen, former Bear Stearns manager in Chicago: 48 federal contributions from Hurtgen and his wife in recent years, totaling $47,787, almost entirely to GOP candidates--$5000+ to the Republican National Committee, $4000 to GWBush, most of the rest to other Republicans. However, the Hurtgens have also donated $2000 to Rahm Emanuel and $7000 to Mark Green of NY, a Clinton supporter.



Posted by: marSF | March 6, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse


Do the math:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

It's the delegates, stupid! She's 160 delegates behind and will not catch up given the remaining states, which split about 50/50 (ie. he'll win Mississippi and she'll win PA and so forth).

Hillary can't catch up. It's mathematically impossible short of a landslide (65% or more) in all the remaining contests.

If she hangs on after today, she will only harm the party's chances. She has gone increasingly negative, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama. This will take a toll if it continues for months. She won't win even though she's playing dirty, but it will give plenty of material for the GOP to work with.

It is a choice of putting personal ego ahead of the party. Does Hillary really want the Democrats to lose just to spite them if she can't be the nominee? Is Hillary really a Nader-like figure, who would rather the whole country go down in flames than let a rival like Gore win in 2000?

This is dangerous for the party and the coutnry. We can't afford four more years of GOP rule. Is Hillary going to damage our nominee and make that happen? Does she want to be responsible for destroying America only out of spite, out of being a sore loser?

The GOP wants this to go on. The media loves bloody conventions for ratings. The Dems should be smart and wrap this up. We can't lose the country just because one woman doesn't know how to lose with honor!!

HILLARY = THE NEW RALPH NADER!!!

Posted by: info23 | March 6, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Seems like the blueprint would involve making sure she keeps countin the delegates. The electoral map doesn't mimick but is somewhat analagous to the primary/caucus system. BHO's strategy was based on getting more delegates, which he's done so far. It seems the Dems would want someone who knows how to win by the rules in place. The electoral system produced lopsided victories for Reagan in 80 and 84 because, in addition to having a strong candidate, the Reps paid a ttention to the rules. Reagan won more than 80% of the electoral votes in both elections. My point is that HRC's campaign's complaint about the caucus/primary issue is a red herring. She lost many of those states she should have won because she had no plan after ST. Her campaign should stick to the arguments they're making, and they may win with the help of MI/FL and SDs. BHO's campaign, on the other hand, gets kudos and will probably pull it out. That leaves me with a totally unrelated but interesting comment. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's seems like the American public will be fed up with Yale/Harvard US Presidential hegemony for the past 70 years:

1932 Harvard
1936 Harvard
1940 Harvard
1944 Harvard
1948 --
1952 --
1956 --
1960 Harvard
1963 --
1964 --
1968 --
1972 --
1975 Yale
1976 --
1980 --
1984 --
1992 Yale
1996 Yale
2000 Yale
2004 Yale
2008 Yale or Harvard or US Naval

Posted by: BillfromLA | March 6, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

2 things-
First, I don't understand why Hillary is being attacked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal?? She handled that situation with much tact and grace, under the scrutiny of the whole world. I, being a woman, cannot imagine how taxing that must of been. She should be commended for that, and if Obama goes after her on that issue I think it would backfire.
Secondly, being a veteran, I can't believe that most Americans don't realize that we have to finish the job we started in the Middle East, not pull out when it's not stable like we have done in the past. We are in Japan, and have been since the Pearl Harbor bombings, as well as Germany. Can you imagine anyone saying we shouldn't be there after this attack on American soil. It's not a luxury, but a necessity.

Posted by: blevins20061 | March 6, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and according the Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada's daily newspaper, it was Sen Clinton that the PM of Canada was called by over NAFTA.

Talk about underhanded dirty dealings.

Too bad that no actual REPORTERS in the US are INVESTIGATING and REPORTING on the REAL FACTS of this story - it's on the national news in Canada and all you have to do is ask your colleagues there what happened.

But that might mean you have to ... tell the TRUTH.

Posted by: WillSeattle | March 6, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

""Obama is toast and should drop out of the race." Posted by: svreader

What a laughable "conclusion". He's won twice the number of states that Clinton has, plus he has a strong lead in the delegate counts.
"

I did the same thing. HAHAHHAAH

He already won, for pete's sake. He should drop out? HHAAHHAHA

these people are grasping at straws. it would be funny if not so sad. Reminds me of Fox and rush and their ilk before the american people rejected them as propgandists. Refusal to acknowledge reality. It would be funny if old people wern't sucking it up.

I love you old people. where are the flower children when they are needed? did they become what they once fought agaisnt?

Sad day for america. Where lies spin and propoganda have the same respectablity as truth and honesty. up is down. White is balck. War is peace.

We can rejoin the international world and get our souls back. Unfortunalty may do not want this. they have become accustomed to their caves and have the stockhom disease. They love their slavery and slave masters.

Well now all americans chains are cut. We are all free to leave the cav eif we wish.

choose. Ignore the cowards and fascist propogandists who would enslave you and your children. Our chains are cut. all we have to do is get teh old scared people to leave the fascist cave. We can do it. Don;t quit on us now america.

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

do not fear the fascsits. The only power they have is the power WE as americans give them. Do not allow them to dictate us. Tuesday was a setback in this regard. but not the end. this is just the beginning. We knew the whole machine would eventuaily turn on america. the question is will the people side with that fascist machine, or themselves. Time will tell.

We can pray. And fight for the cause. the latter produces more results.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

"seq --

Your drug of choice must be LSD.
The left wing of the Democratic Party may not care about the fact that Obama repeatedly used Cocaine, but mainstream America cares a great deal about it. It goes right to the heart of what kind of person Obama really is.

Bush and the Reopublicans started the war in Iraq, not Bill Clinton.

REPUBLICAN LIES HAVE COST 4000 AMERICAN LIVES AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SO FAR!!!"

_______________

Um, ever heard of PRESIDENT BUSH? Yeah, you know...the guy who won two terms with everybody knowing he was an alcoholic and did cocaine for years? NOBODY CARES! Move on.

Bush, the Republicans and HILLARY started the War Against Iraq.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Obamaphiles, wake up: there's a big difference between playing on irrational fears and taking common sense precautions to protect our country.

It's just common sense that America would be taking a pointless and dangerous risk by electing Barak Obama to the presidency during a time of war. Look at the man's record. He claims to have been a law professor - that's a lie; he was a non-tenured lecturer at the Univ. of Chicago law school. While he was lecturing at the Univ., he was serving as a part-time state legislator who voted "present" over 100 times on important bills. During his brief tenure as a US Senator, he's been too busy running for president to fulfill even his most critical duties such as holding oversight hearings on the war in Afghanistan.

His only claim to "good judgment" is a speech he made at an anti-war rally before he joined the US Senate, but he has since done nothing to support his earlier rhetoric.

The charming, likable Obama is a great motivational speaker, and he easily turns a campaign rally into a foot-stomping, chanting revival meeting. But he lacks the substance and gravitas for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton has the experience, the know how, the wisdom, and the work ethic to serve as president. As a US Senator she's earned a reputation as a dedicated and hard-working public servant who has repeatedly worked across the aisle to pass important legislation.

It's simple common sense to choose Sen. Clinton as the Democratic nominee and elect her as our next president.

Posted by: ichief | March 6, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

harry4: Your question about NAFTA is a good one. I think its effects are much more complicated than politicians let on (too much to explain in a soundbite?). We get preferential access to oil and natural gas, manufacturing moving to facilities just across the border in MX, and easier access for our farmers to Mexican markets among many other things.

I think NAFTA stands in for GATT (Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in many discussions of free trade. We're generally much more worried about outsourcing to China or India, to which NAFTA does not apply, than to Canada or Mexico, but somehow it seems like NAFTA just gets conflated with "globalization" in general. People talk about the trend in maddeningly simplistic terms ("Outsourcing is bad!", "Free Trade is good!") that don't, in my opinion, really do anything to help us improve trade policies. The fact that politicians are always talking about NAFTA (still overly simplistically) and almost never about GATT or the WTO is just another indication of how lame discussions of trade policy really are in this country.

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

bond --

Naa. Its your mom and she gives both.

What are you, nine years old?

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The clintons deserve what they get. She would have never supported the war if she was truely a leader.

Posted by: nibaizi | March 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

seq --

Your drug of choice must be LSD.
The left wing of the Democratic Party may not care about the fact that Obama repeatedly used Cocaine, but mainstream America cares a great deal about it. It goes right to the heart of what kind of person Obama really is.

Bush and the Reopublicans started the war in Iraq, not Bill Clinton.

REPUBLICAN LIES HAVE COST 4000 AMERICAN LIVES AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SO FAR!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"We have an obligation as delegates to that convention to make sure we try to figure out who will be the strongest candidate to take on John McCain and the Republican attack machine," Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes said ........Hillar touts experience - from where and based on what - who knows.....but then by her own standards set - Mc Cain is then by far the 'more' experienced candidiate - both politically and in war times....She's only basing it on her time served - can't Mc Cain state thesame of Schillary....

Posted by: short1 | March 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

BJ's yes, Cocaine, no.

That's what your mom said last night.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

"BJ's yes, Cocaine, no.

Any questions?"
__________

Yeah - can't you see that nobody but you cares?

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

the 3 am ad worked because no one, not even Michelle, wants Obama in charge if anything goes wrong.

Posted by: newagent99 | March 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

kloris - "I believe political logic is inevitably leading to both candidates running on the same ticket"

As a conservative, I would love it if this were the case. The following is from one of Obama's speeches. He has worked daily to define Clinton as poster child for divisive politics as usual. Based on his message of hope and change, wouldn't being on a ticket with her make him a hyppocrit? How could he then argue with a straight face that his run was still one of "change we can believe in", which is the ideal that people seem to be clinging to?

"We can be a Party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress; or we can be a Party that puts an end to it.

I am running for President because I believe that we need fundamental change in America. Not just a change of Party in the White House, but change in Washington that the American people can believe in - unity instead of division; hope instead of fear; a politics that leaves behind the fights of the past so that we can finally take hold of our future."

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

"People die from "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin every day.

That's where America draws the line."
___________

Um, actually, it's pretty clear that NOBODY BUT YOU cares about Obama's long-over youthful experimentation with drugs. Who cares? It could not be less of an issue.

People die in Clinton's War Against Iraq everyday, too, which is obviously a much bigger issue than some youthful partying.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Please cite the examples of misinformation coming from the Obama campaign, if you can. Otherwise stop saying it. It is really pretty sad, and a good example of why Clinton is losing, that the washingtonpost feels it needs to drop all appearance of objectivity and publicly offer its advice to the royal clinton clan.

Posted by: nibaizi | March 6, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

hhkeller: Who are you, Rush Limbaugh? Hannity? "Obama failed to win the popular vote in every primary state." Just patently false! And he leads in overall poular vote as well, albeit narrowly. see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918

Posted by: tpsmith123 | March 6, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

JK --

Yes. Rush Limbaugh should be put into jail, and the sooner, the better.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached and jailed as well. Again, the sooner, the better.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

by yoru rationale bush would not be present either. Let's turn back the clock. someone who tried cociane can't be president. someone tell bush.

hahahahhaha

hypocrite gop. Now yo uknow why yoru party is done. No accountability. zero credibility. Get those back. that's my suggestion to the gop and their propogandists. Credibility and accountability for you own first. then you can start to point the finger.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"Obama admits to repeatedly using cocaine, each use is a felony, that makes Obama a multiple felon, even if was clever enough to not get caught."

so rush limbaugh is going to jail right? WHOA. problem soved. the gop is going to start enforcing our laws. How about you start at teh border gop, if your going to start enforcing laws? how about you start by stopping bush from spying on us, torturing, close down the ilelgal secret prisons and on and on and on.

the gop is going to start living by and enforcing the laws for once. Rush and glen beck are going to jail. Rejoice the fight is over. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton "plan" sure looks feeble, most built on wishful thinking. I hope the Obama plan is more solid than that. Hillary's 3 a.m. phone call backfired, since everybody knows McCain is the most qualified. He will be using this ad against the Democrats from now on.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness people are finally seeing the truth about this democratic primary. The press is finally acknowledging their bias of positive reporting on the Obama campaign and putting Hillary through the ringer any chance they get. I truly believe Sen. Clinton will win the nomination of her party and the White Houses in Nov. 08. I'm an independent and will vote for Hillary if she wins,but will vote for Ron Paul if Obama wins. It's getting a little tiring to hear the argument I've got the delegate lead as Obama says every chance he gets! If that 's what it takes to win the White House, God help us all! Eight years of a man with no foreign policy experience has gotten us where we are today, It's not Obama's time yet. He should run as Hillary veep, and take the White House in 2016. Think of how ready he would be then and what a truly experienced administration he would represent. Hillary in 08 and Obama in 2016!

Posted by: jeiken | March 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 01:35 PM
Oh, and any..........

Many of us are people who vote our consciences first and then, as it turns out, happen to be Democrats. Are the Republicans who vote for Sen. Obama selfish as well? Should anyone decide not to vote, that is their privilege and does not make them selfish.

I am a democrat and will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the presidential nominee. That's all there is to it. After all of the same old ugly plots and plans, negative ads, kitchen sinks, rotten tomatoes, etc. from her that we long to get away from, an endorsement/vote for her--not even a small one-- does not live here anymore. I'm a democrat, but I'm not her kind of democrat. I don't believe in playing on people's fears. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" I'm that kind of democrat. I see an opportunity in our lifetime to come together, not after a tragegy like 9-11, but out of hope for better future for us and ours. I want a ride on that train. If I can't get a ride on that train, then I'll wait for the next one going that way. I'm definitely not going for a ride on a train called "FEAR".
If she cared about us, she wouldn't be trying to frighten us.

Posted by: lcofield | March 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"Another stat from the exit polls is that 87% of African-americans in Ohio voted for Obama. That number is 88% for black females. One could argue that these numbers suggest that a large number of African Americans might be voting against Hillary because she is white. How sad. How sad that people can just pluck random statistics from polls, present them out of context, misrepresent what they actually state and imply that hundred of thousands of people are racist.

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 01:45 PM
"

Dave is a known gop'er. Please ignore. What stake does th gop have in teh democratic nomination process other than sabotage. Just an fyi.

I know the gop and clinton's people are teaming up. If they don't want to be confused with republcains maybe they shoudl stop lining up with them to destroy the democratic party. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Yes. Every President should get a BJ from a pretty girl. Its the least America can do to show our appreciation.

What we won't accept is any more untreated ex coke fiends as President.

George Bush was more than enough.

BJ's yes, Cocaine, no.

Any questions?

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I am amazed at you being such an insider in the Clinton campaign! What is it about the point that FINALLY people are waking up from the hypnotic trance they have been and as they get close to final choices, people start scrutinizing these candidates? But not thanks to you and the Washington and national media.

I am so disappointed about the gender bias reflected in these commentaries. Frankly, we certainly need some major growing up.

FINALLY we are starting to see issues trickling down that starts to question various issues of the Obama candidacy.

I totally disagree that the 3 a.m. commercial was a major factor that trumped any other issues. But she has a right to question this candidate. The issue of NAFTA played a major part caused by the statements made to Canada by his own team. When you see the populations in these 2 states where economy is a major factor, I can see where the vote went. Obama has been a great speaker, with good charisma but at the time of voting most individuals become realists and look at facts.

The great majority of Hispanics will NOT vote for Obama because he is offering NOTHING to this part of our population. The great majority of Hispanics have deep family values and are conservatives at heart and this candidate offers nothing.

This sentiment of closing up this election now "for the good of the party" is nothing more than a strategy from the Obama camp . The same as those that believe that the MATH prohibits Hillary from marching forward. So, as this is a DEMOCRATIC party and these 2 candidates are still too close ,the contest must go on. How DEMOCRATIC it is to ignore the remaining states and those that voted in Florida and Michigan? Dean's position is wrong and he should be taking immediate measures to insure that the party DOES NOT lose this constituency!!!

There are several issues that needs investigation and explaining:

1)It is wrong to pursue the issue of Obama's religion by itself. It is NOT whether he is a Muslim or Christian , but his still continuing connection to a RADICAL church that promotes black racism, hatred toward other minorities and anti-semitism presents a contradiction with the UNITER theme of his campaign. He has skirted giving a clear and firm answer to this question.

2)What is his connection to such fringe individuals likeFahrrakan, William Airs and the muslim professor from Columbia University? What impact would this have on his policies and as a Uniter?

3)What is the truth behind Rezco who is on trial for alleged corruption (and other charges) and how would this influence his campaign? Stay tuned to news from Chicago as we will hear more on this and other issues from them that the national media.

4)What is his position with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations? What policies will he follow with respect to Israel, who is an ally to the US and the only democracy in the Middle East? Would Obama be inclined to support the muslim agenda and drastically change our pursuits?

5)What are his REAL accomplishments in the US Senate in legislation and activities to work to foster unity and bi-partisanship among counterparts? Look and you will see that there is not much substance here. It lloks like he spent much of his time being tutored by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to be the next candidate of their choice.

So, the time has come to ask specifics about this candidate before we rush to judgement and select one that will lose this election as the Republicans will start to find issues on him. This is the danger that we face selecting an UKNOWN that could have a questionnable past.

So, let's not fret and let this DEMOCRATIC process and allow for the WILL of the voters to be exercised in these remaining states and if not then decided that is why there is a CONVENTION. Anything other than this defeats the principles for this party and will yield exodus to another party.

Be aware that we cannot afford for these MEDIA PUNDITS to DECIDE this election!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has more delegates, but he has lost the popular vote in every big state, except his homebase, from New York to California."

Virginia's pretty big, isn't it?

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's "blueprint":

1)Align yourself with McCain against your Democratic rival. Who cares about the Party? You are both pro-war and pro-lobbyist so I guess that makes total sense.

2) Keep saying that you take Obama "at his word" that he isn't a scary muslim because God forbid it is just too hard for a Clinton to give a STRAIGHT answer on anything.

3) Keep saying that legitimate calls to release your tax returns are really the "same" a Ken Starr's witch-hunts.

4) Keep the press running scared by accusing them of being "too hard" on the female candidate

All this will have Senator Clinton wondering why young, currently enthusiastic voters and many others don't coming running to her side if she gets the nomination.

Thanks Hilary, once again it is all about you.

Posted by: marSF | March 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

i d love to see a new "red phone" ad either a real one or on Saturday Night Live. The phone would ring in the White House at 300 am and would ask for BIll. It would be Monica, of course. Then they could ask is this what you want in the White House???

Posted by: powderluvr | March 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

one more post for leichtman.

so it's pay equality you want? Not freedom of REAL equality. Ok. Point taken.

I would argue going our route you can have both.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

There is no Clinton Blueprint for Victory.

She couldn't even win a majority of delegates in Texas. Even starting with a 22 point lead three weeks ago.

The only result will be more anti-Dem attack ads thought up by Karl Marx Rove and paid for by Sen Clinton.

Time to get real.

Posted by: WillSeattle | March 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

It all comes down to Pennsylvania, a must win for both Clinton and Obama. Obama has more delegates, but he has lost the popular vote in every big state, except his homebase, from New York to California.
Only Pennsylvania remains. The winner gets the nomination. How could the Dems nominate a candidate who lost the vote in all the big states?

Posted by: reportertex | March 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse


ImpeachNOW wrote:

"The voters have spoken and it is now time for Hussein to withdraw and end his divisive campaign. It has been fun watching the antics of his frat-boy and girls-gone-wild supporters, but it is now time to take the presidential contest seriously.

That means to focus on the fact that Tony's Rezko's partner-in-crime cannot win the presidency by winning in states like Vermont, Iowa, Idaho and North Dakota. To win the presidency, it will take winning the Hillary states of California, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Texas and Florida."
____________

The people HAVE spoken. That's why Obama has a triple-digit delegate lead, twice as many victories and a MILLION vote popular lead over Clinton. That's why Obama caught Clinton in places where she led two weeks ago by 20+ points. It's time for Hillary supporters to face the facts.

You have NOTHING regarding the states. All the traditionally Democratic states will be won by Obama anyway, and Hillary won't flip any. Texas? Are you insane?

The whole Rezko thing is just the 2008 Whitewater. Nobody cares.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

No one running for President today is ready to take office on Day One -- PERIOD.

It's more a question of who can grow most quickly into the job and who will best respond to the multitude of problems facing us today.

Hillary is very upset about someone appearing out of nowhere to take away the job she believed was her right.

I would be too. But that's not a reason to vote for her.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are so funny they should be a stand-up routine.

They give Obama a pass on using "hard drugs" and are "shocked, shocked" at the fact that Bill Clinton got a BJ.

Unless one of the people has a disease, its very hard to die from a BJ.

People die from "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin every day.

That's where America draws the line.


Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I definitely want Hillary to win but how can a plan be carried out easily when the opposition knows what you're planning to do? There is no way I support Obama but come on, keep it a bit more secret! Hillary has a lot more experience and that would be helpful in the White House, but Obama has been the slickest campaigner. What he lacks is substance and what she lacks is the "campaign personality". She has a hard time being real in a big audience.

Posted by: lynnellingw | March 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

so attack and blame the messagnger gop (clintons propogandists included). What happened to about the issues?

I'm not a troll. I have a strong opion. Rather than whien cry and complain, and work the refs (jones effect, why not rip my posts to shreds or tell me how I'm wrong.

"Why am I being asked the hard questions."

If you can't compeate don't. Who are you crying to? Cc? The rest of the posters, so you can do the gop propogandists site nonsense of attack the messanger and pile one.

Only works with people with an ego. If I'm wrong tell me how. If my posts are inaccruate how? to attack and attempt to mock and discredit me shows you got nothing. Indepedant thinkers here see you.

If you can't win, what? Whine cry complain. Lie spin and discredit. those are the same technics I see on fox daily. That is what makes you gop'ers. Not my words.

Looking for attention. You will get no pity from me gop. Take accountability for your actions. Stop your propogandists for profit. Then you will get credibility, not only from me but from america. Or don't. your choice.

but you show your propogandists faces. This applies only to it applies to of course. To otehrs please ignore. These dittohead clones only recognize strength. They will not and cannot acknowledge reality. to do so would destroy their small worlds they have created in their minds and in the media.

It's simple gop tough guys. If I'm wrong how? I'll be waiting. Research. Come back when you got something

the day sof whining and complaining, as well as silencing thsoe who you disagree with, ARE OVER. Pray cc bans me. you can't tough my posts gop. that much is obvious. Do WHAT YOU CAN DO, and see if it works.

The days of jones effect gossip and blame and silence the messanger are over. you can't hide anymore from reality.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

sequoiaqueneaux wrote:

"Oh, and any Democrat who is threatening not to vote or to vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the primary is a selfish, disloyal little a*shole who the Democratic party is better witout."

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

What a great way to convince people to vote for your candidate!

Party loyalty isn't good for much except keeping corrupt, incompetent politicians in office. I hope you realize that the proportion of Americans who call themselves Independents is growing every day. Neither party can afford to write off everyone who questions the party's tactics or choice of candidates.

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

My God, what are you Americans doing? She's out! She lost! That's what the rest of the world sees ... like they saw straight through George Bush's case for war. In delegate count she can't win. Michigan and Florida should not be seated given the rules going in. What the world sees is a desperate women trying to steal the nomination and the American people and press going along with it. When will you learn? Again, you look foolish and irresponsible, and quite frankly your judgment as the greatest power on earth should seriously be called into question if you continue on this way.

Posted by: ac11 | March 6, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Why would Obama want HillBilly as his VEEP?

She may need him, he doesn't need her.

He could get Gov. Richardson to be his VEEP. He helps from being a diplomat with foreign relations credentials.

-----------------
Plus that would fulfill an old Chris Rock joke. If he were running as the first black president he would have a Latino as his VEEP. Saying that no red neck would dare target him, b/c the new Latino president would open the border.
-----------------
I only hope that the Sly Stalone movie Demolition Man doesn't become prophecy. The 32 Amendment aka the Schwartzenager Amendment allowing foreigners to run for the presidency. If Demolition Man was prophetic, there really is 'somthing rotten in the state of...' America.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama had "shot up" heroin, would his supporters still support him? Where do we draw the line?"

Good point. I would draw the line at voting for someone who cheated on his first wife while taking kickbacks from S&L looters, and "rehabilitated" himself by signing a BS campaign finance act with one hand while taking funds from $1,000 a plate fundraisers with the other. I also would also draw the line at voting for someone who was figuratively and literally in bed with lobbyists.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

What's all of the obsession with NAFTA? I have a simple question to which I have yet to see an answer.

How many jobs would the U.S. (or Ohio or Pennsylvania) get if NAFTA disappeared today?

I have a feeling that the answer would be very small if it's even positive.

Posted by: harry4 | March 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't have "the right stuff" to be President. He crumbled like a cookie and ran off the stage when the press asked him about Rezko.

Obama also lied, "big time" on national television when he claimed he barely knew Rezko and only did a few hours work for him as part of a charity project.

Then we found out that in what looks like an exchange for a sweet-heart deal on some land, Obama steered millions of dollars of contracts toward Rezko, who has been a major contributor to Obama's campaign.

Obama isn't the person his supporters think he is.

He's just another Politician.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse


svreader stamps her feet and cries:

"Hillary is by far the stronger national candidate."
_______________

Oh, yeah? Which states will she win that Kerry didn't?

Why is Obama 12 points ahead of McCain nationally?

Why is Obama leading in 2004-Bush states like Iowa, Virginia and Colorado?

In what 2004-Bush states is Hillary leading?

Are you able to provide *A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G* to back up your statements? Anything at all?

Are you stupid or just stubborn?

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse


http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Huma_Abedin

backatcha!

Someone scribbled that if any Democrat votes against Hillary if she becomes the nominee is no Democrat. Well, I have to disagree. The Clintons just bring out the worst in people, even if they do win elections. So in order to save the Party, I will vote against her and get her off the train to the Presidency.

McCain sounds like he really wants to set the Supreme Court back to 1856, so ladies, think about voting for Obama, won't you?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

1. It will be the economy stupid, no matter how hard McCain and Clinton try to fight it.

2. Even with a re-vote in FL & MI, only an Obama implosion will allow her to eliminate the pledged delegate lead.

3. HRC has not had to weather any attacks from Obama. Reminds me of the Princess Bride, "There is something you do not know, I am not left-handed either."

4. If super-delegates are truly ruled by fear, than Obama holds the trump card. Use his organization to start gathering names state by state to put his name on the ballot regardless of who the Democrats select in Denver. "She cheated, I'm running anyway and you all know I can raise the money to do it." They'll be besides themselves, but what can the party elders really do? Lieberman seems to have survived.

Posted by: caribis | March 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Instead of winning the Presidential nomination, I think she's going to end up being Obama's VP candidate (http://kloris.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/why-clinton-wil.html ):

I believe political logic is inevitably leading to both candidates running on the same ticket:

1. The contest has become divisive and destruction--largely as the result of Hillary's actions--and is poised to get much more so: Barack has already begun to politely [so far] sling the mud.

2.There is no denying that the Democratic Party is roughly evenly split between Obama and Clinton. The contest has become personal for a lot of supporters and whichever side "loses" will be slightly to highly demotivated (depending on how "fair" their loss seems to them).

The only way to stop the self-destruction and unify the Party would be to have a unified ticket. Even if cooler heads prevail and #1 does not become a major problem going forward, #2 will remain a very big obstacle to success in November. Hillary herself acknowledged this logic yesterday.

If you accept this conclusion, the key question becomes, who is in which position? Here's where the "math" comes into play. Based not only on where things stand now, but also where they are likely to end Obama will have the pledged delegate lead going into the convention. He might even have the lead among superdelegates by then.

Given that in our system, the one who wins more absolute votes wins (no matter how small a lead: just ask George I-won-by-a-measly-300-votes-in-Florida Bush) Obama is going to "win" the right to run for President. So Clinton will end up running as his VP.

James Carville, long-time Clinton confidante and strategist, even said on Good Morning America that Hillary would accept a VP position. Watch the video:
http://kloris.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/why-clinton-wil.html

Posted by: kloris | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

So it seems that the more educated degree holding Democrats want Obama.

The less educated rural Democrats want a HillBilly.


This should be a no brainer for the SuperDelegates whom tend to be educated degree holders themselves.

Smart people want Obama.
Ignorant people want HillBilly.

Which side would you honestly rather be with? The Smart or The Stupid?

------NAFTA-------

The jobs that NAFTA "gave away" (they weren't lost) aren't coming back.

Hopefully by "giving them away" fewer workers will attempt to cross the border illegally in search of work. That will help with our immigration policy problems.

Manufacturing jobs go were labor is cheap and that is not here. That cheap labor may help consumers pay less when buying products.

NAFTA allows the US to buy up a great deal of Canada'a oil (10% of what US Consumes) before they ship it overseas to China. Doing away with that will result in high gas prices.

On a whole NAFTA seems good.
-------------------

But then both candidates hae to go and pander to people who can't grasp the nuance; and are acting like the Red Necks in South Park: who can only argue "They 'ook Owr Jorbz"

They clearly aren't thinking straight.

A Mind Is A Terrble Thing To Waste.
Vote Smart.
Vote Obama.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

JSnapper -- Yes, OH and TX voted for Clinton. People have short memories though. Just 3 scant weeks ago, Clinton was polling an advantage well into the double digits in both states. I believe Clinton had a roughly 17-point advantage in OH, and won by 10 after a weekend surge in her favor. Texas swung even more favorably toward Obama as the two campaigned heavily there.

Check the polling histories, particularly the graphs:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html


Claiming that people don't like what they see once they finally learn something about Obama just doesn't hold water; he made inroads into tough territory, just not enough to win the popular vote in these two particular states.

Posted by: metavosk | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is toast and should drop out of the race." Posted by: svreader

What a laughable "conclusion". He's won twice the number of states that Clinton has, plus he has a strong lead in the delegate counts.

I'd be for a new election for Michigan and Florida. Both those states knew what they were doing and the consequences if they moved their primaries up, and they went ahead and did it anyway, against the party's wishes. Had the DNC backed down and said, "Okay, we'll seat your delegates," it would mean that (a) the DNC has no power to enforce any of its own rules and any state could do whatever it wanted, unchecked, and (b) Obama's honoring the DNC position that since both those states violated party rules, that neither candidate should campaign there, would be for naught. Voters in Michigan and Florida haven't had the chance to see Obama up close and personal because he honored the DNC's request; and it's generally known that when people actually meet him, his numbers in elections rise. Clinton went down there and did campaign, hence her "wins". I hope the DNC stands firm on their decision. If the rules need to be changed, let all the states vote on them, not just two that want to shove their way to the front of the line!

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"His own words about his drug filled past, especially his repeated use of Cocaine, makes him "simply unelectable"


Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 01:38 PM
"

wOW. What about vicadin? Ocicoten. What other drugs eliminate you from politics gop?

WOW

I don't think it's going to work on anyone born after 1955. If someone doing drugs eliminates them from work for a lifetime, many people are going to get fired.

conservaitves. Destroying the constitution is fine. Lying to get us in wars is fine. Spying on americans and destroying the constitution is fone.

better not be gay cheat on yoru wife or do a lttiel drugs when your young.

We'll see who buys it gop. The "war on drugs" is just like the "war on terror". A war waged by conservatives on their own country to acquire political and econmic superiroirty.

After 1955, their not buying it old man. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The voters have spoken and it is now time for Hussein to withdraw and end his divisive campaign. It has been fun watching the antics of his frat-boy and girls-gone-wild supporters, but it is now time to take the presidential contest seriously.

That means to focus on the fact that Tony's Rezko's partner-in-crime cannot win the presidency by winning in states like Vermont, Iowa, Idaho and North Dakota. To win the presidency, it will take winning the Hillary states of California, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Texas and Florida.

The Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Changeable-Hope BS and assorted plagiarisms of Hussein (along with his theft of most of John Edwards' ideas) has been a delightful distraction from reality. Now the responsible and mature Democrats must get serious and work to elect a capable president.

Posted by: ImpeachNOW | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Joint ticket. Flip a coin for P/VP.
Dems will crush the Repubs.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

*Obama says that superdelegates should vote according to the decision made by the people of that state. If so,why DNC needs superdelegates? Harword scholar should answer that.
**If rules are going to change in the middle of the election, why not adapt "winner takes all" delegates of that state ? Obama may not agree. He won tiny states and many of them will vote for Republican in the national election.
***If DNC keeps the "rule of the game" as it is, then Superdelegates have the right to vote as they please. That is democracy. Even democratic congreemen and senators from the same state vote as they please in the congress. Why not then in the Presidential nominee selection?
**** Or allow each delegate vote by secret ballot as he or she pleases at the convention. That is Democratic system. No pledged delegates. All of them vote by "Secret ballot"
In the presidential election electors have the freedom to vote or not to vote for the So-called" winner of that state.

Posted by: kmnair | March 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse


svreader cried:

"Obama is toast and should drop out of the race."
______________________

OBAMA WINNING and not able to be caught by Hillary. PERIOD. He should now drop out because YOU are disproportionally OBSESSED with one small footnote in a remarkable life?

No matter how many times you say Obama is toast, Obama is unlectable, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, there is nothing to back it up. He is beating Hillary and leads McCain nationally by 12 points.

Go back to sleep.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama is politician souflee. He's going to drop like a stone as soon as his supporters realize he's just another politician, not Jesus Christ.

Obama has nowhere to go but down.

Hillary is by far the stronger national candidate.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy.

Already she is trying to be all things to all people. She has no idea what she even stands for beyond wanting the power.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, there is no way Clinton will be the nominee. Here's why (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/05326/39800/635/470246):

"Obama and Clinton are essentially tied in voter-elected supers [govenors, senators and the like who are actually elected], and generally have been very close for a few weeks now.

The whole margin of Clinton's lead is the DNC types, the lower radar state party vice chairs and whatnot. This group bears watching. Since he was very close in voter-elected endorsements by Feb 5, for the most part, Obama's endorsement steady trickle has been from the DNC group the past 4 weeks. DNC supers are closing the gap. But if in the end the voter-elected supers stay on an even pace, and if it is DNC superdelegates that take this away from Obama, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.

Obama supporters should take some solace in the essential tie among voter-elected supers. These people have more power in real-world politics than the DNCers, and it will take more power and a stronger will to justify flipping the large pledged delegate lead if that is what happens. Put another way, Gov. Jim Doyle is more influential than Jason Rae, both of whom are part of Wisconsin's delegation. If the voter-elected group stays tied (ie, approximately 55-55 of the remaining endorsers), it strikes me as far less plausible that Clinton convinces a whole bunch of Jason Raes and state party chairs and vice-chairs to rise up in powerful defiance of Obama's nomination, which is what it will take."

Clinton will have to convince between 69% and 83% of all the uncommitted supers to vote for her. "Significantly, all of the percentages of remaining supers breaking for Clinton have a common element. They all look like a clear party decision to hand the nomination to Clinton. And in terms of keeping the Party from major meltdown, none of those scenarios can avoid the public perception of a stolen nomination. These last 24 hours and certainly in the days and weeks to come, the Clinton camp will be aggressively trying to move the goalposts down the road, but lest we forget, this is delusional."

Posted by: kloris | March 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons dont care about the well being of the democratic its all about them, they are gonna destroy the party with their ego. I use to love them until I realise they will do anything to win even using the race card, if she is the nominee she will not win her negatives are too high, they have too many scandals in the closet Bill lates one with the yellow cake for donation will be on display again, whhite water, travel gate, monica gate, the dynasty of the Bushes and the Clintons is not good for the country these two families are the same its all about them.

Posted by: dths1980 | March 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse


JSnapper wrote:

"Face it, Obama supporters, a majority of people in Ohio and Texas thought Clinton would be the better nominee. Stop with your silly excuses."
___________

LOL! Face it Hillary supporters, a majority of people in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state and Wisconsin thought Obama would be the better nominee. He also has a triple-digit delegate lead and a million more popular votes.

Obama will win more delegates in Texas as well (which he trailed by 20+ points two weeks ago).

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

You, Sir, are out of your mind ! ! !

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"In addition, the Obama campaign has justifiable fear of what may ooze out of the Rezko trial. The Obama campaign cannot bring itself to come clean to the charge that Obama says one thing about NAFTA to the American people while his top advisors whisper something quite different to the Canadian government."
Posted by: Politicalpuck

And Hillary doesn't have anything to worry about coming out? At the Ohio debate she said then that she'd release her and Bill's financial numbers. She has yet to do that. Her latest "estimate" is that those numbers will be available around April 15, tax time. There's some hiding going on there.

In addition, the Republicans will have a field day digging up not just her own porous experience as a senator (sorry, merely living with the president doesn't mean you've actually made the final decisions even if you may have influenced them), but Whitewater will come back, and the Lewinsky impeachment scandal will come back, as the GOP makes charges by association.

The pendulum of negative media coverage has swung from Clinton to Obama ... for now. News cycles come and go, and voters selectively pay attention. Anyone recall the endless posturing discussions on whether Obama was "black enough" for African American voters? That lasted weeks. It's BS that Clinton claims Obama hasn't been scrutinzed by the media; he has.

Clinton will have her own coming clean to do, if the broadcast media do their jobs - and the pendulum swings back the other way.

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't like playing into these kinds of things, but I'm not sure what Obama wants to do to Washington. I feel like he wants to put on his real dress of Barack Husain Terrorist Obama, and blow up Washigton. MR OBAMA, washington has been here for years and when you die it will be here. GET OUT OF POLITICS if you don't want to deal with Washington the way it is. Your fisrt problem is wanting to wipe out Washington. You should first try wiping something else. SOB.

Posted by: wmaster | March 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"I am curious to know, if in the context of election law, the courts would find that voter disenfranchisement trumps the DNC "rules"?"

NOPE. The parties can do whatever they want.

If asked, I'd suggest the Dems tell FL and MI: "You know what? We're not used to standing fast against anything - including granting telecom's immunity from consequence for breaking the law - but maybe if we stand fast against you we'll grow a backbone."

Posted by: DonJasper | March 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

svreader -- The drug use in Obama's distant past is a bogeyman with no teeth. It's been fully vetted and has not been a factor at any point in his professional adult life. There may be people who feel as strongly about the issue as you do, but they seem to be in the minority.

Our past two presidents have had their own drug use/abuse issues to deal with, and clearly it did not render either one 'unelectable'.

Furthermore, McCain can't even begin throw rocks at that particular glass house, due to his wife's transgressions. It'll be as much a non-issue in the general as it has been in the primaries, reflecting an admirable ability of the electorate to look past youthful transgressions.

Posted by: metavosk | March 6, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Patrick:

you're welcome :)

JSnapper--True about the majority in TX and OH--and while I can also point out that a majority of the people who have voted in the past two months prefer Obama.

So what's your point?

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

If Obama had "shot up" heroin, would his supporters still support him?

Where do we draw the line?

Obama admits to repeatedly using cocaine, each use is a felony, that makes Obama a multiple felon, even if was clever enough to not get caught.

Republicans will make sure Americans know that and never forget it.

Who will America vote for? The "war hero" or the "ex coke fiend?"

Obama is toast and should drop out of the race.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Face it, Obama supporters, a majority of people in Ohio and Texas thought Clinton would be the better nominee. Stop with your silly excuses. Isn't it possible that when people finally got some idea of who this blank slate Obama is that most just didn't care for what they saw?

Posted by: JSnapper | March 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I heard a really cool song the other day that could be the official Fix song. It was called "Let's Publish the Unfiltered Clinton Campaign Talking Points without a Critical Eye toward how Desperate and Retarded They Sound."

Posted by: bondjedi | March 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

So, fighter and national defense are the issues. What does she do with the anti-war voters who thought she was wrong in her Senate vote? Concede them to Obama? And if she gets the nomination does this not invite a vigourous 3rd Party anti-war candidate (which would ensure McCain's election)?

Posted by: jdmca | March 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

PatrickNYC: Capulate: a verb meaning to get drunk off your A$# and refuse to use spell check. Ex: JKrish . . .appears to capulate on the FIX comment section daily.
Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 01:34 PM
---------------------------
LOL

Thanks

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Nissl - "Thought I would mention that Clinton's entire margin in Ohio came from people voting against Obama because he's black. (20% said race was important, 15% Clinton 5% Obama). How sad."

First off, the stat you sight misrepresents what the poll actually says. 20% said that race played some part in their decision (Race of Candidate Was Most Important (6%) or One of Several Factors (14%)). That is different than 20% of voters voted for or against someone because of their race. Secondly, the 20% breaks down as 12% Clinton/8% Obama. Finally, 79% thought race was not important at all.

Another stat from the exit polls is that 87% of African-americans in Ohio voted for Obama. That number is 88% for black females. One could argue that these numbers suggest that a large number of African Americans might be voting against Hillary because she is white. How sad. How sad that people can just pluck random statistics from polls, present them out of context, misrepresent what they actually state and imply that hundred of thousands of people are racist.

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse


'We'll start this morning with the blueprint for Clinton; the Obama blueprint will follow. Agree or disagree with our assessment? Did we leave something out? The comments section awaits.'

In other words, her plan is to scheme to use stalling tactics, fear-based appeals and cynicism in order to secure enough 'super-delegates' to ensure her nomination, never mind what election returns and the greater interests of the general public might indicate she _ought_ to do if she were more devoted to the these---if she were not obsessed with winning at all costs, that is.

Yes, I think your review about covers it as a summary of her intentions and likely plans for, (cough, cough) 'victory'.

Never mind the nation. It's her power needs that count.

How much we've learned since the creepy Bush administration TOOK power!, huh?

Posted by: proximity1 | March 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse


svreader wrote:

Obama wouldn't stand a chance.

_________________

*yawn*

Just because you say something over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again does NOT make it a valid point.

There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - to suggest Obama is "unlectable" against McCain, especially when compared to Hillary. In fact, everything points to the exact opposite.

I am so tired or biiter, sore-loser Hillary supporters and their dingbat, delusional theories based on nothing.

Get a life.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

wpost: I will take you at your word that these posts are truly not B.O. supporters, rather childish bloggers, trolls who come here to be disruptive. We needed to hear that and ask that such comments not be associated to either candidate but being made by immaturity bloggers wishing to draw attention to themseleves. I can live with that.

I have heard the term blank slate theory to define B.O. What that means is that he purposefully in his speeches wants to leave voters with the concept that his positions are a blank slate, due to his lack of time in the political world. As a blank slate it allows the voter to fill in their perception of him in a positive way. That is not meant as a slight to him but an interesting strategy that can certainly be successful politically as long as your opponent does fill in the blanks first with their message and portrayal. That is what often happens with a campaign that runs on speeches filled with rhetoric like hope, inspiration, change, and new kind of politics rather than on the theory of here is my 3 part plan, I am a policy wonk vote for me. Two different styles, the first worked for Ronald Reagan but failed when John Edwards tried it. Its probably the candidate that can first persuade they are both inspirational and a policy wonk that will succeed, currently both candidates are playing up to their strengths but ignoring the other political concept.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"As an outsider (Australian) I have noted watching the "democrats" that I have become an "anti-Clinton" bystander.

I liked her over the years but having seen the Michael Moore movie "Sicko" her health care position as "first lady", and now her heavierly funded campaign by the "big pharma" I have seen her as a "pure" opportunist!

Her negative attack on Obama, only had to add "Osama" to go the "whole nine yards" on attempting to destroy not only him but the party! I certainly couldn't vote for her if I were an American, it seems it's all about me (Her). Our former prime nminister here in Australia was very much like your Hilary, he lost his seat and a government of over 11.5 years was lost because it was all about (HIM) mememememe!

I like Barrack, I think as the democratic nominee, he will be the person to get the USA back where "she" belongs, an icon of what is possible in our world!

America don't let us down, please!

Posted by: porpie9254 | March 5, 2008 08:33 PM
"

From a post here yeasterday. (who won)

the world is watching. They are looking to us. Let's not let them down.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Not the Radical Islamic Extremists, who have been strangely quiet of late."

LOL!! I think what you mean to say is that their dubious achievements haven't been glorified by front page US news coverage, nor enhanced with presidential amplification.

Maybe that's why they seen less of the threat! The question is whether Bush's fear mongering is less in quality or quantity.

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."

Posted by: DonJasper | March 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Regarding MI and FL:
Is there any good reason, other than money, that MI and FL shouldn't have a re-vote? I think their votes should count, but that assigning delegates according to the Jan. vote is deeply unfair to Obama. I'd be willing to throw a few bucks into a fund specifically targeted to help the FL and MI Dems. pay for new primaries. Would others go for this? Is this just a goofy idea? (I mean this as a serious question)

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Since when does being a housewife of a President count as experience. Americans are so dumb. They will believe anything. What did Bill do when World Trade Center was attacked in 1993? Absolutely nothing and the experience girl was there. Hillary does not reveal that she is Hebrew on her mothers side from what her two neighbors told me in Chicago.

Posted by: mascmen7 | March 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick of the " what Hillary has to do to win" line of analysis. I'll tell you what she has to do

1. Cheat, Change the rules after the fact, disregard the will of the people.

The fact is she barely won the primary in texas and won in Ohio. These people never voted before. The people in the last 12 contests leading up to Ohio voted for Obama. He has 600,000 more votes. Yes it's a close election considering how many have voted but last time I checked 600,000 is not an insignificant number of people. Obama will baring ]absurdly improbable blowouts in the remaining states and the unfair and according to Howard Dean today unlikely prospect of reelection in Florida and Michigan ( didn't Clinton agree to not campaign there, only after she wins there but is losing big overall does she start this whole bs, change the rules after the game idea )

And the whole idea that the press is sympathetic towards Obama is , a really unfunny, joke. I have seen 100x the what can Hillary do to win? questions v What Can Obama do to end it? The press lets Clinton distort who Obama is, his religion, his votes, his ideas, the Rezco thing and NEVER mentions Monica Lewiskygate, Whitewater, the fact that she is planning on stealing the election with party insiders, the fact that if it's down to voters voting she has lost, her tax returns etc. Wolf Blitzer, Jon Stewart ( quite sadly ), SNL all have given what I have perceived to be biased and preferential treatment to Hillary. I did not see such bias in the two debates for SNL to run two mock debates where the whole point was the questions were SO easy on Obama where was the basis for this? I watched both debates. It seemed to me they were pretty even handed, even though Hillary her self is far from polite and screeches over the hosts cause "this is just too important" and then talks about health care again.

She is tearing this country apart when Barack Obama could be pulling it together. Her supporters are far less passionate. She has the establishment and those who are actually thinking choose Obama. For comparable rallies she will net 2,000 supporters to his 10,000 sometimes 20,000 where is the focus on this? There is a real movement and people finally believing again in something not just politics as usual and Hillary and the Clinton machine is trying to kill it while the press holds the moment under the guillotine waiting for the blade to fall. Stop being played. You all say exactly the talking points Hillary puts out ( oh she won "the big states" well she LOST AMERICA the United States remember, and it's not as if Obama is goign to loose California or Clinton is going to win Texas, the question is who can attact new people to vote and who can win states that did not go to Kerry in '04 but you don't hear that nearly as much )

please consider that Hillary is being nasty and is trying to cheat. this is not the lesson we want to send to the rest of the world or our children ( or ourselves )
please stop enabling her.

Posted by: jrak | March 6, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Democrats would have to be total idiots to nominate Obama for the top slot.

Republicans will use the drugs issue to tear him to pieces.

Mainstream America doesn't want any ex-cokeheads in the Oval office.

The smartest thing Bush ever did was evade the question, and even that nearly sank him.

Obama wouldn't stand a chance.

His own words about his drug filled past, especially his repeated use of Cocaine, makes him "simply unelectable"

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

elaborate leichtman. What's your beef?

clinton is putting feminism back decades. Her crying for votes. Her playing the woman card. Think MLK. Look beyond skin color or gender. Is that clinton? Or is she making a living off he gender NOT issues or policies? You can't have it both ways. You can't cry about equality then play the gender card. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

My question is. Are clinton supporters against bush and what he has done to this great nation? If you are with bush everything makes sense.

If you are against bush and what he has done, how could you support a candidate that stood by hima nd still does. When he was destroying the nation, clinton was there. She and her husband WAS teh democratic establishment. So where were they. I lay the balem of what happened to this country, not compleatly on bush's and the gop's feet. He had help. The opposition party was supposed to stop him, like the gop did to clinton. We're was she then, when she was needed?

She is now using gop rove tactics. How can you rally agaisnt bush, then back a candidate with the same tactics.

Crying sexism or media bias will nto work here. We talk isues and the future here. you can't work the refs. What's your beef. If I'm wrong HOW?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

As we watch the Clinton folk turn themselves inside out to argue that the SDs should ignore the pledged delegate count, I'm keeping in mind two things: a) the 2000 election and b) the poll tax.

So the elites in the Democratic Party, eight years after Gore won the popular vote and had the election stolen, are going to overturn the popular vote, essentially disenfranchising millions of African-American voters and millions of others who have voted for Obama, the first electable African-American candidate? Not in this lifetime, not if there is going to be a Democratic Party as we know it for the next several decades.

Posted by: marcjabernathy | March 6, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse


Oh, and any Democrat who is threatening not to vote or to vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the primary is a selfish, disloyal little a*shole who the Democratic party is better witout.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

One other message that Clinton can still use on McCain/Bush -- they have squandered the strong economy that the democrats has given them when Bush first become the president, and they still haven't fixed it yet. What makes people believe that they will fix the economy this time given that McCain still wants to pour money in the wars.

Posted by: cybervote | March 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Why did the media not jump all over Clinton's statement that she was "too busy" to release her tax return? It seems to me that she did even work to develop a plausible excuse.

In Obama's return, which we can surely assume shows far less income and is far less complex, was still prepared by an external accounting firm. Chances are, he called and asked that S.S. numbers be blacked out and the return released.

Hillary - Do you really not have the time to make a 5 minute phone call to your accounting firm? Maybe another 3 minutes to fax an authorization?

Please don't try to lie to us, and if you do, at least make it believable.


23 years old, disappointed with traditional politics, and supporting Obama '08!

Posted by: alex | March 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

--"The idea of ensuring that more primary votes are meaningful is a powerful one in the Democratic Party."

If the power of primary voters is such an important one, wouldn't they get rid of superdelegates entirely?

Their only purpose is to make sure the voters don't "get it wrong".

Posted by: ericma | March 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

PatrickNYC: Capulate: a verb meaning to get drunk off your A$# and refuse to use spell check. Ex: JKrish . . .appears to capulate on the FIX comment section daily.

DONJASPER said:"Obama must respond to Clinton's critical messages. I wouldn't call them 'negative' per say, just 'tough'."

I agree--my issue is that they are pandering to petty ignorance--but I agree with you, he should learn from this and show some brass balls.

HAS ANYONE NOTICED CC's HILLARY BLUEPRINT HAS BEEN UP FOR OVER 7 HOURS??? When is the promised Obama blueprint coming????

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Chris, Chris--

You could've saved some cyber ink and simply put this down as Hillary's plan:

"Go negative."

I can't wait to vote for Obama here in North Carolina. But I'm afraid the Clintons have no problem with disrupting the Democratic party as long as there is a slim chance it will make her the nominee.

Of course, then she'll lose to McCain, because if just a fraction of angry Dems vote against her, she'll lose.

On the other hand, it saddened me yesterday to see McCain accept Bush's endorsement. Wow. Like isn't that a surefire way to lose votes?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Mani2008 wrote:

"All you Obama supporters really got a wake up call. Hillary did what she needed to do to stay in this race which was stop Obama from winning. People are finally starting to see the truth about him. He seems like a nice guy but all that forceful rhetoric will only get him so far. The real change is voting for Clinton."
____________

Ugh. I don't know why I'm bothering because Clinton supporters refuse to acknowledge REALITY, but Obama's roll continues. He was 20+ points behind in Ohio and Texas two weeks ago, and he lost Ohio by 10 and will end up WINNING TEXAS in the delegate count because he won the caucus and only lost the primary by 3 points. Clinton's BIG comeback netted her like 4 delegates. Symbolic victories are meaningless. It's the delegates that count and Clinton didn't make a dent on Tuesday.

The FACT is, Clinton failed to win by the landslide victories necessary to make a dent in Obama's triple-digit delegate lead and there is no way Clinton can catch up. Obama is the nominee unless the so-called "super-delegates" defy the will of the majority of Democrats. Is that what you want? It's immoral and undemocratic.

I think it's telling that after all the Clinton supporters' attacks on Obama re: the whole Canada / NAFTA thing, it was actually CLINTON's campaign that lied and orchestrated the whole thing! The TRUTH comes out.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I respect people's choice to vote for their candidate of choice, be it Obama or Clinton. What turns me off completely from the Obama's campaign and supporters are their constant clumping Bill Clinton's years and the Bush's years together. It is a huge disservice that they do to the DNC. Obama is tearing down the DNC!

While it is true that Bill's years bring us many moments of embarrassments but he delivered - a budget surplus, a strong economy that, by the way, helps the parents to pay for these young folks to be in school, low tuition rate; Clinton inherits a horrible economy from the senior Bush and he turned the country around.

The Jr. Bush inherited a strong economy and turned it into a recession.

These two presidencies are sharply different, so to say that they are the same, it is plain a dishonest attempt to rewrite the history!

Posted by: cybervote | March 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, without a doubt at least some Clinton supporters will sit out November. But Democrats are used to the old circular firing squad that pulls together in the end. We're one big unhappy squabbling family, but the one thing we do agree on is that we're better than the red team.

And I really think McCain is going to lose badly. No incumbent party would be able to survive the right direction/wrong track numbers we're seeing.

Posted by: novamatt | March 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Concur with everything on the Article.

**** Please notice that Puerto Rico is going to vote big time for Hillary, I know this for a fact (I am from PR and I know my US co-citizens from the land of enchanment. She will win at least 40 of those 55 delegates for a net gain of 25 delegates for her...and if Bill goes down to the beautiful island few days earlier to play some golf...her victory will be even bigger. Bottom Line, Hillary can bring down the delegates deficit to a handful with big victories in Pensylvania, Indiana and PR. Then the superdelegates will see she has the momentum and throw their support to her...at that time she will only will have to make up a handful of delegates and there are a window of 400 superdelegates for her to make up the small difference.
A key point is the relevance of Puerto Rico in US politics, it was about time that US mainland take a notice of the potential of that beautiful island.
VIVA PUERTO RICO and THE USA!

Posted by: angelopr2004 | March 6, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Why am I supporting Barack Obama?

Because Washington insiders simply CANNOT change the failed system in Washington simply because they are too deeply entrenched in that system to see another way to do things.

Because Senator Obama had the courage to stand up and try even though he'd been told by everyone that what he was trying to do was IMPOSSIBLE and so his efforts were doomed to failure (we are in desperate need a man of courage and conviction right now).

Because Senator Obama believes that we are far better people than we've demonstrated in the last seven years and that we can become that shining example to the world AGAIN if we are only willing to reclaim our country and reject our fears - collectively.

And because he is where he is because of US - we, the people. Because he isn't already signed, sealed and delivered into the pockets of the big corporations and special interests. Because he can be an honest broker between us and them. And because maybe (just maybe), just by following Senator Obama's personal example, we can learn to work together again for the benefit of ALL instead of just for some.

That's why I'm still working and donating and praying for Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States...because he will be OUR president and not the president of the few and privileged.

And because I still have hope that such a president is possible, I am supporting Barack Obama with all the resources that I have. And even if he doesn't win the nomination (or the general election), simply because Barack Obama tried to win, WE HAVE WON - as a nation - just by his reminder that the power in this country belongs to US. So, even if we're not quite ready to take that power back this year, that message will not be lost. Maybe we'll be ready in a few more years...but I'm giving it all I've got this time around.

Call that "cultish" if you will. But then, poor you.

Carmen Cameron
Louisville, KY

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Senator Barack Obama amusingly tells his supporters that the old political establishment wanted him to wait and spend more time stewing in the U.S. Senate where they could boil hope right out of him before he ran for the presidency. A funny line yet one spoken with the ring of truth. Fortunately for a great many and growing number of American citizens, Barack decided not to wait.


But unfortunately, it is increasingly becoming apparent that the old establishment Clintons have also decided not to wait to commence boiling hope out of Barack. Indeed, the Clintons have taken their stewing recipe to a new level to the point that they are seriously on the way to boiling hope right out of the Democratic Party if not America itself.


Desperation calls for desperate actions but the Clintons recent stewing goes beyond the pale. Going way beyond their recent (but anticipated) dive into the sad pool of negative ads, the Clintons have also launched a drive to seat the previously agreed to ineligible Michigan and Florida State delegates "as is". As in based on election results favoring Senator Hillary Clinton and wherein one state did not even have Senator Barack Obama on the ballot (Michigan) and the other state Hillary with prescience celebrated her non-eligible win in on the night of it (Florida).


This is not to say that the critical issue of seating these ineligible state delegates is undeserving of resolution in the best interest of the Democratic Party and more importantly the disenfranchised voters impacted by their respective state leader's unilateral decision to knowingly break their own National Democratic Party's rules by moving the date of their state elections up. Resolution of this critical issue definitely is in the best interest of everyone involved including all of the states and their respective voters that have followed the rules. To his credit and in the best interest of everyone, Senator Obama recognizes the critical importance of coming up with a solution that is fair to both candidates.


But it is to say that to her great discredit, Hillary's rapid descent into practicing attack style politics as usual and her win at all costs insistence on seating ineligible Michigan and Florida state delegates "as is" match with her willingness to go to the mat to have them seated as such is unequivocally unfair.

It is in the best interest of everyone that a "Do-Over" in Michigan and Florida occurs and it will likely happen when all the parties involved in and adversely impacted by this unfortunate fiasco agree to share in the cost of doing it over.


However, "as is", such a transparently undemocratic "solution" put forth solely in the best interest of Senator Hillary Clinton by Senator Hillary Clinton (and her advocates) is only deserving of great disdain, likely reflective of her style of mandating solutions to critical issues, and truly represents the saddest recipe ever for......


Boiling Political Hope Right Out of America!

Posted by: csfoster2000 | March 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

obama has to fight mccain, hillary and the media. Clinton? She just has to fight obama. Mccain? Obama. the media? they do what makes them money.

Uphill fight against teh whole corrupt system. But we knew this was going to happen eventually. The question becomes, whose side are the american people on? the recession prone, spying on americans, torturing, habus corpus destroying, buring the consitution, corrupt gop (clinton included). Or not.

I am not a gop'er so I don't think everyone has to think the same. But what they must do is pick a side. MORe of the same or not. The choice is what got us in this deep water (clinton and mccain) or something new and differant. A freash new look and approuch.

We know what we have in clinton and mccain. To me THAT IS A BAD THING.

Obama represents all power BACK to the people, to me.

The hotest circle of hell burns for those who refuse to pick a side and allow atrocites to be carried out in their names. I don't want what the gop wants. Power money war. I just want the american people to choose. this way we and they are then accountable for our actions.

What do I mean by this? The gop wants more wars, we all know that. How? With what troops? They MUSt enforce a draft. The wars in the middle east along with eastern europe and asia may get fanned by the gop. That's what they do. If so they will "be forced" (what they'll say) to implament a draft. they have no choice.

So choose america. More of the same and a draft. World war 3. The worst parts of the bible. the worst parts of sci-i.

Or do we work together as a nation and world. WE as americans are the world. We are all countries. We must choose what world we want. A red coat empire that will lead to americas destruction like all great empires. Or what the founders intended.

We need ot get america right first. then, like in the past, all countries would want to be us and allies with us. We cannto do that with gop sabotage.

Choose america.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Lets see that statement is insulting on so many levels: it attacks her as being a woman, a boomer(like me), a lawyer(like me) in a pantsuit, and for her having zeal as though B.O. does not.....
-------------------


Still amazed you are assuming these are real BO supporters.

Find it funny that you are equally adept at the very "ad hominem" tactic you so passionately excoriate.

One is almost led to the conclusion that you post these anonymous attacks just to attack them.

If you yourself maintained a civil tone, you would be more persuasive.

But insulting the anonymous insulters leaves you both at the bottom of the barrel.

Try leading by example!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

illinois2 writes
"I never wanted Clinton to run, but reluctantly concluded that I would probably vote for her if she got the nomination."

bsimon writes:
"That is the problem with the 2 party system. The parties know they can nominate inferior candidates & still count on the base to vote for the party, independent of the candidate. As long as voters keep acting like lemmings, the parties will keep presenting crap candidates."
-----------------------------------

Hear, hear, bsimon!

I've voted for Greens, and other Third Party candidates in the past, and am really struggling with what to do about Clinton (should she be the nominee). I really worry about McCain Supreme Court nominees...

I think a few key things would really improve our system:

1. Instant Run-off Voting. I would have ranked all of the Dem. candidates (except maybe Gravel) ahead of Clinton in the primary. If Clinton became the nominee, I'd rank one or more Third Party folks ahead of her.

2. Including Third Party candidates in debates. I know the two major parties pretty much have a stranglehold on setting these things up, but we all need to fight them on that score.

3. Guaranteed free major media time for candidates of any party who meet some (fairly low) threshold of support.

Since I lean left on most things, I sometimes feel like the Dems. are just taunting me, "So you can't stand our candidate? What are you gonna do, vote for a GREEN?"

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

There is the possibility that some of Bill Clinton's influence peddling schemes border on being illegal. Therefore we (the voters) have the right to see his and Hillary's income tax statement before we are saddled with her as the Democratic nominee. Before Hillary and Bill Clinton can be allowed to re-occupy the Oval Office the voters have to know how the Clintons amassed a multi million dollar fortune since leaving the White House. Especially in view or the facts that Bill Clinton has peddled his influence in Kazakhstan for Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra for the country's uranium rights; He has , or had, a financial partnership with the Emir of Dubai and his buddy Ron Burkle; Bill Clinton has earned millions 'consulting' for InfoUSA, an Iowa company that is under investigation for creating telemarketing lists used to fleece the elderly out of their life's savings.

The voters have a right to know who is paying their bills.

Posted by: Majacrusn | March 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse


You don't give up, do you, Chris?

Hadn't you noticed? The word, "victory" has a new meaning today. It now means "failure masquerading as success".

I just thought you should know.

Take it like a man - Queen-Goddess Hillary isn't going to make it.

Posted by: wardropper | March 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

novamatt writes, in part,
"McCain is now essentially out of the news. He's going to have to work to insert himself into the conversation, a conversation that will largely be about D issues."

That's one way to look at it. Another is that McCain will now have time to hit the fundraising circuit & perhaps finish Greenspan's book. If the Dem contest drags on long enough, he might get through some of Bernanke's papers as well. Hillary's wrong; the general will not be about Nat'l Security, it will be about the economy. McCain has 3 months to bone up on the subject while BHO & HRC continue that catfight.

Regarding the epocholly (sic) historic race, I think you're looking more at a score-and-a-half to two-score timeframe. See the GOP southern strategy and/or Reagan's 80 & 84 victories.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The blueprint for victory is obvious if one steps back a bit.

The vulnerability of Obama is partially his strength. He is viewed by many people as a "savior" of politics as usual due partially to their lack of knowledge about any of his overtly political acts. He is vulnerable by assaulting this "strength" and repeatedly publicizing the following
1. His connection to The Unity Church of Christ and it's message. Most of America would find the message of this church and it's pastor profoundly racist if they knew about it. They would question the judgement and real views of the Obama's for staying memebers for many years.
2. Rezko, Rezko, Rezko! What does it say about his judgement that a US Senator makes a convoluted land deal with a man known to be under investigation by the Feds for just such dealings with politicians. Publicize the now unknown ( to the public) connections that go back over 15 years.

3. Michelle Obama. This lady is making some astounding statements that give a peek into the heart and beliefs about America of this couple. Her speeches and the recent Atlantic article reveal her to be a spoiled, self absorbed women who believes that America has done nothing but decline for 40 years. Can Barack be very far from her beliefs???

4. National Security. To those who think it all a Rovian ploy, this just shows how out of touch you are with reality. The American people understand that a President has limited ability to change domestic politics dramatically but works with an essentially free hand in foreign policy. This is where good judgement and experience truly come into play and the consequences for the average American are farreaching and profound. Ms Clinton should continue to hammer at what an unknown quantity Mr. Obama is ( as we all know he is) and have her surrogates peek under every rock and interview for more ways to illuminate a man who remains largely unknown to the average voter. There is no other way to win. There is plenty of good material to work with, provided freely by the reality of Mr. Obama, the real question is whether Hillary wants to win enough to use it.

Posted by: JustaFarmer | March 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

sorry the submit button registered multiple times, not intended

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama's repeated abuse of "hard drugs" would sink him like a rock in a general election.

Its the 800 pound gorilla Democrats don't want to talk, about but Republicans will.

Americans have got to draw the line somewwhere. If cocaine is permissible, why not heroin?

As a parent, I'm really angry with the press for ignoring this important issue.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

novarmatt, I believe you are probably wrong because their is going to be so much bad blood between the victor and loser, their will not be enough time left before Nov to put Humpty Dumpty back together. With 1st woman and 1st african american, you are dealing with identity politics which is like playing with nitro. There will be an explosion and a walk out at the convention. If you are a dem, you might as well resign yourself with McCain as no#44. Your party did this to itself by not having winner take all and stripping Fl and Mi of all delegates instead of half like we did it.

Posted by: vbhoomes | March 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"We are looking out for you. you want equality? Women want equality right? We're trying to give it to you, yet you don't want it."

you are looking out for you--we are trying to give it to you-women don't want pay equity?

Is this truly the mindset of the Obama campaign? Once again I would like someone to honestly say that these kinds of tasteless comments represent the Obama mindset and his blueprint for the nomination. I pray for the good of the country that these types of juvenile comments are not representative of your campaign. If they are maybe someone on your side can explain to them that it is these types of comments that will certainly drive Clinton supporters to either stay home or just vote for down ballot Dems in Nov if they continue and he becomes the nominee. In 32 years of politics I have never experienced such ugliness and immaturity. Again this is what is meant by Bringing the Country Together. Right that is why we all need to vote for B.O.?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"We are looking out for you. you want equality? Women want equality right? We're trying to give it to you, yet you don't want it."

you are looking out for you--we are trying to give it to you-women don't want pay equity?

Is this truly the mindset of the Obama campaign? Once again I would like someone to honestly say that these kinds of tasteless comments represent the Obama mindset and his blueprint for the nomination. I pray for the good of the country that these types of juvenile comments are not representative of your campaign. If they are maybe someone on your side can explain to them that it is these types of comments that will certainly drive Clinton supporters to either stay home or just vote for down ballot Dems in Nov if they continue and he becomes the nominee. In 32 years of politics I have never experienced such ugliness and immaturity. Again this is what is meant by Bringing the Country Together. Right that is why we all need to vote for B.O.?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"We are looking out for you. you want equality? Women want equality right? We're trying to give it to you, yet you don't want it."

you are looking out for you--we are trying to give it to you-women don't want pay equity?

Is this truly the mindset of the Obama campaign? Once again I would like someone to honestly say that these kinds of tasteless comments represent the Obama mindset and his blueprint for the nomination. I pray for the good of the country that these types of juvenile comments are not representative of your campaign. If they are maybe someone on your side can explain to them that it is these types of comments that will certainly drive Clinton supporters to either stay home or just vote for down ballot Dems in Nov if they continue and he becomes the nominee. In 32 years of politics I have never experienced such ugliness and immaturity. Again this is what is meant by Bringing the Country Together. Right that is why we all need to vote for B.O.?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"We are looking out for you. you want equality? Women want equality right? We're trying to give it to you, yet you don't want it."

you are looking out for you--we are trying to give it to you-women don't want pay equity?

Is this truly the mindset of the Obama campaign? Once again I would like someone to honestly say that these kinds of tasteless comments represent the Obama mindset and his blueprint for the nomination. I pray for the good of the country that these types of juvenile comments are not representative of your campaign. If they are maybe someone on your side can explain to them that it is these types of comments that will certainly drive Clinton supporters to either stay home or just vote for down ballot Dems in Nov if they continue and he becomes the nominee. In 32 years of politics I have never experienced such ugliness and immaturity. Again this is what is meant by Bringing the Country Together. Right that is why we all need to vote for B.O.?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"We are looking out for you. you want equality? Women want equality right? We're trying to give it to you, yet you don't want it."

you are looking out for you--we are trying to give it to you-women don't want pay equity?

Is this truly the mindset of the Obama campaign? Once again I would like someone to honestly say that these kinds of tasteless comments represent the Obama mindset and his blueprint for the nomination. I pray for the good of the country that these types of juvenile comments are not representative of your campaign. If they are maybe someone on your side can explain to them that it is these types of comments that will certainly drive Clinton supporters to either stay home or just vote for down ballot Dems in Nov if they continue and he becomes the nominee. In 32 years of politics I have never experienced such ugliness and immaturity. Again this is what is meant by Bringing the Country Together. Right that is why we all need to vote for B.O.?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
I think your blueprint for Hillary is sound.

The most important thing her campaign can do right now is buy time. Obamamania will subside.

I would add one other step to the blue print:

Help Obama implode. Step up the questions on the Rezko association. Go negative at every opportunity. These people that say they hate negative campaigning fail to understand politics. Keep him on the defensive and let him show his supporters that he is the same kind of candidate they don't like. By the time the superdelegates cast their votes at the convention,it will be obvious that Obama is not electable.

Posted by: bcurtis | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

This election did not turn into a race issue until Obama gets 80% of the black votes and the pressure they put on black delegates to switch so that they don't stand in the way of a "black' man! Obama also annoints himself as 'the one' and turns this election into a religious call for redemption and hope vs. keep focus on the real issues of the general election.

Since the press was led by the nose for Obama then what can Clinton do but having to ask tough questions? Now that we see some media folks coming out of their stupor and start covering both candidates, with hard questions. I don't want the press to go easy on any of them, I want both of them to get grilled with hard questions that will help me making my decision. Why is it that Obama continues to refuse to explain clearly how much money he takes from Rezko, both at the personal level and at the all the fund raising events in all of his time in Chicago? What are the specific roles that Clinton has done as a first lady that would clarify her national security readiness?

Ask the tough questions is not negative campaign. Negative campaign is like when Bush called McCain's wife a drug pusher. We need to know and somebody has to ask. I prefer that the media does the questioning, but if they don't, then I would rather the candidates do the asking.

Posted by: cybervote | March 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Haven't heard a valid defense of Hillary's hypocricy on NAFTA - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

Posted by: RollaMO | March 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry was caught like a deer in the headlights with the "Swift Boat" attacks. I kept waiting for him to roar back. And waited. And waited. I figured he just didn't have the fire in the belly to be president. I voted for him anyway.

Obama must respond to Clinton's critical messages. I wouldn't call them 'negative' per say, just 'tough'. If Obama wilts under those kinds of things - then the Republican slime machine will bury him.

Posted by: DonJasper | March 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

the world is watching clinton and the gop Catherine4. And they are shaking their heads in disappointment. where media propogandists out to make a profit now run the show. Blame the opinion media like cc and fox rush hannity.

The world is watching. they are watching a one party system at work. they are watching our democracy go down the tubes. They are watching one party with zero opposition destroy OUR country AND parts of the world. Do you think they are as hopeful as some of us are? Are they fearful of what the gop (clitnon included) may or may not do. China? Russia? Iran? Not to mentiion the extreamists?

We can't do this alone anymore. We need the rest of the world. they know clinton around the world. Who would europe like as the next prez? they voted and polled obama (england and the red coats clinton of course). Arica? Hmmm

South america? Hmm. Canada of course would want the gp (clitnon included), based on their new leadership. We saw that last week. The media wants clinton so they can rally against her for four years and make million sin ratings, simple econmics for them.

the lines have been drawn. The media is now fox all day on every channel. Now let's see what the people say, without changing the rules mid game, or the old style party leadership getting bribed for their votes.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Mark, publicity is a big part of it. McCain is now essentially out of the news. He's going to have to work to insert himself into the conversation, a conversation that will largely be about D issues. Those D issues (the economy, health care, education, environment) aren't ones where he can appeal to swing voters on, so he'll largely be reduced to talking about Radical Islamic Extremism and the need to stand firm against Those Who Would Do Us Harm.

A whole lot of stuff can happen in this great big world between now and August, but it looks now that the faltering economy will be the drip-drip-drip story we hear about all spring and summer. Not the Radical Islamic Extremists, who have been strangely quiet of late. So I think McCain will look out of step as Obama and Clinton continue to talk about the issues driving people's interest. And the media will have to cover it, and cover it disproportionately because the Obama/Clinton struggle remains newsy.

Obama is helped in a couple of other ways. One is that Clinton is landing softer blows than McCain will, and that allows the Obama camp to test out different responses and different strategies to see what works best, and also means that Obama can wave off the harsher attacks later as old news. Inoculation, in other words. Hillary's attacks should also generate some sympathy for Obama once the novelty of going negative wears off. People start discounting negative stuff, even legitimate negative stuff, if they don't want to hear it anymore.

Also, and maybe most importantly, Obama is laying down a formidable organizational presence in every primary and caucus state so far, and the local people are now tested and ready. If you haven't read the cover story in the new Rolling Stone about the nuts-and-bolts of Obama's ground game, you should. This is much bigger than just BHO. When they build a presence in swingy PA and OR, and also in potentially landslide-y IN and NC and WV and KY and SD, for the first time in generations the Democratic nominee will have a tested organizational structure in every single state in the country. I don't want to get too excited about this yet, but it's potentially epochally (I think I just invented a word) map-changing to have this in place. And that's significant, and would not have been possible if this had all wrapped up and gotten boring back on Feb. 5.

So I think Hillary should stay in, and make the stinkiest big stink she can from now through the convention, where she would have then have to be gracious and make the argument that delivers her bloc of supporters in toto to Obama. She no longer can win, but she can, if she plays her role well, really help Obama and the Democratic Party deliver a historic, Washington-altering butt-kicking in November.

I'd love to hear how I'm wrong about this.

Posted by: novamatt | March 6, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I think that there is another message that Clinton needs to continue to play out: "buyer's remorse" "need to have Obama vetted now' 'he will loose the general election because McCain, like her,is thoroughly vetted'.

Posted by: cybervote | March 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

capulate, vt, (from Latin, capulare, to poison oneself) to falsely poison oneself, awaken, discover that your false death caused your partner's suicide and then really kill oneself with a knife. (v. Juliet Capulet).

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 12:56 PM
--------------------------
wpost I find that under 'capulet', I was just poking my stick at krushnuts. It's not capulate. Love google:No results found for capulate.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"I challenged those here to debate THE ISSUES minor things like the economy"

HAHAHAH

Obama has been on the issues. Clinton? Frickin hypocrite gop. Speaking out of both sides of their mouth. :)

"Why do I get asked the hard questions?"

"the media is being mean to me"

"Everyone is against me because I'm a women. not because of my tactics or decisions or close connection to bush and the gop."

Wa wa wa.

I guess her being a women makes her and her supporters NOT hypocrites. We are looking out for you. you want equality? Women want equality right? We're trying to give it to you, yet you don't want it.

the more she cries her way to victory, yet you supporter her. The more you fighting and rally against bush, then back clinton using the same tactics, the worse you look.

Equal rights. That is what OBAMA is right for. To look beyond race or gender. That is what obama is doing, not clinton. Clinton is doing the opposite. She is putting the feminist movement back 40 years.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The world is watching how our society picks our next president and the world is watching to see which president is voted in to lead our nation and be a leader in the world. Now is the time to step up to the plate and hear the American call to service for their next President. This call is for Madam President, Hillary Clinton. Not only is she strong, dedicated, experienced, with supreme judgement but she has the guts to fight for the American people. She is not a quitter and will not back down in a crisis nor will she deviate from her policy and her beliefs for the American people. It is time the super delegates to unite for our nations' next great leader, Madam President Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama needs to back our graciously per his policy for change and recognize change has already happened, America has spoken, and their voice is with Madam President Hillary Clinton. In his final speech he should not only back future Madam President Hillary Clinton but acknowledge the fact that she is not a puppet or clone for President Bush and she is going to win the election against John McCain. And he should state that this election is NOT about gender or race, it IS about our next great leader of this United States of America. Now is the time to unite the Democratic Party and show the world what Americans are made of. I know that Barack Obama is for the American people and now he has a chance to show his allegiance and his dedication to the American people by endorsing future Madam President Hillary Clinton. A new respect and change has evolved and has even spread across the Republican Party and that new respect and change is future Madam President Hillary Clinton. I thank you for this opportunity to write this for you.

Posted by: Catherine4 | March 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a fighter? Yes, if the Democrats send her to the White House, we're GUARANTEED four years of ugly, dispiriting and soul-crushing fights.

Of course, not much will get done for the American people as a result, but I'm sure Hillary will bring out the fight in a rediculously partisan town, should she win!

Posted by: eztempo | March 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Questions:

For nm2pluto: why would rerunning the Michigan and Florida primaries necessarily be shoddy?

For buttplug: If, as you wrote, "The only difference between the two (Clinton/McCain)is a bra and a jockstrap.", why would you change a longtime pattern of voting exclusively for Democratic candidates by voting for McCain over Clinton? How does that make sense unless you believe McCain is different from and better than Clinton?

Posted by: jontorrance | March 6, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Being from Ohio, I feel the need to exult in the fact it was the stupid uneducated appalacia vote in south east Ohio that put HRC back in it. These hicks actually believe Hillary is going to bring back manufacturing jobs lost under NAFTA. Even though I am no McCain fan, I take great comfort watching the dems self destruct. Their simply is no way this can end amicably, its going to get a lot uglier with both candidates destroying each other. If the dems are to stupid to run a nomination process, they are to stupid to be given the keys to the WH.

Posted by: vbhoomes | March 6, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

She should also emphasize that he caved in to the insurance companies when working on universal healthcare in the state of Illinois.

Obama positions himself as someone who will fight vested insterests and change the system. It certainly doesn't appear that way based upon his history.


Posted by: jes991 | March 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Let's see again what kind of post we are reading from the B.O. supporters today:

1. She is stealing this-so if Hillary wins Texas, Ohio and Pa it must be stealing if B.O. wins its because he was ordained to win from above.

2. Then you talk about her being classless and make the following statement about her:
"I have no idea what the lawyer in a pantsuit thinks about anything aside from her zeal to be president. SHE IS OPAQUE AND A POLITICAL DINASAUR-CLASS LAWWYER"

Lets see that statement is insulting on so many levels: it attacks her as being a woman, a boomer(like me), a lawyer(like me) in a pantsuit, and for her having zeal as though B.O. does not. I challenged those here to debate THE ISSUES minor things like the economy, foreclosures and Iraq and what do we read, baseless sometimes ageist, sexist, lawyer bashing stereotyping. And your side has the audacity of attacking her civility. Just bother to listen to and read some of the tasteless comments here that are being made, its staggering and hopefully not your blue print for bringing this country together much less how to win an election.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

illinois2 writes
"I never wanted Clinton to run, but reluctantly concluded that I would probably vote for her if she got the nomination."

That is the problem with the 2 party system. The parties know they can nominate inferior candidates & still count on the base to vote for the party, independent of the candidate. As long as voters keep acting like lemmings, the parties will keep presenting crap candidates.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

If this is part if the blueprint, I'll keep looking for a better and more honest architect:


WASHINGTON - A top aide to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday compared rival Sen. Barack Obama to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama's statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton's record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s.


--------

Nothing like trampling on one's latest success. Maligning Obama gains her nothing and loses her much. Stick to the issues!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

bush
clinton
clinton
bush
bush
clinton?
really?

Posted by: scotack | March 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton is the nominee, I will break from voting exclusively democratic and not only refuse Clinton my vote but go a step further and vote for McCain. The only difference between the two (Clinton/McCain)is a bra and a jockstrap.

Posted by: buttplug | March 6, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Can the media start asking Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns instead of asking what her blue print to victory is. According to inside sources there are bombshells in those tax forms that will destroy her candidacy. Please Calizza and the other media talking heads should start asking some f**king questions!

Posted by: lumi21us | March 6, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I sincerely hope Blarg is right that this crazy primary season will benefit the Dems. in the end, but I'm not holding my breath. Clinton is really pissing me off with the kitchen sink "strategy".

For example, Clinton really went after Obama on the NAFTA thing, which the CBC and others are now (unfortunately AFTER 3/4) saying was reported inaccurately:

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/macdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv

The corrections, shamefully, aren't being made in the U.S. media and Clinton's surrogates are still using this line of argument. They don't seem to care whether or not their attacks are true. This is just one example of the many reasons I'm finding Clinton tiresome.

I never wanted Clinton to run, but reluctantly concluded that I would probably vote for her if she got the nomination. Every little condescending dig (I'm not talking about policy disagreements here) she makes at Obama makes it less likely that I would be able to hold my nose and vote for her. She is rapidly destroying the enthusiasm I had for this election.

Posted by: illinois2 | March 6, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"The democratic party willingly destroys itself and capulates."-Krishnuts
---------------------------
Anyone out there know what 'capulates' means?

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


capulate, vt, (from Latin, capulare, to poison oneself) to falsely poison oneself, awaken, discover that your false death caused your partner's suicide and then really kill oneself with a knife. (v. Juliet Capulet).

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"When a batter strikes out that experience doesn't make him a hitter, does it? Failed experience is worse than inexperience. Both Clinton and McCain have experience, alright -- bad experience, failed experience. What we need in the United States and the world is a new experience, a new experience of government where the concerns of the people outweigh the profit motives of the military industrial complex.

Posted by: gprichard | March 6, 2008 12:39 PM
"

I like that. Batter up. SWing batter.

Well said. dick cheaney and rumy had experiance all day long. rotten to the core. Just like their sabotuers in the democratic party. Almost all her support is do to corruption. She has the corrupt old style politicans.

Of course obama didn't win texas, come on now. In ohio she greased the wheels of teh machine, come on now. Promised union jobs and or money for union workers to go back to work. Not that it's wrong or anything. It's politics. But let's call it what it is. BRIBERY. Buying people off. Not that obama doesn;t do it, i'm sure he does.

The differance is obama once in is going to change the game. Clinton is the game/machine. You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. :)

If clinton wins politics gets worse, not better. Mccain, obama? Not so sure. Politics can't be anymore corrupt than the system clinton and bush created, along with reagan and nixon.

It's not getting better with clinton. Obama mccain, I'll take my chances and hope for a better future.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I have to admit, that since she started talking about those 30 generals behind her, that caught my attention.

Posted by: krm22201 | March 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

On the miltary side, only after 1995 did John McCain vote against going after the terrorists in Somalia. On the Iraq invasion, Colin Powell, Shinseki whom resigned before he would carry out such a strategic blunder, and five others were against invading. It seems to me in a Republican controlled congress, a Republican senator would offer an amendment to military spending to increase troop strength, if he thought it was a tacital mistake on the presidents leadership to go in with so few. Well it seems we have someone who is just talk not action as a senator. He says the idea to take out Saddam was good even with its present result. How is he going to keep up with Russia if he invades Iran. Iranian non-production could send oil to $175, the Russians have already rebuilt their military with $100 oil. Why have most of the new bills helping our servicemen from the horrors they live daily with on their return come from the Democrats? Bubba and that wonderful Shelton, let 1993 WTC, the Cole, Afghanistan. Rwanda, and embassy bombings go unanswered. We were not ready to invade Afghanistan because Shelton pared our forces too thin to get Bubba's budget number. When the red phone rang, and Gen Clark said he was mobilizing our armored units to save the Kosovans, Bubba called him back to the states. When Colin Powell (Chairmen joint chiefs) asked along with the General in Somalia for a couple of tanks and APCs he was denied. Hillary did not read the NIE before going to war and uses Bubba's advisors. She too did not listien to the joint chiefs, sounds like a Clinton pattern. She criticizes a working strategy of insertion forces, taking out Al Qaeda in Pakistan with drone fired missiles. She critcizes Petraeus surge, Obama too, but she makes excuses and Obama says its obviously working. The ability to adapt to a changing war theater is vital for a commander in chief. Too bad, we have had two in a row that did not listen to miltary commands sage advice.

Posted by: jameschirico | March 6, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party's Blueprint for Losing in November:

1) It's National Security, Stupid! -- If the campaign focus is national security, McCain wins against both Dems, period.

2) Freeze the Superdelegates: If the Superdelegats vote against the pledged delegates and turn the table, regardless of candidate they'll drive the young, independent and progressive voters away in droves, either to McCain or to stay at home.

3) The Votes to Come: Keeping the nomination going as long as possible isn't a clincher, and does have some benefits, but they're out weighed by the cost of intra-party fighting with McCain free to maneuver on his side.

4) Florida and Michigan Must Count: To over-turn the party's decision regarding the renegade states would be devastating to the power and discipline of the national party. A compromise involving another primary/caucus would be the fairest route, but it's cost & logistically prohibitive.

5) Clinton as Fighter: Encouraging mud-slinging and black eyes at this stage does the Republican party's work for them. McCain can't generate the funds of either Democratic candidate, but he doesn't have to if he can spend the next 4 months watching the attack ads he would have run.

Let's be honest here. Clinton may be the better candidate, but her campaign blew her chance to prove it. Clawing her way back with the method above may work, but every step of it makes the general that much harder. Should she keep fighting? Sure, I have no problem with that -- she earned that right on Tuesday. The strategy above is extremely short-sighted, however, and weakens the party at a time when all factors should be pushing it toward an apex.

Posted by: metavosk | March 6, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"The democratic party willingly destroys itself and capulates."-Krishnuts
---------------------------
Anyone out there know what 'capulates' means?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"1. Hillary wins Primaries, where everybody votes : 1 person, 1 vote.
2. Obama wins Caucases, which were basically devised to let small groups of elites choose the candidate they want."

Incorrect. There have been 27 primaries and 12 caucuses. It's true that Obama wins caucuses; he won 11, and Hillary won 1. But it's wrong to say that Hillary wins primaries. She's won 13 primaries, and Obama's won 14.

So it's more accurate to say that Obama wins many primaries AND almost all caucuses, while Hillary wins some primaries. Or you could say that, in general, Obama wins a lot more than Hillary does.

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"If a woman had been in the Senate for 2 years and ran for president - the media and DC Establishment would be laughing - saying she didn't have enough experience.

Posted by: JoseyJ | March 6, 2008 12:35 PM
"

Now you clinton supporters are pullign fox-like tatcis. " But if we said it" blah blah blah. "Why do I get asked the hard questions?".

"It's hard being a woman". Tear.

May work with dittoheads. We'll see who else it works on.

clinton's supporter are now republcians in the new democratic party. Not becausse I so. But by their words and actions. Watch fox once and a while people. See if you see clinton's tactics there, if she's not on fox news propogating directly.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"hA HA. cc's dylusional."
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:09 PM
--------------------------
Krishnuts, it only took me two seconds to see your crazy butt was online. The word you are looking for in that pea size brain of yours is 'delusional'. Which fits you to a T.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

THat's not her blueprint.

STEALING THE ELECTION FROM THE WILL OF THE ELECTORATE is.

It is impossible for her to win enough delegates, so she is turning to lawyers and back room arm twisting, promising favors and ambassadorships, no doubt.

IT IS DISGUSTING!

You guys should start asking voters if we'll stay home should she be successful in her nefarious conquest to steal my vote.

I've already decided I'm writing in Obama, or voting McCain should such a crima against american voters occurr.

You know, McCain isn't so bad - its the neo-con pond scum that will float in behind him that we have to worry about - but at least I KNOW what John McCain REALLY thinks.

I have no idea what the lawyer in a pantsuit thinks about anything aside from her zeal to be president. SHE IS OPAQUE AND A POLITICAL DINASAUR-CLASS LAWWYER

Posted by: onestring | March 6, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, ithinker.

clinton is going to get ripped a new one, eventually. Obama has not been vetted or attacked? Neither has clinton in thsi election. Thank obama for being a grown up. But he could if he wants to. Clitnon's wet dream. bloody up obama, and kill his message, for her real party. Frickin republcain sabuters. Burning the candle at both ends. BEtter hope she wins. If obama wins a lot of old style politicains are going to be looking for new jobs. that must be scary for them. No more bribery and treason. OOOOOHOHHH. How scary for them.

treason and bribery need to be punishable by thirty years each. That will solve our problems in washington real quick. Like the day after teh first crooked politicain goes behind bars.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"I Thought I would mention that Clinton's entire margin in Ohio came from people voting against Obama because he's black. (20% said race was important, 15% Clinton 5% Obama). How sad.

I fully agree it is reprehensable but you fail to mention that it was likely A factor used by the other side as well. It seems like in the 21st century we should no longer have to deal with those concerns, but unfortunately they still exist. Note also it was a factor in those polls not necessarily the controlling or only factor they used to not vote for B.O.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

JSnapper -

I have an idea. Why don't we simply go to the power brokers in the ten biggest States in the Union (okay, except Illinois, North Carolina and Georgia) and let them select the Democratic Nominee.

The answer is because the General Election Campaign isn't fought in just the mega-States. In fact, under our Constitutional Electoral College System, the voters in small states have weight, in somecases, a lot more weight, than a voter in a large state. Every state gets at least three electoral college votes no matter the size. Larger states get one per Rep plus two. This means that a voter in a small state with only three electoral college votes often has a much larger proportional vote.

And this is, historically, been a disadvantage for the democrats, they essentially have to win an extra medium state to make up for the fact that the Republicans win all of the 3 and 4 electoral college states.

Secondly, the votes in a primary don't necessarily tell you anything about who will win (or even be stronger) in a general election. Consider Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. The Democrats in Connecticut did not want him. He was clearly not the preferred candidate. And thus they selected another Candidate. And Liberman got elected by the General Electorate by appealing to the middle.

In Presidential politics, Candidate X might win the local primary by throwing "red meat" to the most ardent supporters. But in the general, Candidate X will get burried by the middle.

In the case of Obama/Clinton, the fact that Clinton carried the larger states against Obama doesn't necessarily mean that she is more likely to carry them over McCain and the fact that Obama carried the smaller states against Clinton doesn't mean that he's more likely to carry them over McCain. Its a more sophisticated analysis, one which the level of rhetoric from one of the campaigns, is too sophisticated.

Posted by: dcraven925 | March 6, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Let's start with the 3AM phone call ad -- just how stupid do you think voters are anyway? Posting such an ad means nothing - Hillary does not have National Security experience or clout. She is just mouthing off.

Now for the "experience" thing. Neither Clinto nor Obama are very experienced. Experience is not a differentiator here. Whenever I hear that, its a big laugh. Just how does 25 years as a politicians housewife count as experience???? It doesn't. Point blank. Hillary has NEVER had a single human being reporting to her in her life and now she wants an entire nation? Excusme me, but our political process is flawed.

Clinton as a fighter? Or a ruthless "do anything to win" and "trample upon anybody" person? The latter. FLA and MI do not count. To change the rules just because she is losing is not fair politics. You can't count those votes under the circumstances they were done.

Finally - the polls show Obama has a better edge over McCain than Clinto does -- so once again -- just how stupid do you think the voters are?

Posted by: edaddison | March 6, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

When a batter strikes out that experience doesn't make him a hitter, does it? Failed experience is worse than inexperience. Both Clinton and McCain have experience, alright -- bad experience, failed experience. What we need in the United States and the world is a new experience, a new experience of government where the concerns of the people outweigh the profit motives of the military industrial complex.

Posted by: gprichard | March 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Most likely, Michelle Obama's comment about only being proud of her country because Obama was running for president - had an influence on voters.

Haven't heard much from her lately....

Posted by: JoseyJ | March 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Items 1 and 2 of the Clinton blueprint are the same item. Scare the hell out of everybody. This is just item 1 through 1,000 of the George Bush playbook.

And we've all seen how effective that is when it comes to paralyzing the nation, sleeping on the homeland security watch on 9/10, fighting useless wars in unlikely regions of the planet with the wrong enemy, and sleeping through disasters natural (Katrina, global heating) and unnatural (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove).

If the Clinton playbook is to emulate George Bush, why don't they just go out and call her his rightful, natural successor? George Bush in pantsuit. Works for me.

Not.

Thanks much. HLB, Mt. Lebanon PA

Posted by: HLBeckPE | March 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Hilary didn't win anything Tuesday. First, she actually lost on delegates in Texas.

Second it wasn't any strategy. It was REPUBLICANS crossing over in Texas and Ohio to vote for her and RATF@@CK our Dem primary. They want Hilary cuz she's easier to beat or they want to make Obama spend money beating her instead of beating McCain.

I know people on the ground in Ohio that saw Republicans voting for Hilary and were talking about it. It was all the talk on Fox on Wednesday morning as Thom Hartmann pointed out. He said Fox asked for emails from Repubs who voted for Hilary and got 1,200 emails in 14 minutes!

Posted by: rahaha | March 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"Like bsimon, I am a swing voter who is open to voting for Obama, although I now lean towards McCain. Under no circumstances will I vote for Clinton.

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 12:16 PM

"

What's up jim. I'm glad to see gorwth sinc eI came on here. Good for you. Looks like I'm in your camp now. A far journey eh? :)

If clinton LOSES or is losing, she will stay in to bash and try and destroy obama, then be his mccain's vp (lieberman style). If she "wins" (only way she wins is by cahnging the rules) she cannot defeat mccain. In my opinion that makes her a repulican now, as it is impossible for her to win the presidency of the uniter states representing OUR movement and the democratic party.

I don't know if I came a long way or if jim and the "good gop'ers" did. :)

I hear you jim. Is this what happens every thirty years? The democratic party willingly destroys itself and capulates. I keep hearing it, but think "not this time." Maybe the democratic capulation is enevitable. The way the democratic establishment and clinton are gutting their own party, it seems so.

If clinton steals it mccain wins. She cannot win. A good vp candidate, but why woudl obama want her now. Like mccain (to the gop) she is not a team player. Neither are on the american people's team. Yet they should represent us? That was not how america was to be run. Representative government remembr. No taxation without representation, remember.

One party system is slavery. Two sides of the same coin. I don't want everything, liek the gop does. Just real representation. That's all. A fair shake. That's not to much to ask in a representative government is it?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Males have always controlled the media, Congress, Wall Street, the White House, etc.

It's time for a woman!!

Oh - you say - not that woman?!
If a woman had been in the Senate for 2 years and ran for president - the media and DC Establishment would be laughing - saying she didn't have enough experience.

Posted by: JoseyJ | March 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are completely irrational. So anything they write makes no sense at all. Media is a different story. These folks have to come up with a theory to explain Hillary's success last Tuesday night. And thus they create the myth of negative ads--look she could not have won without going negative. This is pure nonsense. Hillary won because she connected with people who are going through bad economic times. She was much more focused and effective than Obama in the two debates. The 3 am ad does not talk about Obama. Her message is that I would be strong on national security. What's wrong with that? Now if Obama wants to take old stuff--whitewater, Monica etc. he should be most welcome but none of that proves any guilt on Hillary's part. It is just like saying: don't for this woman because her husband had sex with another woman. On that count most American women should be disqualified for public office. Obama claims to be a different kind of politician but his land deal with a suspected criminal tells the same old story of a politician trying to cash in his influence. Second, he genuinely looks weak on foreign policy. He comes up with a silly notion of meeting such characters as Ahmedinijad and Chavez. And on the war issue he is aligned with people who have little interest with possible genocide in post-US Iraq. The more I look at Hillary the more impressed I get. She is one tough woman who would be a great American President. Give Obama another 8-10 years he would also be ready to be a great President. But definitely not now!

Posted by: ithinker | March 6, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"Like bsimon, I am a swing voter who is open to voting for Obama, although I now lean towards McCain. Under no circumstances will I vote for Clinton.

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 12:16 PM

"

What's up jim. I'm glad to see gorwth sinc eI came on here. Good for you. Looks like I'm in your camp now. A far journey eh? :)

If clinton LOSES or is losing, she will stay in to bash and try and destroy mccain, then be his vp (lieberman style). If she "wins" (only way she wins is by cahnging the rules) she cannot defeat mccain. In my opinion that makes her a repulican now, as it is impossible for her to win the presidency of the uniter states representing OUR movement and the democratic party.

I don't know if I came a long way or if jim and the "good gop'ers" did. :)

I hear you jim. Is this what happens every thirty years? The democratic party willingly destroys itself and capulates. I keep hearing it, but think "not this time." Maybe the democratic capulation is enevitable. The way the democratic establishment and clinton are gutting their own party, it seems so.

If clinton steals it mccain wins. She cannot win. A good vp candidate, but why woudl obama want her now. Like mccain (to the gop) she is not a team player. Neither are on the american people's team. Yet they should represent us? That was not how america was to be run. Representative government remembr. No taxation without representation, remember.

One party system is slavery. Two sides of the same coin. I don't want everything, liek the gop does. Just real representation. That's all. A fair shake.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Since when is the idea hiring a prepared Commander in Chief a dirty trick? Remember, if you will, the last 'uniter' we hired for the job. September 11, before school children in Florida. Recall the blank look. Think back at the results of this "uniter's" lack of preparedness. We'll be suffering for decades to come.

Please read Joseph C. Wilson's column in the Huffington Post. Fear mongering? I think now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Posted by: thetruth31 | March 6, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Thought I would mention that Clinton's entire margin in Ohio came from people voting against Obama because he's black. (20% said race was important, 15% Clinton 5% Obama). How sad.

Clinton's path, IMO, is to get the delegate count close, get MI and FL revotes, use those to catch up in the popular vote (she MUST win this), stay well ahead of Obama in the Democratic polls, and start running better than 5 points worse against McCain - a gap that has been maintained as Clinton surged in Democratic voter polls. It would be nice to see her close up must-win states WI, MN, and OR too, all of which she's losing pretty badly right now. All of these things *could* happen if she sustains momentum/Obama's tough week continues for the next 3 months. Then she can make a case to the superdelegates. If she does, she absolutely HAS to convince Obama to be VP, or A-A (and some youth/independent) voters will abandon the party in droves and the Democrats will lose in November.

Posted by: Nissl | March 6, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

the Texas caucus went hugely fot B.O.? What, huh? My Houston upscale pct was split 12 delegates for Hillary 11 B.O., the adjoining 2 pct had 13 B.O. delegates to 12 Hillary and another a 15/15 tie in STATE SENATE DELEGATES. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Our precincts elect delegates for our March 29 Senatorial Convention and the Senatorial Convention then elects delegates to our state convention in early May. Since only 40% of the Harris Cty Precinct Delegates have even been counted much less decided at our senatorial and state conventions how is it that you, someone I can only presume is not from Texas, know more about our caucus process than you, that it was hugely succesful for B.O. or do you just come here and mouth anything the B.O. campaigns tells you to say. Again your campaign has become very inspirational. If I were a B.O. supporter I would be impressed that all your side talks about now is process, math, political advantage, and important issues like monica. What happened to the words hope, inspiration and change did they stop working for your side? Has B.O. become just another politician?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

rick: "2. Obama wins Caucases, which were basically devised to let small groups of elites choose the candidate they want. Working people have a harder time getting to caucases, getting babysitters, etc. So the affluent Obama constituenty votes for them."


Think about it...that's as American as Apple Pie (I think the Dutch invented Apple Pie; I know the Belgians invented French Fries)

Letting a small groups of elites choose the candidate is the same thing that our Founding Father's did when they created the electoral college and schedueled Election Day on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

The founding Father's didn't want mob rule.

I understand and agree (to a point) with what your saying. Do we deserve better and can we do better absolutely. But HillBilly knew entering the election that there would be Caucuses (which look very democratic: voice votes being able to move your vote to a viable candidate after the first ballot.

My point. HillBilly knew what the playing field was going to be, but she assumed she was entitled to this nomination and that she would have it locked up on Super Tuesday. That was her miscalculation. So now she tries to dismiss it by saying Caucus goers are biased towards her.

Someone called that her "Insult 40 State Strategy". As soon as a state votes for Obama her people come out and dismiss them as not being an adequit sample of Americans.


------------
Also Primary/Caucus Elections tend to only have 20% voter turn out. General elections more like 50%.

In France they vote on Sundays and get closer to 85%-90% turnout.

Why are our elections not held on a weekend or better yet, National Holidays?

It seems wrong that July 4th is a Holiday that celecrates our Independence but Election Day which is when we use those rights and earned through that Independence is not also a Holiday.

Every 2 years (federal) Election Days should be national holidays!

Honestly, how could a Congressman vote against giving people a Bi-Annuel day off? Who doesn't like days off?

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

What is all of this talk abouit Hillary's experience? This is a woman who for eight years thought Monica was the Oval Office bathroom cleaning lady. Where was she then, looking high and low for the Rose billing records? Obama's mistake is not throwing back the mud the Clinton's started throwing at him.

When you start with a 40% negative from the general public, how do you think she can win. Most of the people are going to vote for ABH (anyone but Hillary).

Posted by: Ethicist | March 6, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

On the point of the superdelegates: we must remember that they want to win, as was stated. One factor might well be the polls that, at least now, show Obama with a more decided lead over McCain. Clinton still has the high negatives which might hurt with independents--a constituency that is attracted to McCain.

Posted by: fulrich | March 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

If this general election comes down to experience, McCain beats Clinton. McCain has over 20 years of experience as an elected official and also is a decorated war hero. Clinton has just shy of 8 years in the Senate. (Obama, I believe, actually has a longer tenure as an elected official if you include his time in the state legislature of Illinois.) The idea that either Democrat can run on experience and win is a fallacy.

If this election is about change, then clearly Obama beats McCain. Obama embodies change because he is (1) young (a new generation), and (2) not a Clinton or a Bush.

I don't see a scenario in which Clinton wins, barring a lack of support from the R-base for McCain. I wouldn't count on that.

Posted by: MShake | March 6, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"than I geuss you have no problem with the 2000 outcome giving the presidency to the person with the LEAST votes.
"

What are you talking about rick? clinton doesn't have the most votes. Are you counting the soveit mi and fl results? Is so you show yoru face.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Lately, Clinton has been employing smear and fear tactics ripped right from the Republican play book. I've been voting since 1972 and I've lived through far too much of that in my lifetime. Why on earth would I use my precious vote to ask for four more years of that kind of politics?

Posted by: suze2 | March 6, 2008 10:53 AM

As another person who first voted in 1972, I agree wholeheartedly. Like bsimon, I am a swing voter who is open to voting for Obama, although I now lean towards McCain. Under no circumstances will I vote for Clinton.

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"3. This was GLARINGLY CLEAR in Texas, where the popular vote favored Clinton, and the caucases went hugely to Obama"

real quick. He won the cacues, because the primaries are always flooded. clinton has the machine behind her. She is signing ilegals up at the door, at least at my station in nevada. That's why she wins the primaries. She floods and falsifys them. old school politics. "Everyone vote three times." From what I say it's much more difficult to falsify a cacues.

Please you must take in the sabotuer factor. The people who are trying to sabotage obama to keep the race going to rip teh party apart. They're brave enough to destroy their country and rip us apart. Not quite brave enough to make it known who they are while their doing it. my opinion. I may be wrong. I doubt it

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

All of this talk about Obama having the most pledged delegates and the popular vote is ridiculous. 25 million americans have voted so far and 600,000 votes seperate the two. The percentage of pledged delegates that stands between them is equally as small. This makes the race a virtual tie. Niether candidate can win the nomination without the aid of superdelegates. Everyone keeps talking about the "rules". Well, Rule #1: A candidate must reach 2025 delegates to claim the nomination. This may be done in any combination of super and pledged delegates. Rule #2: The superdelegates are free to make their decision based on what they feel best benefits the party in Nov. They are not required to vote with their constituents as Obama is claiming. Rule #3: Any delegate, super or pledged, has the option of changing their mind, at any time. (Don't doubt for a minute that they won't if they recognize a clear winner to beat McCain) Blame the DNC, if you like, for their complicated, ridiculous "rules", but make no mistake, both candidates will do whatever it takes to woo the supers to their side, as they both need them to win the nomination. In the end, the delegates will choose the candidate they think is best suited to win in Nov based on many factors, including which states were won and demographics. They will deal with the fallout later. Either way, there will be a fracture in the party as either side will feel disenfranchised one way or the other. That's politics.

Posted by: rosietheriveter4 | March 6, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed that the treasonous Bob Novak who outted a CIA agent continues to have a platform to stir the pot regarding Obama and Rezko. Instead of looking out from a jail cell, he continues to allege from his exalted perch things that are not part of the Rezko indictment and that have not been alleged by the Chicago newspapers that have covered this story from day one. Without even the typical citation of "unnamed sources," his witch hunt puts his imagination to work and the bully pulpit of his national syndication to create scenarios where Obama has done everything short of really spending his 46 years undercover as a Muslim terrorist.

The local media, in fact, has stated that Obama will be mentioned in the case, but as nothing more than a "cameo" due his campaign contibutions. They have also stated that Rezko's list of contributors includes numerous other Democrats and Republicans, even the RNC and George W. Bush.

Novak also mentions the leak of the Canadian memo purportedly minimizing Obama's disregard for NAFTA without mentioning stories in the Canadian press indicating that Clinton advisor's had told the Canadians to take her words "with a grain of salt." Furthermore, as such an upstanding, patriotic American where is his outrage that Canadian media is detailing how the leak originated from the Prime Minister's chief of staff in a blatant attempt to influence an American election.

But what should anyone really expect. A hypocrite can no more change than vulture can break the habit of loving to eat road kill.

Posted by: arright | March 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The kitchen sink is in the general area of the offense which might more accurately be described as borrowing items from a garbage disposal. While this may work initially, it will ultimately be offset and the one that brought garbage in will be the one that the garbage takes out. As far as Hillary's experience, I will give her seven years in the Senate, but before then the most accurate description is the Gertrude Stein line about culture in Oakland (now emblazoned on that City's seal) that there's no there there.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | March 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

one more.

"Did Chris Matthews Offer To Campaign For Hillary Clinton In PA?
By: Logan Murphy @ 7:01 PM - PST

Chris Matthews talked with Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, on today's Hardball about her victories in yesterday's primaries and the future of the campaign. Matthews is from Pennsylvania and he's all fired up about the upcoming primary in his home state -- but I think he may have gone just a bit too far in his enthusiasm.

Download | Play Download | Play

In this clip Matthews and McAuliffe discuss the issue of Senator Clinton's tax returns and whether or not she will release them before the Pennsylvania primary next month and things suddenly take a strange turn:

Matthews: "I just want to do a town meeting in Pennsylvania at the college of Senator Clinton's choice."

McAuliffe: "We should do that."

Matthews: "It would be great. Big university."

McAuliffe: "I agree with you."

Matthews: "I won't name them now cause they'll get mad at us if we don't do them, but there are so many great schools in.. [snip] Don't forget Scranton where Hillary Clinton spent all her summers. ...Maybe the University of Scranton, a big Jesuit school."

McAuliffe: "We should do that..."
"

But he hates her right? He's in the tank for obama right gop? We'll see who buys it. These people are sacraficing all their credibility. Worked at fox with right-wingers. I'm not so sure it's going to work on non partisan clear thinking americans. The msm is digging themselves deep.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I think it's amazing that everyone is locked into Obama's "pledged delagate" lead without anyone questionning the profondly broken delagate system.

1. Hillary wins Primaries, where everybody votes : 1 person, 1 vote.
2. Obama wins Caucases, which were basically devised to let small groups of elites choose the candidate they want. Working people have a harder time getting to caucases, getting babysitters, etc. So the affluent Obama constituenty votes for them.
3. This was GLARINGLY CLEAR in Texas, where the popular vote favored Clinton, and the caucases went hugely to Obama.

Then there are state by state problems, like texas, where the winner of a logically fair popular vote gets less delagates. And this year's problem in FLA and MICH, 2 Hillary states that disenfrachised themselves.

I think if you take these real factors into account, you really have to wonder if Clinton isn't in fact a much stronger candidate. Or, If you're one of those people that says "these are the rules everyone agreed to," without being critical enough to realise how increadibly slanted they are, than I geuss you have no problem with the 2000 outcome giving the presidency to the person with the LEAST votes.

I can't beleive the placid acceptance of our current voting system. Even after Gore/Bush we've got democrats saying "that's the system, live with it."

Posted by: rick | March 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

hA HA. cc's dylusional. He really thinks the dnc is going to allow him and the rest of the right-wing propoganda to re-write their rules? Wow. Tim russert doesn't have that much power. Nor does wolf blitzer and teh rest of the right-wing media bobbleheads. I know you propoganidsts may think you hold all the power in this country, after tuesday. You don't. The rules are set. We're not changing them mid game to give the republcain a chance.

On another, more serious, note.

What happened to "I'm going to listen to the commanders on the ground."

I guess that's only if they are with the fascist new world order.

"The Danger of Ethics and Competency: Bush Considering Firing CentCom Chief Adm. Fallon
By: Nicole Belle @ 9:00 AM - PST

Think Progress:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon "one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today." Fallon opposed the "surge" in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials' war-mongering "not helpful." Privately, he has vowed that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch."

Unfortunately, this level-headed thinking and willingness to stand up to President Bush may cost him his job. According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Fallon may be prematurely "relieved of his command" as soon as this summer:

[W]ell-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

Just another day in BushWorld. There's a sneaky (and admittedly tin-foil hatted) suspicion on my part that there is a calculus going on here to make sure that we're either in or on the threshold of aggression with Iran-something that Fallon has dug his heels in and fought vehemently against-as we near the November election, to help give the edge to John McCain.
"

There not going to rewrite the rules for you cc and joan walsh, and so rush and the right-wing fascist propogandists can make an extra million bashing the democrats. Nice try. Not going to happen. If clinton steals this election it's going to rip this coutnry apart. I know that's what the gop wants. But cc? cnn? msnbc? Wow. Talk about stabbed n the back. Talk about the destruction of democracy in america of the last decade. The worse part is the lack of guilt or a moral compass by you people. Not going to happen cc. As much as the right-wing noise machine would love to destroy the democratic party, so the gop has SOME chance.

Burn the candle at both ends gop. It's your only hope. LEt's just hope americans are smarter than the average old person or dittohead.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

What is it with all these "Late Deciders"?

This campaign is well into its 14th month.

How much more time do you need? Do they wait for the candidates to come pandering to their specific states?

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Mark: Slate had a couple articles arguing that the long campaign is good for the Democrats.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185187/#AlltheWay
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/05/the-long-race.aspx

The idea is that the long primary keeps voters interested. Several upcoming primary states are also swing states. If the Democrats focus heavily on Pennsylvania in the next 2 months, it will help in November. And it's going to be harder for McCain to get media coverage; his race is over, but Hillary and Obama are still competing.

I don't entirely agree with that analysis. It seems that the race is getting nastier over time, which hurts the Democrats. And McCain is able to relax and plan for the general, which the Democrats aren't. But I think the long campaign may end up being a net positive for the Democrats even so.

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"I do not see how anyone but McC won on Tuesday, because the "continuing fight, even all the way to the convention" should give McC everything he needs [from August to November] in film clips of the losing D calling out the nominated D on character matters and issues, and the nominated D caught in embarrassing moments on air."

But McCain was the big loser on Wednesday, when he was caught in the most embarrassing moment possible -- being endorsed by President George W. Bush.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the "late deciders" in both Ohio and Texas were Rush Limbaugh Republicans who at Rush's urging decided in the last few days to cross over and vote for Clinton with the expressed intent to mug the Democratic party by helping to nominate the weaker Democrat (Clinton), or at least to prolong the bleeding in the Democratic contest. A whopping 9% of the Democratic primary vote in both states came from self-identified Republicans, according to exit polls, and they split roughly 50-50 between Clinton and Obama. In past contests Obama typically took 60 to 70% of a significantly smaller Republican crossover vote, so-called "Obamacans," mostly moderates, who genuinely embraced his candidacy. It's doubtful the conservative Republicans who crossed over for Clinton in Ohio and Texas are genuine "Clinton Republicans." They can't stand her. This was an outright mugging of the democratic process. Democrats, beware!

Posted by: bradk1 | March 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Novamatt, you said

"There's a case to be made that a continuing fight, even all the way to the convention, helps Obama vs. McCain. I might try to make that case here later if I get a chance."

Even 'though you are a Jayhawk, your analyses are always worthwhile. But you may have to outdo yourself on this one.

I do not see how anyone but McC won on Tuesday, because the "continuing fight, even all the way to the convention" should give McC everything he needs [from August to November] in film clips of the losing D calling out the nominated D on character matters and issues, and the nominated D caught in embarrassing moments on air.

If your theory is based on the notion that there is no such animal as bad publicity, to persuade me will surely take your best effort.

I hope you have time to make your case here. If you would rather do it to me privately, give me a blind email to reply to and we can correspond.

Meanwhile, Hook 'em.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

This is why Clinton won Ohio...it certainly appears that she lied about Canadian/NAFTA connection and I don't understand why the news media is suppressing the story - unless they are indeed 'pro' Clinton...

Obama has a right to show some truly righteous anger over this one - check it out...just out on www.liberalvaluesblog.com :


Contact with Canadians on NAFTA
The story regarding an Obama aide allegedly speaking with the Canadian government is getting even more bizarre. The Globe and Mail has a story reporting that Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, first mentioned contact from a presidential candidate regarding NAFTA. However the contact came from an unexpected source (emphasis mine):
At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio"s anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.
Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton"s musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.
Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.
"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.
"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton"s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."
Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.
Hillary Clinton"s campaign!!??? After Clinton won the Ohio primary, at least partially due to reports suggesting that Obama had made such claims, it turns out the Clinton campaign has been speaking with the Canadians regarding NAFTA. Has Clinton been attacking Obama"s campaign for what she had done? I sure wouldn"t put it past her. Josh Marshall has the same question:
So was Hillary bashing Obama for what her own campaign had done? Did they both do it? Was it all a set up? I think the overarching story here is that friendly governments should not interfere in our elections.
Written by Ron Chusid
03-05-08

Posted by: ndolan622 | March 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

6. Appeal to Racism: Ohio and Texas clearly showed the efficacy of appealing to latent racism, particularly among the lower-income, less-educated white and hispanic populations. Of those who responded to exit polls that race was a factor in their decision, sixty percent voted for Clinton. The campaign must continue it's less-than-subtle race-baiting techniques and should consider bringing Bill out of mothballs for a couple of inflammatory statements (maybe something about "welfare mothers driving Cadillacs"?).

Posted by: converse | March 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

All you Obama supporters really got a wake up call. Hillary did what she needed to do to stay in this race which was stop Obama from winning. People are finally starting to see the truth about him. He seems like a nice guy but all that forceful rhetoric will only get him so far. The real change is voting for Clinton.

Posted by: Mani2008 | March 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

mikel1 - regarding Obambi's (cute) inexperience...scroll up to
Suze2's post circa 10:29am

Obama has 11 years legislative experience versus HillBilly's 7 years.

IL State Legislative experience, is in deed experience. Certainly, more so than being FLOTUS.

So while HillBilly was having ceremonial tea-parties; Obama may have been voting "Present" but at least he was Present.

So on the issue of experience. There they go again; HillBilly supports again try toshift the goal posts on what is and isn't experience.

----------
PS The 'Obambi' reference rememeber everyone loved Bambi.
Nearly half the nation hate HillBilly, justified or not. Perception is everything in Politics and right out of the gate in a general election 45%-50% of the nation is assured to be against HillBilly.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Many people got the veil off their eyes when they saw that Obama's talk about NAFTA is nothing more than the same Washington doublespeak that Obama supposedly rails against. He truly isnt anything different. He himself said that he's proud to come from Chicago politics some of the roughest and dirtiest in the country.

Posted by: latinles1 | March 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I really wish the Clinton backers would get a grip and stop whining about the delegate counts and how they have been achieved. The fact is that the way delegates are allocated, be it by caucus or primary, has been established for a long time. In fact, most if not all were in place when Bill Clinton ran and won, and I don't recall any complaints from either Bill or Hillary back then about any of them, including the Texas Two-Step. Not only that, when they were reviewed last year by the DNC, my guess is that there were a lot more Clinton supporters involved than Obama supporters when the current criteria were approved. So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the folks on your side who didn't have the crystal ball working back then.

So why are Clinton backers complaining now? Obviously because the delegate count is working against their candidate. Of course, this being a democracy (of sorts), they should be in favor of a concept whoever gets the most (however generated) wins. The reality is that the Clinton operatives have had the exact same opportunities to win caucuses as the Obama operatives - the Obama teams did that better. Admit it and move on.

Making excuses instead of admitting that the other side simply did their job better than yours is foolish, petty and self-defeating and doesn't go very far in making your points. The system was agreed to by all involved; trying to claim it's bogus now, only because your candidate is behind, is pathetic.

Posted by: jk5432 | March 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I am curious to know, if in the context of election law, the courts would find that voter disenfranchisement trumps the DNC "rules"? Also, the reality of Mich and FL is this: If the DNC does not find a way to seat these delegates, neither democrat stands a chance of winning either state in Nov.

Posted by: rosietheriveter4 | March 6, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

PatrickNYC and Bsimon--I would be interested in your take on the "bamboozled" video.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 10:20 AM
------------------
Have not had a chance to watch yet, will let you know when I do. I can type while on the phone at work, headset, but not really hang out and watch videos.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I've already voted (IL) and voted for Obama but it seems to me that Hillary was gloating during her victory speech. I was extremely repulsed by that speech and was astounded that she didn't have the grace to mention that Obama had won VT. I still think she has to figure out a way to have present a more palatable personality than she's been doing.

Additionally, she has to stop over-looking smaller states. That's obvious. As for pushing national security, I'm not sure that this 3am thing will continue to work for her. I think Obama went easy on Clinton before 3/4 and was too cocky. Now that it's a fight again I would expect him to hit back that she's not any more ready for a 3am phone call than he. Basically her plan should be to continue to drive the stake into NAFTA-gate and his flip-flop on public finance. Bringing him down to earth and turning him into a regular politician is her best chance. I just hope she doesn't do it.

Posted by: somua2 | March 6, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"And do you not believe that would have any impact on Hillary's ability to be elected, or to govern effectively? I think Obama and, more significantly, the media have been extremely generous to Clinton by not even mentioning that issue."

The answer to your question is absolutely no. I do not agree with B.O. but he is not a stupid politican. He knows that one mention of that will be the end of his campaign and the undecided delegates will abandon him in a heart beat if he tries.

"The media has been generous you say not mentioning that ISSUE:" Please tell me that I am wrong but I don't consider that to be anything other than trash tabloid journalism, certainly not an issue. I consider the following ISSUES:

1. Who has the best plan to end the war, protect our troops,and care for our troops by bring 165,000 of them home. And who will do it the quickest while at the same time protecting OUR national security and the safety and health of our returning troops;
2. Who has the best plan to provide universal healthcare for 48 million American;
3. Who is best equipped to turn around our faultering economy, crashing stock market, millions of foreclosures, collapsing dollar and manufacturing base;
4. Who is best prespared to end our dependence on foreign oil and foreign ownership of our nation;
5. Who will do a better job of restoring our economy;
6. And which candidate is best prepared to end povery and global warming and protect our air and lakes from pollution and our children from defective products.

These are issues, what you talk about is garbage not issues and has nothing to do with my life or this nation's.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The slogans of change and hope sound very promising until you start defining what exactly is this change and hope that you are talking about. I have not seen anything concrete about Obama's vision which is different from that of Hillary. Therefore the hope/change mantra is really an oratorical pull to attract the idealistic youth who have not experienced the difficult issues that we confront today. For instance, Obama talks about bringing the Republicans and democrats together to solve the problems. Does it mean we give up our ideology to support what works, with consent from both democrats and republicans? Take the issue of tax-breaks for the rich. Where is the common ground in this? Can Obama carry the Republicans on his idea that Bush tax cuts should not be made permanent? or that the inheritance taxes should be re-instated? And if they don't don't you have to fight for it? He says that fights don't solve the problems. But MLK fought for black rights successfully. The problem therefore is in the details, not the idea itself. So unless Obama can define the details of his plans, and demonstrate republican support for his plans, the mere rhetoric about republican-democratic comraderie will not do. Another problem I see is the tendency to attribute racism to Clintons. After acclaiming Bill Clinton as the first "black" president, how do you call him a racist? Just because his wife is running against an African American candidate and he does his best to promote her? Put it against the monolithic support of the black people to Obama, and tell me where racism is at play here? Well, we can argue that it is racial pride (and I agree it is), but it nevertheless it is a form of racism especially because the black people were very appreciative of Bill and Hillary Clinton prior to Iowa victory, and they were shown to be strongly supporting Hillary before the racism charges were made against Bill and Hillary. So Obama's politics are as opportunistic as any one else's, except in the rhetoric and oratorical cover. On the issue of Iraq, he pounded her with accusation of poor judgment in the Iraq war vote, but in 2004 he strongly defended John Kerry's Iraq vote, and never supported the real antiwar candidate Howard Dean. It seems to me that rhetoric aside, he is as much a Chicago machine politician as any (and he said so himself some time back). Ofcourse you play these games in politics, but you don't want to pretend tansparency and purity in rhetoric while you play hard ball politics yourself. The real problem for Obama is his lack of a record on which to judge his rhetoric. He had plenty of opportunities to create some substantive record, and he has not come to that point. His nomination is therefore not dependent on his success so far, but on whether he can win some battlegoround states like Pennsylvania where he must prove his support. He needs to generate a new momentum, which I think he probably is not confident of achieving. That is why he keeps harping on delegate math.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

See, math doesn't sound inspirational, but the point is that, because the math is so stacked against them, the Clinton campaign is basically pursuing the nomination despite knowing that they'd have to get it *despite* voters, not *because* of them. It's representative of the whole anti-democratic (and, really, anti-Democratic) worldview of Hillary and her closest friends.

Watching the Clinton campaign is a little like watching the Stanford Prison Experiment. Take someone of totally ordinary intelligence (she did, after all, finish towards the bottom of her class at Yale Law, and she failed the DC bar exam); let her arbitrarily get access to power and prestige through her incredibly talented husband, and watch her suddenly develop a sincere belief that she's smarter or more capable than someone who's had to work for everything he's ever had and has still managed to reach the same position in life that she has. It would be a funny reflection of human nature if it weren't also so sad.

Posted by: davestickler | March 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Enough about Hillary and her blueprint - what America really cares about is Bill and the blue dress. Obama needs to talk less about NAFTA and talk more about DNA; namely, Bill's all over that Gap dress. If Hill can't keep her husband under wraps with the help of the secret service in broad daylight, how can she be relied upon to keep the whole nation safe at three in the morning?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 6, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton won by doing character assination and speading lies and false rumors. She had her campaign on constant phone banks not talking about her but rather talking to voters about Obama and his NAFTA (wink-wink. Has anyone investigated the fact that Bill Clinton's girlfriend (google Bill Clinton's girlfriend)has held high positions in the Canadian Government? The Canadian government has said that this "leak" was not an accident and was unfair to Mr. Obama. They have called for an internal investigation to get to the bottom of it.
The minute that the news began this morning to cover the corruption by the Clinton campaign in the Texas Cacuses' they have come out and say they are filing a lawsuit against Obama's campaign for corupting the cacuses. They play very dirty and I am disturbed that so many people are falling into the pit of the Clinton quagmire. In terms of National Security, Eurpope is strongly in favor of Obama and many world leaders have already expressed their desire to work for him, and are excited about the possibility of American regaining its strength and leadership. Hillary say's all he can do is give a speach. She is not only insulting the intelligence of the American people, she is insulting the leaders of the world. But she doesn't care, she only wants to get back to the White House to continue her corruption and manipulation of the American People. She is anxious to do a re-run of her 1993 Health Care Fraud and deliver to the insurance companies the promises she make to them in 1993. Research her 1993 Health Care Fraud. (google Clinton Crimes).
Her base is elderly people who still have trust in what they hear on TV, the lower income people with little education who are so busy trying to earn a living they are willing to listen to her false promises of throwing them a lifeline, and many women who are only voting gender and refuse to look at any facts about their canidate. Women like myself will never vote for Hillary. I have yet to meet a woman in my circles who would. Barack Obama is conducting a fair campaign and although he is now willing to shine a light on some of her failings as a canidate, he believes in the intelligence of the American people to make the best choice. She is counting on people being as stupid as she believes us to be. And given what we have let her and Bill get away with over the years, she does have some evidence to feel that way. It is time that we change this view and put a stop to her pretense of experience at our expense. LETS STOP HILLARY AND SAVE AMERICA.

Posted by: mychoice | March 6, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Release your TAX RECORDS Clinton. What are you afraid of ?

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

it's sooooooo funny for these obamaniacs to suggest that questioning obambi's inexperience, lack of substantial track record and hallelujah-praise-the-lord speechifying is negative campaigning!

grow up! this is the big leagues! obama-lite boy can't handle it because it's all true.

rezco proves obama is not lily-white.

nafta-gate proves obama cannot be trusted. he is...gasp!..a traditional chicago politician!

hillary clinton for president!

Posted by: mikel1 | March 6, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Reasonable people can disagree. For MARKM2 to suggest that anyone who doesn't think the way he does about things is "...a person who does not care about the survival of the country..." is for him to put his ignorance on display for all to view. Surely MARKM2 is proud to be counted as someone who supports continuing a $3 Trillion (and counting) war that kills our brave men and women while distracting us from our pursuit of the real terrorists and ignores the needs of our people here at home.

MARKM2 is most likely another chicken hawk, draft dodger in the mold of his heroes George W Bush and Cheney. It is George H W Bush who I would salute even though I am not a Republican. Imagine how a warrior like him feels watching the travesty that is Dubya.

Posted by: jgrecco | March 6, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Should Obama win the nomination, he should thank her for being a slimeball and send her packing. She would be a caustic element in his campaign and White House. The suggestion is actually quite ludicrous considering the type of campaign she's run with all of its innuendo and lies.

If Obama were to lose the nomination or have it stolen from him, he would be a fool to take the VP spot on her tainted ticket. Her Presidency would be just as poisoning to the country as Bush's has been. If she steals this nomination, she's going to lose and lose big.

First, she's going to lose the AA vote, then she's going to lose the independents. The AAs may just not vote to show their displeasure, but the independents (I happen to be both) will vote against her, and that's known in the sporting world as a two vote turn around.

Posted by: horace_simon1 | March 6, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I think Chris nailed this one. Right on the money.

I would just add: Hillary should make an offer and try to hire Karl Rove.

Did you see Rove on Sean Hannity a few days before the TX an OH primaries?

He predicted that the 3:00 AM ad would be very effective. You could see the admiration just oozing from Rove. It was right out of his playbook.

Hillary should get Rove on board. He could really help her...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 6, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton camp is not fooling me. Hillary's campaign going forward is going to consist of the following three elements:
(1) Try to find some way to re-nig on her signed agreement not campaign in Florida and Michigan because she agreed with the DNC decision to strip the states of delegates.
(2) Argue her point about winning the Democratic primaries in big states that traditionally vote Democrat in the general election.
(3) Attack, Attack, Attack Obama! (i.e. the politics of personal destruction)

Mark my words. If Obama wins the upcoming contests in Wyoming and Mississippi, the words OBAMA MOMENTUM will come out in the media, and Hillary will go really negative leading up to Pennslyvania.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I can just see it. The 'red phone' rings, Bill grabs for it, Hillary grabs for it, a knock-down-drag-fight ensues and in the mean time we're blown to smithereens.

Posted by: abcd3 | March 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

leichtman, you object to talking about Monica, but do you really believe that we'd make it through a general election and then four years without getting Bill getting caught with some young lady? And do you not believe that would have any impact on Hillary's ability to be elected, or to govern effectively? I think Obama and, more significantly, the media have been extremely generous to Clinton by not even mentioning that issue.

And they've been even more generous to not bring up how Hillary's brothers received literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from people who were pardoned at the end of the Clinton administration, or how Mark Rich funded Hillary's Senate campaign to the tune of $70,000, or how Bill Clinton traded his influence in arranging a meeting with leaders of Kazakhstan to help a businessman who's provided him with a number of perks and has funded his library and foundation.

The difference between those criticisms and the 3AM piece is that the 3AM ad doesn't actually present any evidence that Hillary is better able to make good snap judgments; it simply insinuates, without any factual backing, that any other candidate would be dangerous. But the evidence on the table suggests that her foreign policy experience is limited to courtesy trips for show, not for actual negotiations, and the only major foreign policy judgments that she's made on the record have turned out to be simply wrong.

But a discussion of Rich, Giustra, Burkle, and, yes, Bill's womanizing would not only be relevant to Clinton's ability to win the general and to do her job as president, but it would also be a discussion that would be based on facts that are broadly accepted parts of the public record. It's incredible to me that the press has completely ignored these story lines, and it's a sign to me that the media has actually been protecting Clinton just as much -- or more -- that they've been protecting Obama.

Posted by: davestickler | March 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

It's all academic at this point, folks. Neither Democratic candidate is going to withdraw until the convention, so there won't be a nominee until August 28th. And since neither candidate can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates at this point, the only thing that still matters is to grab the support of as many superdelegates as possible, by hook or by crook. That means almost six more months of vitriol and innuendo; six more months for core voters to harden in their conviction that whichever candidate they do not favor is the epitome of everything that's wrong with American politics. Each campaign will shout from the rooftops that their own strategy for the convention is perfectly reasonable and just, while their opponent's strategy is dishonest and antidemocratic. The result will be that, no matter who is chosen at the convention, half of the Democratic electorate will be fully convinced that their candidate was cheated out of the nomination. The eventual nominee will have a scant ten weeks to try to repair that breach, and he or she will inevitably fail.

On Election Day, Democrats will still be incensed that their preferred candidate was "stabbed in the back" by the superdelegates, and will make their displeasure known by staying home in droves. Buoyed by the combined support of a united Republican party, a majority of independents disgusted by Democratic mudslinging, and a small but vocal contingent of Democrats determined to vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat other than their favorite, John McCain will become President of the United States.

The Democrats, for their part, will spend at least the next four years consumed with internecine squabbling about who deserves the blame for their loss. Whichever candidate was nominated will become the new John Kerry, the incompetent who couldn't win an election that was supposed to be the Democrats' for the taking. Whichever candidate was not nominated will become the new Ralph Nader, the spoiler whose supporters "stole" the election from the Democrat to whom it rightfully belonged. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may succeed in keeping their seats in the Senate, but neither of them will ever be elected President.

Posted by: tjmaness | March 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's strategy is really going back to her original message -- that she, because of her experience in her husband's administration (she was a chief advisor and policy wonk there, no mere housewife)and eight years in the Senate is most prepared to lead. The red phone ad worked in that regard.

I don't think Obama has to change his central message. Both candidates need to dance with the partner that brought them to the dance.

As I said before, I think they are both worthy Democratic candidates. I don't know who I'm going to vote for when Montana votes June 3. I'm just glad that the nomination is likely to be still contested on June 3.

Here's some general observations on some of the party issues:

1. The call by some Obama supporters that super delegates should vote the "mandate" of their states, is a false argument that would actually backfire. If the super delegates are "winner take all" then Clinton would have the advantage. She won nearly all the big states. Ted Kennedy, Obamam's most high profile super delegate supporter would have to switch to Clinton, since that's how his state voted.

2. I disagree with pundits who think the fact that Democrats will go into the summer without a nominee is a liability. The only mystery left in the Republican party is who McCain picks as his vp nominee. The Democrats stay the lead news story with their continuing contest.
Pelosi is right. The remaining super delegates should stand pat. But I think they should do so right into the convention. With the nominee undecided, the Democrats convention is likely to have the highest rating ever for a convention since the days that we had just three television networks that used to do gavel to gavel coverage. The GOP convention will be a boring scripted affair, ignored by all but the political junkies.

3. The new set up this year for the Democrats in proportional delegates awards is the most fair system, regardless of the super delegates. It is this system that allowed Obama to keep up with Clinton. Had the delelgates been winner take all Clinton would have gained an insurmountable lead on February 5. Instead, Obama, who clearly had a great strategy in not ignoring the so-called minor states, managed to make a run that put him in the lead.

So there it is. That's off my chest.

You know, throw away the hyperbole and there is hardly a dime's worth of difference in policy between these candidates. Democrats should be proud to have either one at the top of the ticket this fall.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 6, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I am disappointed that the soft-hearted media continues to refer to the results from Ohio and Texas as "comeback wins" for Senator Clinton. In fact, she was leading Senator Obama by more than 20 points in both those states two weeks before the primary votes. He closed that gap in stunning fashion in the face of a slimy and insidious assault of attack ads, whispering campaigns, and meddling from the Conservative government of Canada.

This was in reality a victory for Obama and for the application of reasoned thought and considered hope to a political process that has had little of either in recent years.

Clinton received a net gain of 4 delegates from the primaries this week. This is not by any means a victory in the usual operative sense of the word. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "victory" is.

The accumulation of pledged delegates over the next weeks will propel Obama closer to the nomination. The super delegates need to continue to line up behind him as well. After the Puerto Rico primary in June, Clinton needs to leave the race and unite the party for the general election. If not, then it is four years of President John (100 years in Iraq) McCain.

Posted by: dee5 | March 6, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

How about proving that American news media is as sharp - if not as quick - as its Canadian counterpart? For now, it looks like you folks have been hoodwinked by the Clintons on the NAFTA issue:
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/macdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv

Posted by: GordonsGirl | March 6, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's only real blueprint for victory at this point is to hope that Obama suddenly withdraws from the race. If I were her, I'd be telling him all about the joys of life in a monastery, or of all-consuming passions like butterfly collecting and hiking the Himalayas. Or, better yet, collecting butterflies while living in a monastery in the Himalayas.

Don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but Hillary's delegate haul from Tuesday will likely be between +4 and +6. Not very impressive, considering the headlines yesterday. And even that little bump will get wiped out in a couple of days when Obama wins little old Wyoming 8-4 or 9-3. And then of course there's Mississippi next Tuesday, which will very likely echo South Carolina and Alabama.

There's a case to be made that a continuing fight, even all the way to the convention, helps Obama vs. McCain. I might try to make that case here later if I get a chance.

Posted by: novamatt | March 6, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Side Note:

How will the SNL 'Cold Opener' be played out?

Those last two were very fun. Particularly the Brian Williams impression.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

CBS local affiliate intrviewed cross over REPS for both Obama and Clinton and every single person they interviewed who as a Rep cross over voter said there was no way they would vote for Obama or Clinton in the General Election. Please tell me that you don't agree with such a broken system, it stinks and needs to end going forward

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

bsimon: you are 100% right about "the swing vote" My point is that you are apparently a swing voter not a die hard Republican who crosses over to meddle in our process. I live in a 60% republican neighborhood here in Texas folks who never have and never will vote Dem, apparently unlike you, in a general election. I was in several of the Republican hoseholds this past weekend and heard giggling about their screwing with the Dem primary. Our CBS local affiliate intrviewed cross over REPS for both Obama and Clinton and every single person they interviewed who as a Rep cross over voter said there was no way they would vote for Obama or Clinton. Please tell me that you agree with such a broken system, it stinks and needs to end going forward. Voters need to declare as Dems Reps, or Independents before the primary and you as an independent should be allowed to vote in either but otherwise Dems should nomnate Dems and Repubs in their primaries seelecting their nominee.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If you think that first lady experience is so important then you must write in Laura Bush's name. Her first lady experience is much more recent and, therefore, much more relevant.

Posted by: comments99 | March 6, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Hello everyone!
Because the next president WILL need to fight in order to reverse the damage incurred by this administration, Hillary's image as a fighter will bode well with voters. Those of us who supported John Kerry were sick to our stomachs over his lack of fight against Bush. You know, there's a reason the Republicans keep on winning, and it's not because they're playing nice. Hillary is hardened, and to some, this is unattractive. But can we not agree that she is TOUGHER than John Kerry. This is amazing considering the gender difference as well as the fact he is a U.S. Veteran. People need to stand back and consider this striking fact.

Posted by: ivana_perry | March 6, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Ah yes, the truth comes calling. " The pain of the familiar is more acceptable than the fear of the unknown" So, we look to politics as usual (the 3 am call) as a way to hide from the tsunami of hope that represents a call for change. The voters of Ohio and Texas can be swayed by a T.V.add. Older women, and uneducated out of work laborers. The voice of America! Why risk change when we can have more of the same> duh.....The Clinton years all over again with a new front person. Politics is like everything else. We get exactly what we are willing to put up with. The same consciousness that elected Bush twice is at it again.

Posted by: Billy7 | March 6, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

mcgrupp: I worshipped Bobby Kennedy and I rather doubt he would consider Obama's san Antonio speech, poorly received, about THE MATH would be considered inspirational by Bobby. We have heard that B.O. is Bobby, Jack, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, enough with your hyperbole already, he is just another politican trying to get the nomination.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I believe this is a dynasty clash between the Kennedys and the Clintons.
Howard Dean being pro Kennedy and Obama being the Trojan Horse.

I would not be surprised if Hillary Clinton turned her vote to McCain for President.
No.... I wouldn't bet the war is over if Obama (with threats of backlash) gets
the Democratic pick.

The Clinton's have the power to create their own wind storm....even they know McCain would make a better President, being that he is the one candidate that is known to cross lines.

If you look for a Clinton & Obama ticket...imagine the drama. In 4 years time, Bill Clinton will look like a saint.

Posted by: blueflorida | March 6, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Thank God the truth is starting to come out.
The guy would have been a disaster.
As readers of these boards know, I checked out both candidates with people I know in washington, including staffers that do the actual work.

The all love Hillary and feel Obama is a fake.

Obama is Democrats George Bush, right down to the hard-partying coke fueled past.

The real Obama is an arrogant, incompetent jerk.

We're lucky to find it out now rather than later.

Obama would crumble like a cookie in a general campaign.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I'm actually pretty tired of Obama supporters holding to the fantasy that the only count that matters is the number of pledged delegates. Let's not forget that the Democrats' system of choosing delegates is in itself ludicrous. Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio combined mean less than a single Obama caucus victory in a minor western state. Why should the votes of 36,000 caucus-goers in Kansas mean more than the votes of 5 million primary voters in Ohio and Texas? By my calculations, excluding Texas, Obama has a 130 delegate lead in caucuses alone. Winning primaries in which tens of millions of voters participated in California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, and likely Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan should mean much more than these caucus results where perhaps 300,000 people participated in Idaho, Kansas, Alaska, Nebraska, Hawaii, Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine and North Dakota.

Posted by: JSnapper | March 6, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

leichtman writes
"Pa is a pure Democratic primary no cross overs allowed. Then B.O. supporters should agree that Pa voters will truly represent how Democrats feel about the 2 candidates and who will not let Republicans meddle in our process."

This is an area where both parties are pretty short-sighted. Are you trying to win the general election, or not? If you are, why don't you choose the candidate that attracts the most swing/cross-over voters? I am a coveted swing voter & plan to vote for Obama or McCain precisely because they are willing to work the middle. Here's a little hint for you: the base doesn't decide elections - the swing voters do. McCain has a long-established record of appealing to moderate/independent voters. In order to beat him, the Dems have to find a candidate that will draw that support from him. Clinton is not that candidate.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

mcgrupp: "HillBilly's argument boils down to I have a vagina.

Obama has not been running on race.
HillBilly has run on gender.

You shouldn't vote for them based on either."

I realy like your whole post and DEF agree with this statement.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I just wish PA weren't 6 weeks away.

Let it be the battleground--let it be the decider for MO.

(because basically we have a draw for the Dem nom)

But G-d, WHY can't it be sooner so we don't waste so much time and money and give the Reps such a break and entertainment.

(ALSO--I think any Rep cross over was neutralized--regardless of motives)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

TheTruth wrote: "Don't you know how much more important it is that HRC be the first woman president, even if it is something that will probably be forgotten in a generation?"

HillBilly's argument boils down to I have a vagina.

Obama has not been running on race.
HillBilly has run on gender.

You shouldn't vote for them based on either.

It should be the candidate with the vision to not only lead, but be followed.

If I were alive in the '60s I would have supported Bobby Kennedy; the greatest What If (he lived t be elected) candidate.

"Some look at what is and ask why. I dream of what never was and ask why not?"

No more what ifs. Obama is the real deal.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

let me suggest that the day B.O. or his campaign brings up Monica his campaign and any hope he might think he has for Nov or the nomination, will officially end, and that would be the end of any hope he might think he would have of bringing the party or Clinton supporters to support him in Nov. I doubt that would be a tactic even McCain would condone.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

It is very hard to believe, as a christian democrat, believing in democracy for a long time now, what happens in the US right now. Is this still democeacy within the democratic party? I don't agree with that. What is underway now, is, leading by a couple that thinks, only they can be good for America, assissted by a media like NYT or WP, to "avoid" the stipulated rules in order to crown the wrong President.
This a a terrible example for the whole democracy learning states, who will spit on these rules.
The negative attacks from HRC have nothing to do with fairness and should surface a strong critic from party members. BUT, nothing comes from them, many of them thinking also how to twist the rules to nominate the candidate, who has less votes and less delegates.
This will split the party and I hope, that at the end of the dirty party nomination, OBAMA will start as a indipendent Candidate, that gives him more drive than the bloody clinton stupidity.
She can give up her candidacy anyway, because, what I have learned so far is, HRC is hated by many many democrats, and by more republicans, therefore she can never win even against John McCain, unless the gambling, twisting and shamble will continue, like GWB did.
I fell miserable, reading the NYT and WP now, because the few commentators coming all from more or less one direction.

Clinton would be the big mistake, US would have to pay for at least for 10 years.
Obamas politic give a much more better view of the way out of the deep crisis, US is having. Not the 100.000 Millionärs, but most of the middle and lower class.
Good bye US democracy, Presidents are lying to the people, otder toture, starting wars with 100.000's deaths, ruining the economy, and now, they are voting for a scandal written "old girl" lying and twisting and gambling her way to the white house. And the scandal Billy is coming in her bag.
What is better then all the despotic african states???
Shame on you, Democratic Party and your leadership.

Posted by: sieweke | March 6, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

On the YouTube video above, posted by Thinker:

So what, dude? According to this video, he used a line from an old Hopi Indian prayer that many others have used, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

He used lines from his friend Deval Patrick, who is a national co-chair of his campaign and said publicly that not only do he and Obama discuss and develop speech lines all the time, but that he suggested Obama use the lines.

He has used lines provided by David Axelrod, a campaign employee of his, and these lines are similar (and in some cases identical) to lines used by other politicians while they were employing David Axelrod.

And he has used colorful words like "hoodwink" and "bamboozle" that are also used by Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan does not have a copyright on these words; and they are often considered colorful and gentle ways of saying you have been misled. Politicians use them all the time, because it is too harsh to just come out and say somebody else is a bald-face liar, but you do need to let people know when others are less than truthful. In the video, Obama is clearly making fun of politicians statements and fear mongering.

This isn't a MUST SEE, this is just recycled drivel.

Posted by: tonycastaldo | March 6, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

What Clinton and her handlers have failed to take into account is just who the Obama supporters are. They're the people who have despaired of the country ever being brought back together again and have--finally--seen some light at the end of the tunnel and a chance to begin mending what's been broken.

Denying them that chance isn't going to woo them over to Clinton's side, especially when the methods employed have been questionable and very much the kinds of things that got us into this mess in the first place.

Lately, Clinton has been employing smear and fear tactics ripped right from the Republican play book. I've been voting since 1972 and I've lived through far too much of that in my lifetime. Why on earth would I use my precious vote to ask for four more years of that kind of politics?

Posted by: suze2 | March 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

actually the Houston Chronicle reported today that B.O. vote in Houston was helped considerably by cross over voters for B.O.
the point is it stinks whoever it helps and it needs to stop in future elections so that Dems select their candidates, as B.O. has bragged about these Republican cross over voters for him in Va, Wisconsin and Minn. and actually suggested that he why he is the better candidate. Can't have it both ways.

I do not a sole in the Clinton campaign that will not vote for B.O. because he is black. Do you have any idea whatsoever how over the top and inexscusable those kninds of comments are pq?

Pa is a pure Democratic primary no cross overs allowed. Then B.O. supporters should agree that Pa voters will truly represent how Democrats feel about the 2 candidates and who will not let Republicans meddle in our process.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I agree with tonycastaldo's comment that, for Obama, nothing should be sacred when it comes to criticizing Hillary any more -- and that includes the elephants in the room like Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky.

If Hillary is fooling voters into thinking that "visiting 80 countries" to have tea and crumpets with the wives of prime ministers qualifies as serious foreign policy experience, then she has to answer for the disasters that occurred on her watch as first lady. That includes not knowing that her husband was doing more than smoking those cigars with Monica when her own telephone rang at 3 a.m.

Posted by: Jumpy66 | March 6, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The popular votes cast so far are about the same for each of them. My estimate of Repubs voting for Obama is very close to 25%, and they would never vote for him in the GE. Now each of them have about 14M total votes and when you take away the Repub votes of even my early estimate of 10 to 15% for him, all rational thought of Obama being the stronger candidate disappears. Folks the numbers all show Hillary is the strongest candidate, and numbers are not liars.

Posted by: lylepink | March 6, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Suze2 - Thank you :)

kghaceo - You clearly lack all the facts. For starters a dictionary.

Plagerism, n.
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner.


Obama used a line Gov. Deval Patrick used in his campaign. The two are friends and Gov. Patrick is one of Obama's co-chairs of his national campaign committee. Patrick told Obama to use the line.

It was authorized. ERGO not Plagerized.

As for as Rezko...WHITEWATER!
The two are more or less meaningless.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I have written elsewhere on this board that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should have been penalized for holding their primaries before the rules allowed. Lets review the relevant parts of the rules for those obsessed with "rules".

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:

11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS

A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.


So, Iowa held its primary on Jan 3, 2008 thirty two days before the first Tues. in Feb. New Hampshire held its primary on Jan 8 twenty three days before the first Tues. in Feb., and South Carolina held its primary on Jan 26 nine days before the first Tues. in Feb. Each of these primaries 'broke the rules' for those of you who are obsessed with rules.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were NOT punished. Why not?


Posted by: PhilTR | March 6, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

a new low: Texans and Ohions are idiots.

"thanks to the idiots in Ohio and Texas"

great general election message Al, if B.O. is the nominee,tell the voters in Texas and Ohio they are idiots. If you don't support B.O. you must be and idiot, interesting comment?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Dear Obama supporters and other lovers of democracy:

I believe I speak for Clinton fans, the ampiagn, and the candidate herself when I say that your arguments that we agreed to the rules regarding states moving their primaries and the rules of the convention are moral arguments more than anything. What have we ever done that makes you think we are concerned over morality.

Look, we'll make this as simple as possible: the integrity of our electoral system and the state of this nation mean little compared to this quixotic tilt toward "history." Don't you know how much more important it is that HRC be the first woman president, even if it is something that will probably be forgotten in a generation? Your homes, your children's education, your future, national seurity - they mean very little compared to the shiny bauble we reach for.

Besides, the solution this campaign of history has presented in this campaign should work when she grabs what should be hers. When terrorists threaten, she will leak to the media photos of Osama bin Laden clad in western attire. If Russia gets out of line, she will run tv ads asking who YOU want answering the phone - Hill or Putin. When pressed on NAFTA, she will remark on what it has done for the environment - look at all the people who have traded in the energy inefficient houses for cardboard boxes.

Obama supporters, get over yourselves. Cynicism triumphs over hope every day. You can't win. The odds are stacked against you.

Posted by: TheTruth | March 6, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporter here:

All you Clinton-haters, get a grip.

Are they perfect--NO; Do they do things some of us don't like and don't agree with--YES.

But on the WHOLE they have the right focus and like it or not they have results.

No one died when Clinton lied!

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

It seems that a good many Republicans voted for Hillary, even though they hate her, just to weaken Obama. There was one on the news just now.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Clinton does not need to prevail among pledged delegates if she prevails in the popular vote.

Posted by: mikejd | March 6, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

blarg as I recall your campaign's central theme, raison d'etre, is vote for B.O. I am different, my campaign is different, I represent hope and inspiration, you do not.
His new message: vote for me, Its the math stupid.

Once the vaneer is wiped away we now see, that B.O. is no longer about inspiration but about THE MATH.

I believe our central them is that it will take Hillary's strength and experience(whether or not you agree with that) to accomplish the idealism and hope your campaign talks about. Maybe I am wrong although one of your supporters totaly agrees, that as soon as you make THE MATH your central theme as your campaign seems so determined to do, B.O. is no longer the change agent or the inspirational speaker(leader) that he claims to be. You can call Hillary whatever names you can imagine, but I suspect B.O. will not want to replace the word inspiration with the MATH CANDIDATE. Any chance of winning the authentacity label will suddenly vanish. Personally I urge your campaign to pound the table about THE MATH, because it will completely destroy your candidate's image of inspiration. Can you explain how a message about THE MATH inspires?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

You forgot the centerpiece of her new plan: Recruit Rush Limbaugh as chief campaign adviser.

And the big question I haven't yet heard the media ask: How many Texas and Ohio Republicans crossed over to vote for her on Tuesday as Rush instructed them to do? (Forget Rhode Island. I was born there. There are no registered Republicans there.)

Posted by: richardhebert | March 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I am SO tired of this helmet-headed harpy! And now, thanks to the idiots in Ohio and Texas, we in Pennsylvania will have to suffer seven weeks of Clinton's Republican-style ads. I am seriously considering voting for McCain. He's the more honorable person. I wish I had done that in '96 when I held my nose and voted for the Philanderer in Chief, despite my believe that he was the inferior character. I don't think I can stomach the thought of doing that again!!

Posted by: al_jal | March 6, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

All this talk from Obama and Clinton supporters crying that they will vote for mccant if their candidate doesn't get the nomination is comical. I'm a proud democrat who would be thrilled with either clinton or obama in the white house. Facts are there are those of you who wont for for hillary because you are clinton haters, and there are many of you who wont vote Obama because he's black. Just remember who loses if mccant wins.

Posted by: pgiaquinto | March 6, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Please do not make light of the National Security of our country, which is not stupid. As the mother of an active duty Marine daughter, I want to make sure our new Commander in Chief can do more when we are attacked than give a great, although plagarized speech.

In addition, I do not want a Chicago mob backed puppet (yeah, he memorizes speeches of others well) leading the country.

With Rezko, NAFTA, the false race baiting from chief Obama strategist Davis Axelrod since the South Carolina primaries, and Exelon (when are the media going to cover this story), where Obama and Rezko were in cohoots to purchase and build nuclear power plants in Iraq for personal gain.

HELLO! We are at war with Iraq. Haven't we had enough opf our leadership, i.e. Bush & Cheney benefitting financially from teh blood of our young service men and women?

Yeah, you left out a lot of reasons why thinking Democrats should and have shown support for Senator Clinton.

Hillary hit him with more than the kitchen sink, hit him with the whole house, the one that Rezko built.

Posted by: kghaceo | March 6, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I love the comment (somewhere above) that Obama supporters cannot name one thing that he has accomplished. How amusing...and wrong. So, all right, I'll bite. I'm from Illinois, so for me, Obama isn't new at all. He did, after all, serve in the Illinois State Senate from 1996-2004 and in the U.S. Senate from 2005 until now (in other words he's been in elective office for over ten years).

While in the Illinois Senate, he was responsible for passing legislation that requires the police to tape interrogations and confessions, a move that required Obama to win over reluctant parties from both sides of the aisle (winning in the House, in the Senate 35-0 and getting the governor to sign off on it). Illinois became the first state to require videotaping.

He played a major role in passing Illinois' earned-income tax credit to help the poor (the first earned-income tax credit for the state). He also was instrumental in passing the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (which makes Illinois one of the top states in regards to campaign finance disclosure).

In 1997, The Independent Voters of Illinois awarded him Best Freshman Legislator Award

In 1998, The Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association awarded Obama the Outstanding Legislator Award.

In the U.S. Senate he worked with Russ Feingold to co-author, introduce and pass major ethics reform (which, in part requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them).

Senator Clinton, on the other hand, keeps saying that she has 35 years of experience. Um...since she's only 60, that means she's counting everything since she was 25-years-old. Really? So...I guess, using those methods, Obama at 46 must have a lot more years of experience than he's been claiming credit for. Maybe he should start claiming those 21 years of experience.

Posted by: suze2 | March 6, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Not to be unkind, but why do you persist in referring to "the Ohio-Texas Two-Step"?

Do you not realize that the pun -- which every other political writer uses -- is "the Texas Two-Step," a reference to Texas's hybrid "prima-caucus"?

Posted by: johnlumea | March 6, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporter here. Figures quoted are what I remember from Jonathon Alter's recent article in Newsweek. The math is simple. Obama's pledged delegate lead is currently 100-150 (depending on which source you use). In order to re-take the pledged delegate lead, Clinton needs to win all remaining states something like 60-40 or greater. Anyone know the odds of that happening? She's also about 600,000 behind in the popular vote. If she fails to win the pledged delegates or the popular vote (and I agree, FL and MI need to re-do), she needs the majority of superdelegates to come to her side in spite of losing, in all likelihood, both the pledged delegate and popular vote. If that happens, do all Clinton supporters truly believe that all Obama's supporters will rally around a truly un-Democratic party and their candidate? Some will, certainly. One can only speak for oneself. This lifelong, and soon-to-be former, Democrat will not.

Posted by: ray.chapman | March 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

coffers were low for R congressional candidates anyway, wonder how this will impact them:

'On February 1st of this year, National Republican Campaign Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) abruptly released a statement about recently discovered "irregularities in our financial audit process." That was it: no details about whether money might have been stolen, just word that they'd seen fit to bring in the federal authorities.

The details, as they've come, have been embarrassing for the committee in charge of getting Republicans elected to the House (which was already hurting in comparison to its Democratic counterpart before all this began).

According to The New York Times this morning, It all began to unravel when Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), a CPA, asked to meet with the audit firm that was supposedly checking the NRCC's books, an idea that apparently no one had had for several years. Christopher Ward, then the NRCC's treasurer, finally relented, but then chickened out 30 minutes before and fessed up that there actually hadn't been any audits.

The FBI is currently investigating, and it's not clear yet why Ward was so keen to hide the real numbers. But as the Times reports this morning, the signs are not good. NRCC internal audits since Ward's discovery show that "hundreds of thousands of dollars are missing and presumed stolen." And it gets worse: there are apparently indications that "the financial irregularities might extend beyond the national committee to the campaign funds of individual Republican lawmakers who also worked with Mr. Ward, a longtime party operative."

Ward had been with the NRCC since 1993 and worked for dozens of Republican campaign committees, political action committees, and other organizations. It'll be interesting to see what the FBI turns up.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_290.php

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

GSWAGNER

Hillary did not win Florida and did not win Michigan - they didn't count!

Hillary is the sitting Senator from New York -- Obama didn't challenge her here -- I'm a New Yorker and I still voted Obama!

But saying she has it locked up by winning New York, California, and Massachusetts means nothing.

In November any Democrat running will carry all three of those states. So that point is moot.

Obama won much more states. Independent-Moderate States and Red States. He could once again win those states in November HillBilly is at that much more of a disadvantage.

To win in November the Democrats have to attack the so-called red states and wage an offensive battle there so that McCain will have to defend his 'home' turf. California, New York, and Massachusetts will vote Obama in November. They are protected. Make McCain dump his election funds defending his own turf and Obama will clean up! First the election and then Washington!

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

he declared his candidacy in January of 2007. Is a year not long enough for you?

indeed!

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Where was Clinton's big victory Tuesday? The difference in delegates was less then the difference in Idaho alone. She's dragging this out, because she cannot accept that she will never be president. She is self-centered, egotistical and more than willing to drag down the party to live a few more months in the delusion that she has a shot. She doesn't; the next president will be McCain or Obama and each day she continues in the race is a boon to the former.

Posted by: groover016 | March 6, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Think back to the video of George W. Bush reading to school kids as he's told of the planes going into the WTC. Think about the ensuing six years. There's a difference between fear mongering and intelligent thought about who we want to hire as our next president. We get lost in the ethers of Obama's hope message. I almost did.

Read Joe Wilson's piece in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Posted by: thetruth31 | March 6, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I realize it was Florida's Republican McGrupp:"Govonor and Republican controlled legislature who voted on their "House Bill 537" to move the primary forward into January.

But the vote passed with bipartisan support 118 to 0 in the Florida House, 37 to 2 in the Florida Senate."

point ceded--

PatrickNYC and Bsimon--I would be interested in your take on the "bamboozled" video.


Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Since neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to determine the nomination, supers will decide. It seems to me that their decision will be based on three factors.

1) Who has the most pledged delegates? This will almost assuredly be Obama.

2) Who has the most popular vote? This one currently favors Obama, but could change if Clinton wins big in PA, IN, and WV.

3) Who has better head to head poll numbers with McCain? Again this currently favors Obama.

My conclusion is that based on these three criteria is that Obama is still the odds on favorite for the nomination.

Warren

Posted by: zeke44_62 | March 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

leichtman, do you think that Hillary isn't "just another calculating politician"? If not, why not? For extra credit, explain why it's okay for Hillary to talk about her victories, but not okay for Obama to point out that those victories were meaningless.

Thinker, you complain that the nomination process is too compressed, so there was no way for America to know what Obama was all about. Like the other candidates, he declared his candidacy in January of 2007. Is a year not long enough for you?

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's real strategy is lie about everything. Ian Brodie, the top aide to the Canadian Prime Minister first fingered Clinton in his verbal leak on Feb 26. He said to Canadian reporters that it was the Clinton campaign that called to say she didn't mean what she said about NAFTA. Suddenly that got turned into Obama and not Clinton. I wonder why? Was it a Clinton smear or a Rove smear? Or did it have something to do with Bill Clinton's connection to Frank Giustra, the guy Bill Clinton went to Khazakstan with. Frank Giustra used to own Lions Gate Entertainment and was a mining billionaire. With Bill Clinton's help (NYT) he got a huge uranium deal right after that trip. Bill Clinton sang the praises of the Khazakstan President/dictator. So how close is Frank Giustra to conservative Prime Minister Harper? If journalists were really doing their job, they would investigate. When it was Clinton who was hypocritical about NAFTA, she lied and made it about Obama. What a republican-like smear.

Posted by: goldie2 | March 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"I wish you folks at the WaPo would get out your calculator, do the math,"

It is apparent by these post that B.O. and his supporters are making my point, that he and his camapign have decided after Tuesday's vote that they are no longer the candidacy of inspiration and that he is just Another Calculating Politician. Thank you B.O. supporters you are proving exactly why he will not be the nominee.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Clinton has a good argument for seating the Florida delegates, as opposed to the Michigan ones. In Florida the Republican controlled House and Senate enacted the law that required the Democratic Party to move their primary up in violation of the Party's rules, and this law was pushed and supported and signed by the Republican Governor.

They had no choice in the matter - ether hold the primary on the date specified by law or have no primary at all.

To allow this Republican dirty trick to stand in the way of counting the Florida votes would be totally un-fair.

Posted by: gooch73 | March 6, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

God help America if Hillary gets the nomination through fear and smear tactics!
As a committed Democrat, I will vote Republican for the first time. There is a reason the uneducated voted for Hillary in the primaries: they are uninformed and have amnesia, forgetting all the dishonest machinations of the Clintons ever since they appeared on the political landscape!
Arthur Gowran

Posted by: arthurgowran | March 6, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

b_lyric writes
"Hillary offered joint ticket ! Its a joke of the year !"

Sadly, its not a joke. Its a very real possibility.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Re Clinton's red phone ad, the message that our children will be murdered in their sleep if Hillary Clinton is not president is apalling. And a stupid one to boot. These sorts of ads will be the death knell for either candidate in November.

Posted by: katefranklin60 | March 6, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Chadibuins

I realize it was Florida's Republican Govonor and Republican controlled legislature who voted on their "House Bill 537" to move the primary forward into January.

But the vote passed with bipartisan support 118 to 0 in the Florida House, 37 to 2 in the Florida Senate.

Someone, maybe Bill Maher, said that "Florida should just stop voting, they clearly have no idea what they're doing there."

At this point it looks like the Florida and Michigan govonors are just trying to save face amongst their constituents whom they disanfranchised (not the DNC).
While the Republicans in Florida are just trying to reck havoc in the Democratic nomination and are hoping to run against HillBilly who they have been prepared to run against for nearly a decade.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary offered joint ticket ! Its a joke of the year !
For this everyone should hate her. For her self-contradiction and for her sense of proportion !
She is very bad in math !

Posted by: b_lyric | March 6, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Great article Chris. It is pretty clear that FL & MI are going to be re-done. It is not the peoples fault that the party leaders played chicken with the states. The only question now is who is going to pay for it.

I for one have never seen a race like this, and I come from a pretty political family, I was working on my Uncle's campaign when I was 13. While I am not happy with some of the things being said against Hillary and Obama, especially the personal racist and sexist comments, I see no problem in letting this play out.

Nor do I see supporters of either sitting it out if their canidate does not win. The GOP barely got behind McCain and the walls are already cracking. With Pastor John Hagee's endorsement he has turned off the Catholic vote. My GOP Irish Catholic family was holding their noses to vote for him as it was, this will drive many away in droves.

I just hope that all of us Dems can pull it togher when this all plays out.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse


The Red phone ads weren't "fear" ads - they were a REALITY CHECK by a responsible adult named Hillary Clinton.

Many people who voted for Obama are questioning their choice - now that they are seeing more and more of him and his circus float, minimal discussion routine is over.

The problem with this process has been that it was rushed and crammed into a few months with not enough time to see who this new American Idol candidate was about. He stayed high upon his float - giving his message and not answering any questions. It was a real slight of hand, smoke and mirrors act. And, while doing it - he channeled dead people like MLK, JFK and Jefferson and pretended to be them. It was quite an act.

Now we're having time to take a look at him and learn about him. American's are taking back control of this job interview - and he doesn't like it. Whining. Refusing to answer questions. Hellooo ??

We aren't going to be sorry for this delay in the process. His masks are falling off. He charmed his way through the first and way too fast beginning of this interview. We're into the credentials, comparing candidates and background and reference checks now.
He's not looking so good. But he is still smug.

We won't be duped. We won't be hoodwinked.

Here's Mr. Obama talking about hoodwinking the public: A MUST SEE VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

Posted by: Thinker | March 6, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will go after Obama the same way that Tonya Harding went after Nancy Kerrigan, by taking him out at the knees. She will fight dirty, because it is her only play.

Posted by: cummije5 | March 6, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The math argument is the proof that Obama will be the nominee. It's the counter to Hillary's argument that she won big on Tuesday and will be the nominee. It's separate from the inspirational message, policy talk, and other aspects of the campaign. (In the same way that Hillary talks about her recent victories and what she'd do as president.) I don't see why the candidates can't discuss the nomination process in addition to other topics, or why you criticize Obama for something Hillary (and every other candidate) does also.

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Caucus vs Primaries

How can a Clinton will a Primary by 100,000 votes in Texas and lose a Caucus?

In Texas, voters who were to attend and vote in a Caucus, first had to vote in the Primary. There is no way a soldier in Iraq, a parent with kids, elderly people, or many others could wait till 11pm to vote in a caucus. They could not send in an absentee ballot. Talk about disenfranchising a voter! This is stupid rules in nominating a president. Every voter should have a chance to participate.
Hillary Clinton has won every major state so far, with the exception of Illinois. She has won New Jersey, New York, California, Ohio, Massachesetts, Michigan and Florida. Name one of those states that a Democrat can lose in the fall and win the Presidency. She has also won Tennesee and Arkansas.
I do not care that Obama won Idaho, Nebraska, Alabama, South Carolina, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Alaska, or Georgia. When was the last time these states voted for a Democrat in the general election? Well they wont this time either!
We better nominate a candidate who can win in the fall not just be a feel good candidate until then. Democrats did that in the 70s and 80s. Its time we win again! Hillary 08!

Posted by: GSWAGNER | March 6, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Chris

Since you, the WaPo and the rest of the MSM peddled the lies of the Clinton campaign about Obama and Nafta at the required momment to ensure an Ohio victory for Clinton, I just KNOW you'll want to correct your story and make sure that all those unemployed blue collar workers in PA know that it was Hillary, not Barak, who was whispering reassurances to the Canadian government about NAFTA.

C'mon Chris. Commit just one act of real journalism here. Do the right thing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

Posted by: smeesq | March 6, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

There is no blueprint for victory. There is only the attempt at a party coup d-etat, whereby Clinton steals the nomination through smear, fear, lawsuits, threats, cheating and anything else they can use.

Mathematically, they can't catch up. If they redo votes in MI and FL, they can't catch up.

They can spin all they like but one thing they can't do is win.

I wish you folks at the WaPo would get out your calculator, do the math, and stop inhaling all these Clinton talking points every day!

Talk about media bias!

Posted by: info23 | March 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

leichtmen: The more he and his supporters keep pounding the table about The Math, the less B.O. looks like an agent of change and the more he looks like just another calculating politician."

again, I am an Obama supporter, but I agree with your premise.

I think Obama should "Dance with the one that brung ya."

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary with BIG smile. Is she realy happy with this sort of win or again she is acting !

Clinton has comeback. But, for this, she has gone so far. She has polluted the air for her benefit. It seemed to me that she has forgot her main identity- she is a democrat. The way she started and continued undermine and defame another democrat - ideologically its not an honest & responsible approach as a party-person. This type of sub standard politics we find in third world countries where democracy is still getting its shape. Person who , for her win, can ignore party interest how we can expect that she will be a responsible & honest president of a country ?

Posted by: b_lyric | March 6, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

B.O. message now seems to be all about 'The Math' What happened to his inspirational message about Hope and Opportunity whatever those ambiguous terms mean. The more he and his supporters keep pounding the table about The Math, the less B.O. looks like an agent of change and the more he looks like just another calculating politician. On Tuesday the Inspirational candidate became the Calculating Mathametics candidate.

As a former Edwards supporter I strongly felt last Sept that voters would eventually see B.O.'s Glass Jaw, something JE aluded to early on. We knew he would be in the exact box he is in right now, the same box JE was in in 2004. JE was the candidate of Hope in 2004 who as the VP candidate could never get out of his box of hopefulness and aggressively campaigning to take on Cheney and Bush. In otherwords B.O. exactly like JE, will now be unable to suddenly switch gears and become the aggressor without becoming just another politician as he called it, and totally abandoning his cheerful message of hope. My fear last Sept may be why his campaign is suddenly deflating, the realization that his candidacy might just end like Kerry/Edwards because of the box he has placed himself in.

Tony suggested that as an advertisor, that he would recommend that B.O. now start labeling H.C. as and old hag. In otherwords ignite a generational and a sexist war. Great strategy Tony, bring it on and use that strategy and there won't be a woman or boomer left supporting your campaign.

Last night I posted B.O. opposition vote to the Kerry Iraq resolution that Feingold and Durbin voted yea on as an example of why B.O. is far from pure on his singular phony campaign argument, that he is against the war and no one else is. I posted the exact resolution and his vote here and not surprisingly his supporters answered their response to B.O. vote with utter silence.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I might add, from a fawning interview of radical rightwinger Hugh Hewitt by rightwinger Mike Allen of Politco:

In the middle of the interview, Allen and Hewitt began discussing Bush/Cheney '04 media strategist Steve Schmidt, a former top aide to Dick Cheney for communications strategy (i.e., media management). Allen and Hewitt both heaped great praise on Schmidt as a brilliant media strategist, and Allen claimed that the current GOP campaign operatives "are schooled in the Bush-Cheney school . . . all of them learned under Schmidt's rules."

Allen is very excited about the fact that a whole new generation of GOP media strategists are becoming so well-practiced in "the Bush-Cheney school" of media manipulation: "the great thing of it is he's populated his ideas into these young people who are out there today, Matt David [of the McCain campaign], Kevin Madden [communications Director for Mitt Romney and formerly for Tom DeLay], all these young people are out there. They sort of have the Schmidt credo."

MA: - because as you know, Steve was a very high official in the Vice President's office -
HH: Right.
MA: And he also went over to Iraq to look at the communications capabilities, and he came back with a number of recommendations about even some of the logistical things to help people get those stories out. Now I think the military's getting smarter about it, as you know. . . .
HH: Yeah.
MA: The military organized the O'Hanlon-Pollack tour, and I didn't know until I read your interview with Mike O'Hanlon that they'd had an interview with General Petraeus . . . .
HH: Right.
MA: That had not been reported before. That was very fascinating. But I think that shows you that the military's getting better at this.

When Allen gushes that "the military's getting better at this," what he means by "this" is "media and political messaging about the war." As has been evident for months now, the U.S. military in Iraq has been devoting far more efforts to all sorts of propaganda campaigns designed to shape American public opinion about the war. Many of those media management efforts by the (absolutely nonpolitical) U.S. military have been shaped by the same individual responsible for media management in the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign and, subsequently, in Dick Cheney's office.'

And now, in McCain's campaign. The same propagandaist who created a propaganda machine in Iraq is now 'shaping messages' for McCain, in coordination with Dick Cheney.

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

kbourke--interesteing concept.

I am intrigued--wonder if something like that would ever happen?

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Crisis said: "I also find it humorous that Obama can win three huge primaries - D.C., Maryland, Virginia - by TWENTY TO THIRTY POINT MARGINS - and when Hillary eeks out a tiny delegate win...she's the nominee!"

EXCELLENT POINT--I do not agree with your repugnancy of Clinton--I'll still vote for her if she wins--BUT GREAT GREAT GREAT point.

It does seem to me that if nothing else the "working the refs" strategy was the real winner. Its not like any of those three primaries are backwoods--Jeez, they revolve around the seat of government of the leader of the Free World--they def should be counted as BIG.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

If you really want to test both candidates on experience, policy, the question of "who's tested and ready," have a real debate. Not with each other (I'm frankly sick of those -- I get nothing from the posturing, etc.). Why can't the next series of debates be truly groundbreaking: have a series of debates in which each candidate shares the stage with a current member of the Bush administration, republican senate or congress. Have Obama square off against Karl Rove, then Condi Rice, then General Petreus. Then let Clinton have her own series of debates. See how they would perform against the current powers-that-be, the ones who created the policies (aka mess) we're currently in, and have them argue and debate the merits of how they would do things differently.

I'd like to see how they'd fare in reality, not these silly, vague, talking-points oriented 'debates.'

I think that would be ground breaking, and very illuminating.

Why can't this be the focus for the next few months as we head toward the convention? Seems to me, we'd learn a lot more specifics about each candidate and see how truly tested and prepared they really are.

Posted by: kbourke | March 6, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

malinus:"Two points. First on the NAFTA thing from last week: it turns out that the Canadians are now saying that it was CLINTON's people who called up the Canadians first and told them to take her campaign rhetoric on NAFTA with "a grain of salt." And the Canadians are now on record admitting that (1) they reached out to Obama's guy Goolsby, not vice versa and (2) nothing that Goolsby told the Canadians is inconsistent with Obama's public positions on NAFTA, So WaPo, how about setting the record straight here"

I agree--and wasn't Goolsby just an advicor anyway-not an official spokesperson?

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

More of McCain's ties to Rove and Cheney -- and how McCain has been selectd to 'salvage the legacy' of Bush in Iraq.

'This morning's White House luncheon and Rose Garden endorsement ceremony was a homecoming of a sort for a figure quite familiar to longtime NWN readers. That would be McCain senior advisor Steve Schmidt.

Schmidt ran the Bush/Cheney campaign war room in 2004, then served as counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney. In that capacity, among other things, he liaised with Bush political guru Karl Rove, shepherded the Senate confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito of the US Supreme Court, and went to Baghdad to try to straighten out the US PR operation there.

Then he went to work for McCain. Today Schmidt was back in the White House, with his client and friend McCain, now the only hope to salvage a legacy, albeit an altered one, for the politician who savaged him in the 2000 South Carolina primary. Like the saying goes, the ball keeps on bouncing.'

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/billbradley/

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

mcgrupp said "they were warned of their consequences back in August"

Just for the record--our Republican controlled legislature and Governor moved our primary up.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Chris...Chris....chris...

Trying to find a way to spin the numbers for Clinton = bad 3rd grade math noviceness.

We all know Obama is going to win NC.

I also find it humorous that Obama can win three huge primaries - D.C., Maryland, Virginia - by TWENTY TO THIRTY POINT MARGINS - and when Hillary eeks out a tiny delegate win...she's the nominee!

Hillary and her campaign sucks. She should save me from seven weeks of gross media spin and babbling punditry and drop out now.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 6, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Tax Returns, Tax Returns, Tax Returns
Clinton will be forced to withdraw after they get out.

The Clinton fortune went from $2 million to $35 million in the past two years mostly from $20 million from the Emir of Dubai to the Clinton/Burkle partnership. If the donor list to the Clinton Library also comes out it will show $10 million/year from the Saudi royal family and the $31 million from the Kazah uranium deal. These are the scandals we (but not the MSM) know. There will be many more in the returns.

The US MSM is so pitiful.

Posted by: coumaris | March 6, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Two points. First on the NAFTA thing from last week: it turns out that the Canadians are now saying that it was CLINTON's people who called up the Canadians first and told them to take her campaign rhetoric on NAFTA with "a grain of salt." And the Canadians are now on record admitting that (1) they reached out to Obama's guy Goolsby, not vice versa and (2) nothing that Goolsby told the Canadians is inconsistent with Obama's public positions on NAFTA, So WaPo, how about setting the record straight here?

Point two: If Obama wins the pledged delegate count, which it seems he certainly will, has anyone stopped to consider the blowback that will happen if the overwhelmingly white Superdelegates push Obama (and his 90% support from african americans) aside to make Hillary the nominee? How can that not completely destroy the relationship between african americans and the Democratic party for a long, long time?

Posted by: manlius1 | March 6, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

If Florida and Michigan held new votes--which I don't think they should, they were warned of their consequences back in August--What would be the new delegate total to get the nomination?

Would:
Florida add another 185 (pledged) + 25 (superdelegates) = 210 total delegates?

Michigan add another 128 (pledged) + 29 (superdelegates) = 157 total delegates?

That could raise the total delegates from:
2025 of 4049 to win
to
2209 of 4416 to win?


My point is they can't simply add 313-367 delegates to the total and claim that 50%+1 is still only 2025.

So that would change the mathamatics a bit.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | March 6, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Great point on the FL and MI delegates moving the goal post.

I'm a Floridian, and I wouldn't mind my tax dollars going to a re-do either.

I went to the delegate calc on Slate, and I don't see how even if one candidate wins 100% of all remaining pledged delegates--anyone will even be close to the goal; and sadly won't be that far from each other.

Also--I am an Obama supporter--"We lost" We're not out, but in the view of the people we lost Tuesday, despite the math arguments. However---all this talk about "she won the big states" is inconsequential.

For HRC's supporters to claim that as a strength, they would have to have won by greater margins than they did. In traditionally "non-Democratic" states his margin was much greater than hers in state's where Dems are expected to lead. Granted, his argument is not tried and true either, because there is no guarantee those same states will vote for him over McCain as a whole--but HRC cannot claim some invisible mandate because she barely escaped a tie in large states, that would support either candidate.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

"I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party."

Clinton must win about 60% of the popular vote in the remaining primaries/caucuses to take the delegate lead. That's not going to happen.

She's not going to get Michigan's delegates, since no one else's names were on the ballot, either. If anything, Michigan will get to re-vote, but the cost of the re-doing primaries is going to fall on the state(s). They broke the rules and ignored the DNC -- they pay the price for their arrogance. Clinton tried to cheat the Michigan and Florida situations to her advantage knowingly, and that's all I need to know about her "true" character and intentions.

Clinton's behavior is typical of the petulance we'd expect from a Baby Boomer who doesn't get her way. She thought she was going to win this easily, and since she hasn't, Hillary is now resorting to age-old mudslinging and machinations of political capital.

Rules are rules, Hillary -- follow them or get out of the way and let a new generation of Americans raise the bar of expectations that you, your husband and W lowered so thoroughly in the last 16 years.

Posted by: sxmcpherson | March 6, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

JD asks
"If the Dems follow Harold Meyerson's suggestion (in today's WaPo) and hold another primary in June for Mich and Fla, what message does that send to those states who played by the rules?"

Perhaps some of the Super Tuesday states that didn't get the attention they felt they deserved could also petition the DNC rules committee for a change to the way they determine delegates & hold new events.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Blarg asks
"So where does this "Hillary as fighter" idea come from?"

It comes from her long battle with the Republican Attack Machine, aka the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. It seems a strange argument to make, given that she hasn't exactly won that fight.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Chris quotes Ickes
"We have an obligation as delegates to that convention to make sure we try to figure out who will be the strongest candidate to take on John McCain and the Republican attack machine," Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes said yesterday.

If that is the case, they need to find the candidate who can woo the swing voters away from McCain. If Ickes thinks that candidate is Clinton, he should have his head examined. If the Dem superdelegates could collectively produce two brain cells perhaps they'd figure this out & gently push Clinton aside in favor of the candidate that appeals to the critical middle.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

It is a law of political physics: every bubble shall burst. Corrollary: necesary endurance in politics requires a solid foundation

My observation is that the Obama community is in the first stage of grief: DENIAL

Obama lost. Strong armed race-baiting tactics that worked on John Lewis and that did not work on herioc Stephanie Tubbs Jones lost. The politics of inclusion have become the politics of divisiveness.

Lorne Michaels of SNL won. He held the mirror up to the pundits and they didn't look too good, either to themselves or to the rest of us voters.

America won. Now, we won't be denied a full and complete vetting of our candidates before a final decision is made.

Get over it, the tide has turned and isn't turning back. Failure to adapt leads to extinction. Prepare to greet Madam President.

Posted by: edwardlbartlett | March 6, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Some seem to think that finding a way to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations will make it easier for either candidate to get to the "magic" 2025 delegate count. What they fail to realize is that the magic number itself changes when these delegations are seated. The new magic number will be 2207.5 which is a majority of the qualified delegates. And it still means that with proportional allocation of pledged delegates, it will still be a struggle for Clinton to overcome the lead Obama holds currently.

As a Floridian I'd be more than happy for someone to donate the $16 million it would cost to have a contested primary here. There would be way more than the 1.7 million votes in the January 29th contest. I'd love to get the chance to see and work for my candidate, an opportunity all Floridians were deprived of this year.

Posted by: optimyst | March 6, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

blarg-- I think you make a great point.

For me, I was referring to the image--which despite anything else--is what people will identify.

right or wrong, we cannot discount the perception war.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

The Old Battle Axe is a fighter? Ridiculous! The 1990s were a time when an inchoate Al-Queda could have been stopped. Instead Bill "White Trash" Clinton and his woman, as indicated by events, were afraid or distracting by his sexual addiction to act. The woman has only fought for political office. She was too busy to even scan the NIE on Iraq.
Even if us Democrats must vote for McCain, America must reject this power mad couple.

Posted by: sperrico | March 6, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Here's how HRC can win

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/nav/tap3/

PS If the Dems follow Harold Meyerson's suggestion (in today's WaPo) and hold another primary in June for Mich and Fla, what message does that send to those states who played by the rules? Do rules or consequences for actions even mean anything anymore to the Democratic Party?

Oh well, I guess Fla and Mich had a hard upbringing, it's society's fault, there's a root cause for their actions, lather rinse repeat...

Posted by: JD | March 6, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I suggest all "hopeful" Obama supporters start doing their research, instead of relying on the main stream media and Obama's stump speeches for their talking points. Check out the local Chicago papers archives and research the Rezko scandal. While you are at it, read a litle history on Obama's rise in Chicago politics, and don't leave out his church and pastor, Jeremiah Wright. If you still need more evidence that this is just another "typical politician", google his voting record....present votes, and more disturbing, "wrong button" votes in the Chicago Legislature on key Chicago votes, one of which awarded Tony Rezko upwards of $45 million in gov't funding for his housing projects. (It is my belief that where there is smoke there is fire) Then ask yourself, honestly, why Obama refuses to answer the questions regarding his 17 yr relationship with Rezko, if there is nothing to hide. None of this would seem so distasteful, except that Obama paints himself as above "politics as usual". I, for one, refuse to be scammed. The politics of hope and change? My ***.

Posted by: rosietheriveter4 | March 6, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

After 8 years of Clintons' dishonesty, scandals, and corruption, the nation was distracted. Bill was too busy getting his 3 am phone calls from Monica. Then we got 9/11.

Posted by: vflex | March 6, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

When Hillary's campaign says that she's a "fighter", what does that mean? Who does she fight against? How does she fight? It seems like all the fighting is conducted through words. (Someone criticizes her, and she responds with a speech denouncing them.) But Hillary's campaign keeps saying that words aren't as important as actions. So her fights can't just be conducted through worthless words; they must be conducted with actions.

But what are the actions? Hillary doesn't fight to change the country, at least not successfully. Look at her attempt to reform health care in the 90s; maybe she fought for it, but she lost that fight. She doesn't fight to pass major legislation, as peterbpc's 8:46 post showed. I can't think of any incidences of her fighting against the White House, fighting against the appointment of an unacceptable nominee, etc. So where does this "Hillary as fighter" idea come from? Does it have any basis in reality, or was it just made up as the umpteenth empty buzzword by her campaign?

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

After sufferring a crushing and humiliating defeat, especially after you consider that he outspent clinton two to one, Obama says no big deal. There is either something wrong with his head or the whole system is crazy. If you had winner take all like they will have in November, with all the mega states that clinton won with their huge delegates, Clinton would have had this over long ago.

Posted by: tahirn | March 6, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Hillary won every big state primary including Michigan and Florida. All of Obamas whiniing wont change that fact.


I wonder if the news media and the big wigs are going to continue to shove Obama down our throats.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 6, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I also want to point out that when Lincoln was elected (probably our BEST President) he had only served one term in the HOUSE (2 years) and LOST a Senatorial campaign; and he led us through the biggest red phone moment our country has ever seen (The Civil War).

Also--Has anyone else heard the story that Lincoln was going to ask his former opponent Douglas to be his running mate in '04, but Douglas died before he could be named?

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan should be redone.

I am an Obama supporter, but I think it is the right thing to do.

Also, again as an Obama supporter, I despise the pandering to fear and petty ignorance--BUT I do like the concept of Hillary as a fighter.

It is very motivating and endearing, and does more to blunt the Obama message than anything else.

Don't get ugly, just be a fighter--and she might wrap this up.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I have to partially agree with Mr. Chapman (pach12) in that a call on the red phone at 3 AM (wait, is this the Bat Phone?), would not likely be an international catastrophe. More likely to be Bill calling from Hooters wanting to sleep over at a friends house. I can see lots of mischief from that mistaken ad in the days ahead. Bottom line, given a split screen with the phone ringing, do you want an irate Hillary or a calm McCain to answer?
The so-called juggernaut of Hillary from the Tuesday primary is laughable; she gained about 15 net delegates, leaving Obama still with a lead of around 85 delegates. All things remaining the same, she would run out of time before she ever catches Obama-- he has nearly 80% of what he needs to her 2/3. She is very beneficent offering to put him on the ticket if she is nominated.
The real strategy is the almost certainty of Clinton strong-arm tactics to threaten any delegate who abandons her (sinking) ship with repercussions, to repatriate the Florida and Michigan delegates, (as long as they vote for her), and to use whatever dirt she has on others to steal the nomination from Obama. She and Bill are old pros at dirty tricks; the Republicans can't hold a candle to the Clinton negative machinery, especially when married up with fawning press, and she is not afraid to throw Obama under the bus to get ahead. That's what passes for strong character?

Posted by: steve_anderson | March 6, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

When an election attacks its own political process because of the popularity of its candidates, voters must know there is a dilemma, not of their making, but of the system itself that has the potential to destroy the process.

Hillary-Obama campaign seems form-fitted to that problem in the eyes of many, and one that threatens destruction of the party if not blatant backlash that could dismiss both candidates as unworthy of becoming President.

Neither should have to adopt the other as VP to solve the problem since it would constrain the Presidency as an office to impose a ball and chain, Siamese twin effect that is certainly not in the best interests of either candidate.

For Obama, it would unfairly carry him into the oval office on the chariot of the Clinton charisma and popularity.

For Clinton, it would unfairly use the Clinton charisma to impose on the voters a partnership more beneficial to the Clintons and the Democratic Party than the public.

Disguised as a benefit rather than a detriment is a deception that voters should not allow, tolerating the Democratic Party's right to bully voters into accepting a marginal theocracy built upon personalities or a gender-race construct that they should not have to face together since the two are so distinct separately, and already perhap unfairly used by the party to solicit votes and create broad turn-outs.

If that is all the Democratic Party has going for it, it is already in trouble philosophically as a leadership model.

Posted by: pbr1 | March 6, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Gross the Boston Red Sox.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 6, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

• Admitted to the Illinois Bar
• Elected to the Illinois State Legislature
• Re-elected to the Illinois House of Representatives
• Spoke out against the War which was going on
• Defeated in this attempt early to run for Congress
• Elected to the United States Congress
• Gained national fame because of his powerful speech

Barack Obama - No It was Abraham Lincoln -no experience, but he did answer the Red Phone! Obama 08!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: buddy6076262 | March 6, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

When an election attacks its own political process because of the popularity of its candidates, voters must know there is a dilemma, not of their making, but of the system itself that has the potential to destroy the process.

Hillary-Obama campaign seems form-fitted to that problem in the eyes of many, and one that threatens destruction of the party if not blatant backlash that could dismiss both candidates as unworthy of becoming President.

Neither should have to adopt the other as VP to solve the problem since it would constrain the Presidency as an office to impose a ball and chain, Siamese twin effect that is certainly not in the best interests of either candidate.

For Obama, it would unfairly carry him into the oval office on the chariot of the Clinton charisma and popularity.

For Clinton, it would unfairly use the Clinton charisma to impose on the voters a partnership more beneficial to the Clintons and the Democratic Party than the public.

Disguised as a benefit rather than a detriment is a deception that voters should not allow, tolerating the Democratic Party's right to bully voters into accepting a marginal theocracy built upon personalities or a gender-race construct that they should not have to face together since the two are so distinct separately, and already used by the party to solicit votes.

Posted by: pbr1 | March 6, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's new campaign slogan is "I will destroy this house, to save it". The strategy to win the nomination will ensure defeat. pitting working class whites and latinos against african americans and affluent whites in the primaries is playing with political dynamite that could blow the democrats chances of winning in november.

example 1- if hillary secures the nomination due to the super deleagtes breaking her way and then picks evan bayh as her vp and mccain counters by picking condoleeza or collin powell then ohio, pa, mo, and mi would be in the republican column, because if %20 of the african american vote switched from the last election it would be curtains for the democrats in those states.

example 2- barack wins the nomination and picks jim webb as his vp. john mccain would only have to campaign in pa, mi, and oh because the white working class voters of those states don't relate obama's message of hope and togetherness, but opt for the mccain plain speak then it is curtains for the democrats.

example 3- Hillary tones down the retoric and wins a decision against barack but doesn't take him apart in the process and picks barack as her vp, bill richardson as her sec. of state, and john edwars as her sec of labor and announce this prior to the convention. the democrats would be united and ready for mccain, but what the heck do i know.

you then have pacified

Posted by: ross94 | March 6, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Blueprint, red phone... sounds like a good plan for hatching another republican flavored democrat. Monkey see, candidates do. On top of that we have Hillary's insinuations about people that have a dream. Not surprising at all, after she lost her dreams following the scandals and lies of her husband. The fish starts to stink from the head. Look at the current state of the nation. It doesn't need more hardened politicians and liars, nor trigger happy faces looking for more guns. We hope Obama has a better plan, continues to dream and talk more folks off other candidates' drum wagons. We all need to have a dream. And for those who think Obama is a dreamer, here is a very short list of past "dreamers" who were "not ready": Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Boston Red Sox.

Posted by: paperless | March 6, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

INTERNAL MEMO (HRC)

We have learned that "The Democratic Party leaders can help engineer a Clinton coups d'état."

Please cost this out and see where the funds will come from. Then fund it.

Posted by: gary4books | March 6, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary is playing a very dangerous game if she is going to push National Security experience to "win" the nomination. Assuming that the fight for the nomination goes all the way to the convention she will have been pushing National Security for quite a few months--an issue she wants to bury in the General. McCain will destroy her on National Security. If we really believe the way for Clinton to win the nomination is through an issue she cannot win in the General; it seems a flawed strategy.

On the experience claim, another issue McCain will attack her on, I am still not sure how she is any more experienced than Obama. She claims that being in the White House gave her experience....A personal analogy may work best:
My wife and I went to the same University at the same time but had two different majors. That doesn't mean when we graduated the university awarded us with two degrees. It also doesn't mean I have enough experience to do my wife's job and vice versa. I believe the attacks in the General election will be too much for her to handle; she thinks she is vetted, I think the GOP is ready for a field day.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 6, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Compare the Legislative Records of Clinton and Obama:


Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and/or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate.
Obama or Clinton.
> >

Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.
> >

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
> >
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress
www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
> >
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
> >
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
> >
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
> >
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
> >
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
> >
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
> >
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
> >
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
> >
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
> >
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
> >
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
> >
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolut ion
Commemorative Program.
> >
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
> >
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express
condolences on her death.
> >
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest Systemin Puerto Rico as
protected in the wilderness preservation system.
> >

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
> >
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
> >
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
> >
233 regarding healthcare reform,
> >
125 on poverty and public assistance,
> >
112 crime fighting bills,
> >
97 economic bills,
> >
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
> >
21 ethics reform bills,
> >
15 gun control,
> >
6 veterans affairs and many others.
> >
> >
> >
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
> >
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
> >
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
> >
> > He's not just a talker.
> >
> > He's a doer.

Posted by: peterbpc | March 6, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

This is what will Hillary say when she answers the phone at 3 AM, "what do the polls say, have we got a focus group? Look this is my political career on the line here. I'm not going to make a decision until I know which way the wind is blowing." She simply does not have the vision to lead.

The fact of the matter is Hillary's experience as first lady of Arkansas and the US is no more qualifing experience than that of Laura Bushs'. Sen. Obama will begin to attack her on her purported strength of exeperience by calling into question just what that experience amounts to...

Posted by: sapphiretini | March 6, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

We as the Americans have been very stupid people in the last 2 elections. We as a people voted for George Bush, the feel good guy over Al Gore the brilliant one....and then as if we are really very slow people we did it again and voted for Bush over Kerry (not saying Kerry compares to AL Gore but he was certainly a better choice than Bush). And here we go again...if we as a people are still stupid then we will nominate Obama and he will lose by at least 20% to McCain OR we can all smarten up and vote Hillary who will beat McCain by at least 11% and take back the White House. As a woman over 50 I would vote for Hillary in a minute but if my choice is Obama vs McCain then McCain gets my vote too. Obama may have brought many new black and young inexperienced voters to the polls but even if they all showed up Nov. 2008.....McCain still wins over Obama. If the blacks get mad and vote McCain then they defeat themselves because McCains's help will be to have plenty of openings on the front lines of Iraq and Iran and who knows where else. Women under 40 should all know that if McCain is elected the abortion rights will end as he continues to replace out going supreme court justices with anti-abortion judges. As I say, I'm over 50 and war drafting and abortion rights no longer effect me personally but they do affect all of the voters under 32. SMARTEN UP VOTE HILLARY!!!

Posted by: jadamsdie | March 6, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary is a fighter,"

Better to fight here than in Iraq.

(Now, where did I hear that?)

Posted by: gary4books | March 6, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

How were voters able to assess the "toughness" of Abraham Lincoln before he was elected President and called on to guide this country through the American Civil War? Based on his record and experience, the voters could only guess how he would perform. Its character and judgement that count and Obama has shown good judgement in having not voted to support the war in Iraq. You need look no further for evidence that he can handle the 3 a.m. phone call.

Posted by: kenjones | March 6, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

Dear Madam, and Sir,

A Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama ticket is what we want. And that is what we need to take back the Whitehouse. We want a smart, tough, idealistic, seasoned veteran of many battles fighting for the American people (Hillary Clinton). With a young, passionate, smart, open-minded, hard-working idealist fighting for the American people (Barrack Obama). The DREAM TEAM!

You are both fabulous candidates. And we, the American people are very fortunate to have each of you. Taking back the Whitehouse is critical for the American people, and the world at this time. And I think the American people have been saying loudly, and clearly that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket is the best way to do this.

I think the American people have made it very clear that they feel Hillary Clinton is the one best able to lead the ticket against John McCain at this critical, and desperate time in America, and around the world. These dramatic comebacks are testament to Hillary Clinton's skill, and experience as a fighter for the American people. They are also a testament to the strong desire of the American people to have both of you fighting for the American people at this time of midnight in America.

Typical of the Clinton's is an uncanny ability to see and understand what the American people want. And then to try and get it for them. Even if they have to go through three political near death experiences to try and get it for the American people. This is classic Clinton's. They are the best I have ever seen.

We are desperate out here. Millions of us are suffering greatly. And tens of thousands of us are dying needlessly every year. Men, women, children, and babies. We need help! As Hillary Clinton said "It's not a game". We need the two of you together on our side fighting for us, and for the American dream for all. Not fighting against each other anymore.

It's time for you Senator Obama to join forces with Hillary Clinton as her running mate so that we can all focus our energies, and resources on taking back America for the American people.

Don't make me hurt you. :-)

Sincerely

Jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 6, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

despite the media's best efforts to derail them, both dem candidate lead John McCain:

'Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kicks off his general-election campaign trailing both potential Democratic nominees in hypothetical matchups, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) holds a six-point lead over the GOP nominee. Both Democrats are buoyed by moderates and independents when going head to head with McCain and benefit from sustained negative public assessments of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

CC-- you, and the rest of the connected at the brain DC pundit pack -- funny how you all come to the same conclusions bases on so little evidence. The 3 AM call ad was a very small buy and ran only a short time. How can you prounounce it so relevant?

And can we stop with the trumped-up lies about Canada and Nafta?

The Canadian embassy issues a new statement that tries to clear up the latest Goolsbee mess.

As you know, the latest round started when the Associated Press got hold of a memo written by a Canadian official saying that Goolsbee had in fact suggested that Obama's NAFTA talk was more about politics than policy. Here's the Canadian Embassy's statement on the whole affair:

The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama failed to win the popular vote in every primary state.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 6, 2008 07:53 AM

That is simply not true and if you total the primary states he leads Clinton in popular vote. Here is a good summary of the primaries to date:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Posted by: jimd52 | March 6, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

we cant predict why people behaves like this way or that....the fact is there is no difference between democrats or republicans...all of them want to make few billions by hook or crook...they dont care of about any people at all...just check any politicians present assets ....you will find big surprises...i feel bush ,clinton are the top rich...so give a chance to obama or mccain to make few billions for their future or for their family at our cost...that is democracy...avoid the same family in the whitehouse at any cost...show our power to these kings and queens....dont expect any good things from any of our politicians...ok

Posted by: josephtpaul03 | March 6, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Why is everyone buying into the idea that Hillary has so much experience? Maybe I'm just uninformed but I can't see that her experience goes beyond being Bill's wife. Great, so she was the wife of the president, but what does that mean? As Bill's wife she has spent a lot of time in politics but the job of a presidential spouse is substantially different than that of the president. Does Bill Gates wife have the experience to run Microsoft? Is Lance Armstrong's wife qualified to race bicycles? Is your own spouse qualified to do your job? The answer is almost certainly no. Why then is everyone buying into the idea of Hillary's vast experience?

But then let's assume she actually does have more experience than Obama. How important is this experience? If experience in Washington is the requisite then Bush Jr is much more qualified than Hillary. When Bush Jr arrived at the office he had some of the most experienced people in Washington with him in Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. THAT certainly worked out well!

Posted by: jcbateman | March 6, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

There is nothing to compare with the rot we have had for the past 7 years. Our money, dignity as a people of a great nation has been almost completely destroyed.

A few of the most telling stupid remarks from GWB: If you are not an Evangilist, G*d will not open the Pearly Gates to you! WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE POPE WHEN HE DIED? His second remark: If I were a DICTATOR my job would be easier. Another smartass remark: "I NEVER MAKE A MISTAKE".

bush raped the country with the help of some really down and dirty assists, and even MA MA Bush admitted, George is not Smart, He is Crafty. Good Luck McCain, whoever and whatever you are.

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | March 6, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

To hhkeller re: Obama losing every primary voting state...
He has won 14 primary states......factcheck before you post, please!

Posted by: hebasylum | March 6, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that before March 4th there was consensus among media pundits that Hillary needed to win BIG and score KNOCKOUT victories in both OH and TX to remain viable, and on March 5th a razor thin victory in TX and a near tie in delegates amounts to victory? I think it's because they want this story to continue. Or they're brain dead. That would include Mr. Cillizza and every other one of the historical revisionists who can't remember what they said 7 days ago.

Posted by: djhnd | March 6, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

The red-phone commercial may have worked in the short term, but it's Karl Rovish and may backfire in the long run. What Clinton and Obama should be debating is how to fix the dysfunctional Homeland Security apparatus to help avoid those 3 AM calls:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/03/wakeup-call-on-red-phone-ads.html

Posted by: connectdots | March 6, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

In a nutshell, the Clinton strategy is "Fear and Smear," while Hillary herself portrays herself as victim fighting for all underdogs. It is a strategy uniquely suited to uneducated white female senior citizens -- and I'm all but ignorant, which is why it is not going to work with me. Still, how Hillary has run her campaign -- spending money she gets from lobbyistslike water, arrogantly assuming she would be annointed after New Hampshire, infighting -- tells a lot about what kind of soap opera presidency she would offer.

We don't have to worry much about how the nation survives another Clinton administration. Independents and Republicans and disenchanted Democrats will stay home or vote for McCain.

I doubt that the Obama strategy will be to try to match it. He is the more ELECTABLE.

But the truth itself can go far, particularly if Obama uses surrogates. Think of all the qualities of the Bush administration voters have already rejected -- a vice-president who is a law onto himself (hey, Bill, are you listening? You can have a 3rd term after all), selling the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder (hey, Hillary, will those tax returns also include listing all the donors to the Clinton library?), demonizing all but Clintonites (it's called triangulation, stupid, and it was used against the left and the right), "fighting for the people" turning into temper tantrums. And how, by the way, could Clintons who were "penniless" when they paid legal bills after 2000 become multi-millionaires who could throw $5 million into Hillary's campaign. Character and politics as usual that is what Hillary runs on is what Obama should be attacking. He can do so by simply purchasing whatever TV time it takes to list every lobbyist contributing the the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: ajclayton | March 6, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

CC,

I would move #4 Florida and Michigan Must Count up to #3 at least. If both states are allowed to vote again, or their delegates are seated from the earlier election, Senator Clinton will push the idea that she fought for the voters to be heard. This will play into her 'fighter' image and allow her to present a mostly positive image of herself. Further, as the Obama campaign has been silent on the issue she'll be able to paint him as weak. While both states possess significant African-American populations the general demographics play to Clinton's strengths. Strong wins in both states would help her delegate counts and play to her 'I win big states'/electability storyline.

Posted by: seannewengland | March 6, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

For all you Obamanistas: Just because you can speak well and lead a rock concert does not enable you to be President. Obama has "ZERO" accomplishments in his legislative career (as short as it is). No Obama supporter that has been interviewed can name ONE accomplishment of Senator Obama. On the contrary, they cite the fact he has headed the sub-committee on Afghanistan, where he has not called one meeting, as an example of his raw ambition and inability to really work across the aisle. I am a college educated person and I resent the fact that the media punidts say people with less education are supporting Hillary Clinton. What BS! This is all media driven as far as I am concerned. Obama lost Ohio (my home state) because people started to look at him, what he said and talked about and what his actions really were. The NAFTA-gate incident was just one example where he is a total phony. Hillary Clinton has worked hard on the Armed Services Committee and across the aisle. She is VERY RESPECTED by all her fellow Senators. The left wing has always hated the Clintons and their support for Obama proves it. The Left Wing of the Democratic Party hates the Clintons because Bill Clinton won two elections without them and there is no debt to them for winnning those elections and the Left Wing hates that fact and have never gotten over it. Senator Clinton is much more ready to take over. Let's see after Obama is more fully vetted (Rezko Trial) what his portfolio really shows. So far he has zero accomplishments as a State Senator (other than to take money from a nuclear agency after agreeing to water down legislation for them) and zero accomplishments as a US Senator. Do you really want this man to pick up the phone at 3:00 a.m. I don't.

Posted by: xplanes | March 6, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

I have HOPE.
I hope Obama works at least one term in the Senate befor his EGO takes over again.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 6, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

A Ms. Fear v. Mr. Fear contest between Clinton and McCain won't leave anything for the rest of us to vote for either way.

Posted by: upsondowns | March 6, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Chris states in his commentary:

"Never underestimate the power of fear as a motivating factor in every level of politics -- including the battle for superdelegates."

. . . This is what Hillary is really all about doing now.

If you listen to Obamas after-tuesday speech and compare it with Hillary's (including her supporters cheerful reactions) you can see how she brings her opponent down with her twisting around of his words, creating the must needed illusion of fear she needs to win.

It seems her ever-changing message has now completely been lost and replaced with a formulated psychological attack on her opponent. And unfortunately, some voters are eating it up, as usual.

If you listen to Barack Obama's after-tuesday speech you continue to hear a focused philosophical promise for change. Even now, he has not resorted to making this a negative banter contest.

Obama believes in America. And, he is sticking to his blueprint. Hillary's blueprint has been and will be simply about getting the white house back. And she will change her blueprint on matter what it takes to win...that just plain disappointing for her supporters real hopes.

She's a fake. Don't be fooled! Compare their speeches and how they communicate in general...it's all right there in front of us.

Posted by: ray | March 6, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Hillary can and will use all the strategies at her disposal to get the nomination, and nothing can compare with the underhanded, Murders, Corrupt, lieing Cheating, no good, Greedy administration we have been subjected to these past 7 years.
Beginning with the Nazi Bush Clan with GB as the No. one criminal, Cheney, and Karl Rove, who is the demented brain of our idiot President. McCain, I feel sorry for you. You may have one the the best of the Circus, but when these thugs are finished with you, the garbage heap will be where you will go.Obama is just a little S**T, and when he is wrung out, Oprah can CRY IN HER MONEY SHE HAS INVESTED IN YOU. AS FAR AS HUSSEIN'S WIFE IS CONCERNED, SORRY GIRL. AS THE OLD NEGRO SAYING GOES': THE HIGHER THE MONKEY CLIMBS, THE MORE HIS BACKSIDE SHOWS'.

The campaign is now first going to get HOT, and to watch HILLARY beat down all the Rep. Clowns and Hussein will be a delight.

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | March 6, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

The entitlement pathology of Senator Clinton plays here and I note with interest that President Clinton himself did not allow Mrs. (first lady) Clinton to have a security clearance. This is remarkable because he felt she needed to be kept away from insider processes mostly because of her tendency to overreact and see boogie men under the bed. She is personality wise poorly prepared to answer the phone except to inquire: "do you know where my husband is?"

Why was she kept away (from security matters) while in the White House is the media question. As such, during most of here first lady experience was one of being blocked and ignored and given meaningless assignments in an extraordinary effort to be kept at bay by staff insiders. The detail and history here is rife with examples and occurrences. The media is mostly afraid of Mrs. Clinton even though she is a blustery personality type that must ultimately rationalize her behavior as one of "I know best."

If President Clinton thought for a moment she would be helpful she would have been vetted and granted a security clearance. More so and importantly, she likely did not want a security clearance because of her known tendencies toward "initial" over reaction. She has no experience here with global crisis, nor wise judgment due to her inflammatory personality.

Posted by: terrybrady | March 6, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

FYI Obama does not have the experience.

When my daughter is asieep at night I will feel safe knowing that there is a strong leader in the White House to take the call, rather than an inexperienced President who has little to no International Relations or Military experience.

If Obama plans to lean on his experienced advisors, as it will have to be because he has no experience, then why on Earth would I vote for him? That already says enough.

I want someone with EXPERIENCE. I want someone with GUTS. Someone who understands Washington and who can work with it to change it. I don't want a complete uphill battle that produces no results made by a freshman senator.

What is so deceptive about Hillary? Why is the media forever throwing stones? Why do you all paint her as a snake in the garden? I think it is sad. Spirit of competition? Obama doesn't need to throw stones because he has the media do it for him...so he looks nice and clean. The revolution of change will not come from Barack Obama...it has to come within ourselves first. And voting for an inexperienced freshman senator is not going to change the monster that our media-saturated society has become.

Posted by: ashim32 | March 6, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

I am honestly a little confused as to how Hillary has an edge on National Security over Obama? Up until recently her experience was as First Lady. She hasn't been a Senator for much longer than Obama and she did vote to embroil us in a war that most feel was a mistake. She hasn't negotiated with foreign countries or worked on treaties.

Do we think our foreign policy is working well under the old methods?

Posted by: Juked | March 6, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama failed to win the popular vote in every primary state.

Caucus states with low turnout do not indicate popularity since less than 3% of voters participate.Obama cant lead without a popular mandate and he knows it. He would just be another Bush bully if he forced himself on the electorate. With every big state having already voted he should read the tea leaves.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 6, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Clinton does well with Democrats - especially uneducated ones, but there are people voting Democratic this year solely because of Obama. If the Democratic party wants to win, it will remember this. I, like every Independent voter I know, will NEVER vote for HRC. If the Democratic party wants to win, it should not disregard the strength of the movement Obama has generated. It is not necessarily loyal to the Democratic party.

Posted by: literate1 | March 6, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Was it not the Clinton administration that dropped the ball on snuffing out Al-Qaeda earlier on? The missed several opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin-laden because they thought it would offend our allies? Was that not the biggest national security blunder of our time? Hillary is claiming national security experience because she said she was a part of the Clinton administration. Well that administration has a dismal national security record.

On Clinton as a fighter: Well this contest has always been two (Bill and Hillary) again one. They are well known all over the country and have the insider track in the party. Obama have had to fight for each vote one voter at a time. Seems he is the fighter here.

Posted by: cadimora | March 6, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

I am an Obama fan (Hell, I stood in line for THREE HOURS to vote in the caucus for him, what a nightmare of incompetence that was here in Texas).

I think the 3AM may have been effective, because I think Obama's camp response was wonderfully clever, and just too clever for their own good. Opening with exactly the same footage was smart. But when you do that, after the first four seconds people tune out or jump to the next commercial, thinking it is just "that Hillary commercial", and therefore never hearing the other side of it. So their ad, in people's minds, counts as her ad, and he gets no credit for responding.

I have had some success in corporate advertising, at least, and I think I know something about it. Obama has an excellent asset against Hillary; his face and body. He looks young, fit, earnest, wise and experienced. Hillary (and McCain) both look fat, old and worn out, and this visual contrast perfectly matches his message of bringing a new generation to power to fix a broken government.

The correct response to the 3AM ad was the exact opposite. Obama, on a bright and sunny day symbolizing hope, talking about the politics of fear and the wisdom of judgment, and then specifically a few failures of Hillary's judgement. Not just on the war in Iraq; but on other bills in the Senate where she failed to accomplish anything. And as Obama has already pointed out, what crisis has she ever responded to as a politician? Here is why the phone rings six times in her commercial: She has to go get Bill, tell him to put his pants on and send the intern home, because something is happening in the world.

Posted by: tonycastaldo | March 6, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Let's all just keep the results of the March 4th primaries in perspective, folks:

The Hillary Clinton campaign gained 187 delegates, while the Obama campaign gained 183. That's a difference of 4 delegates.

So let's all just chill out with the rhetoric and the sensationalizing.

Posted by: poortrekker | March 6, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

"See, America?", says Clinton, "Negative campaigns DO work! Yay!!"

Yeah, it's an election miracle.

"Screw the party, I'm in this to WIN!"

Consider, for a moment, how much easier the decision would have been made for us had Ms Clinton not been running a campaign against a young, charismatic candidate. Instead, she might just have been pitted against another, predictable election year stuffed shirt, and all of this would probably be academic.

But the race has been far more contentious than anyone expected, and she and her campaign have acted out under the pressure, becoming petty and disputatious, and using fear--predictably--as an eleventh-hour stop-gap measure.

These negative attacks ads are nothing, you see, that one might not have expected from the usual election-year stuffed shirt. Same old same old.

Perhaps it's time for him to take the gloves off and play their game? There's more than enough material; I suggest we start with the Whitewater scandal, and proceed forward.

Posted by: poortrekker | March 6, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

I'm sick of the Bush's and the Clintons' attempts to frighten us into voting for them.

Barack Obama is an intelligent man who, if elected, will know more about our national security situation than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain - because he will be the one who gets the briefings.

I find the Clintons' assertion that the President decides, virtually without consultation, what to do in an emergency as insulting to our intelligence as it is misleading about the way the Clintons cooperate as a couple. And if Senator Clinton is as well-informed as she says she is, then forget national security - we haven't got any.

If we won't listen to Obama, we should borrow the late Winston Churchill - who appealed to his country's courage, not its fears.

Posted by: sheilabarrett39 | March 6, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

HRC will lose. Why ?
Because if she is the democratic nominee, many voters , independants, democrats as myself or moderate republicans will be voting McCain. Why ?
Given the choice between the dishonourable Clintons- who is stupid or suicidal enough to run for Veep with that man running loose in the WH- and an honourable former POW like McCain, who do you think will be elected.
Say what you want-- Barack may be young, but he does not pretend as Bill who did not "inhale", who never had dealings with Lewinski- Hillary has humiliated many women and we do not forget the Clintons "FUNNY" chinese gate whitewater gate etc.
Barack may not be fully vetted, that is true , but he does not have all the real and undeniable suite of dodgydeals the Clintons have. I live in a republic , not nepotism. I vote for whoever deserves to be elected because of her qualities and sorry, aside being Bill`s wife, her records are at best flipflopping or closing her eyes to her husband mistresses.
Call that experience, I know that given a choice between her and a war hero who was smeared by Bush in 2000, who was a lonely voice against Bush Admin. about Iraq, I vote for the Arizonian...and I am not going to be alone in that choice. After all, it may well be that a man who paid deraly for the price of war can broker peace for Iraq.

Posted by: THERESEPRIEUR04 | March 6, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

response to: (nm2pluto | March 6, 2008 07:21 AM)

Some people have spoken, but the primaries aren't over yet. Also, the people in Florida/Michigan have spoken, but they weren't officially heard. But remember that Clinton's campaign has been arguing for quite some time that Florida/Michigan be counted. It sounds somewhat like sour grapes now, but it's a legitimate issue.

About the superdelegates - it's too much like England's house of lords. If the people have spoken, let them speak. The problem isn't whether or not the superdelegates vote the will of the people. The problem is that there are superdelegates to begin wtih. There's gotta be a more democratic way to handle virtual ties.

There's no coup d'état or conspiracy taking place. If Democrats want to be truly democratic, they should have another election in Florida/Michigan, and proceed until someone gets enough delegates. A longer primary season is good for the Democratic party--the party of ideas and thinkers. It gives them a chance to talk more about the issues.

Posted by: con_crusher | March 6, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Well if she happens to land a miracle and wins the Nom and the general ( which would be a miracle ) - I can not wait to see the buyers remorse from the Dems.
The congress wont work with her
Bill will be running around the White House doing God knows what.
There will be scandal regarding the tax returns ,libraries and his foundation .

Hey, Good Times Ahead !

Posted by: soflindie | March 6, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Any blueprint for victory should also include the chances of both candidates to win in the general election against McCain.
My colleague David Epstein has crushed the numbers and concluded that Senator Clinton has a better chance.
For more on this, see:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/battleground-st.html
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/were-going-to-t.html

Posted by: bn1123 | March 6, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

I've been thinking about the news coverage on Senator Obama starting to go negative after Tuesday, and there are three important reasons for him going negative that I haven't seen addressed. The first is what I like to call the, "Angry Black Man" stigma. Right or wrong, all of us have a slight prejudice when we see a black man being too aggressive. I believe this is why Senator Obama has remained fairly restrained up to this point in the campaign. He was well aware that if he was too aggressive with his early attacks towards Senator Clinton he would have been labelled as an, "Angry Black Man" and his campaign probably would have suffered the same fate as Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign.

However after Tuesday, everyone is saying that he should fight fire with fire, and that he has to show how tough he is. Now Senator Obama can be as aggressive and negative as he wants to be and simply dismiss his actions by saying, "Well this is what everyone is asking of me, right?" My main point here is that I believe Senator Obama is a creature of Chicago politics and has been dying to go negative the entire campaign, but he had to be patient and restrain himself for fear of being stigmatized.

The second reason I believe Senator Obama is going negative are the superdelegates. Most of the uncommitted superdelegates seem perfectly content to sit on the sidelines until June 7th. This was supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said that the superdelegates should wait until the entire electorate has voted. Senator Obama is well aware it is to his advantage to have superdelegates make their endorsements sooner rather than later. The most effective way for him to do this is to go very negative. Senator Obama is betting that the spectre of seeing an ugly, mudslinging democratic primary is more than the superdelegates can stomach. This may be a smart bet considering that superdelegates like Bill Richardson and Donna Brazile both voiced their concerns that a negative primary campaign would hurt the Democratic Party in November.

The final reason I feel that Senator Obama is going negative is the talk of an Obama/Clinton dream ticket. There is some speculation that Senator Clinton is not only trying to win the Democratic nomination but is also angling her way on to a ticket with Senator Obama should she happen to lose. Senator Clinton is a talented and ambitious politician so I have no doubt that this is precisely what she's trying to do. Again, the best way to remedy this situation is for Senator Obama to go very negative. It will be much easier for him to reject a joint ticket in June or at the convention if it is plainly obvious to everyone that they truly despise one another.

Posted by: desmondwebster | March 6, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

The difficulty I see with Clinton's 3 am commercial is the assumption that such a call will inevitably be news of a military disaster.

Seven years of Bush driven fuel this.

Yet, the President could face many grave threats at 3 am a few examples

a meltdown of the Asian stockmarkets.

the outbreak on an epidemic

a natural catastrophe imminently threatening a broad band of America

a major domestic riot or crime spree

a massive transportation disaster

Fill in your own emergency the possibilities are endless and it is surprising that the President is ever asleep as three am.

The military crisis is way too hyped- wise diplomacy, sufficient force readiness and good relations with key allies kept us from destroying the planet throughout the Cold War.

The Cowboy Foreign Policy emanating from the Bush Administration is what has made the current situation so dangerous.

Expanding the threat of foreign military attack is an unscrupulous and utterly dishonorable way to whip up electoral support.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: pach12 | March 6, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

LET ME JUMP THE GUN on the Obama strategy to fight this one. Obama has to go negative without appearing to go negative. Here is how to do that:

Compose a 30 second commercial of just Hillary, in Hillary's greatest hits: A health care disaster in 1993, she couldn't get it passed with a Democratic Senate, Congress, and husband for President. Travelgate. Whitewater. A 10,000% profit on her one and only venture into commodities, still unexplained. Missing records, found years later in the white house. A vote on Iraq. Bill on TV saying "I did not have sex with that woman". Bill talking about what the definition of "is" is. Hillary talking to Russert about a vast right wing conspiracy.

Close with Barack Obama, saying "I am Barack Obama, and I approve this message because it is time for a Change in Washington."

If she argues this is negative, he can counter that it is just the facts, Ma'am. If they can find her saying them. Her experience in politics is my experience of her, and it is not good. I am no researcher, but it shouldn't be hard to put together 30 or 60 seconds of Hillary press conferences over her 8 years as First Lady.

Posted by: tonycastaldo | March 6, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Interesting comments regarding the "red phone" ads as negative. I guess only a liberal would consider a legitimate national security issue a negative ad, but liberals do not care about the survival of the country anyway. Golly gee, all we need to do is sing kumbaya and hide under the bed and all the big bad boogey men will leave us alone, right? No need to worry, however, because the libs are going to throw open the borders and make the once-free USA into the world's biggest welfare refugee camp. After all, we can afford it, right?

Posted by: MARKM2 | March 6, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

When this primary battle is settled, the Democratic Party needs to be totally reformed from top to bottom. It seems like there are unlimited ways for Democrats to spill each other's blood. From the outside looking in it is incomprehensible how and why this Byzantine mess of a selection process was created.

The Texas two-step should remain on the dance floor. It looks like the caucuses were created by Machiavelli himself.

Florida - Michigan - Super Delegates - Fratricide - DNC. This S and M mess has got to stop. How can you call yourself a democratic party?

Posted by: alance | March 6, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

I'll agree with you that Hillary is a fighter (What was the headline, "She threw the kitchen sink too?"). Yet, in Texas, she did not win by as much as she should of and lost effectively ground there. It was a good day for Clinton, but there is work to be done for PA;

Keystone is key- Barack vs Hillary Analysis:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

Posted by: davidmwe | March 6, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Outstanding info and analysis. Why not have one primary-day, like election day? That's really the only way to ensure that each state's votes count equally. It would make sense, instead of having each state scramble to be first.

Obama might have the majority of voters for "change," but that wouldn't necessarily translate into a general election victory. The media and voters are taking a second look at Obama, as they should. Yeah, there's the rightwing-extremist reactionary hogwash from Repubs (see incidents involving WKKK in Cincinatti, "Osama-Obama" from FOX News, and "Curious George" incident from Rush Limbald's show) but remember that McCain's trump cards are: 1) experience, 2) national security. In particular, unlike the vast majority of Republican leadership, he actually served in the military. Obama is a better orator than Hillary, McCane, and "uhhhhhhh" Bush Jr. combined. But that's probably more valuable in the Dem. primaries than a general election. Hillary better neutralizes McCain's fortes of experience and national security. Obama indeed represents "change," but it might be too much of a change. As I suspected, rightwing-extremist Republican politicians, pundits, and preachers have already started their nefarious swift-boating of Obama, starting with his name. Everyone in America, including Native Americans, was an immigrant at one point. But when all three of your names sound "foreign," and subsequently "non-Christian" (even though he's clearly not Muslim) it's hard as nails to go into certain areas and convince "Bubba" to vote for you. Yeah, there are Republican bigots who wouldn't vote for a woman. But I'm still 100% certain that a woman will be elected U.S. president before someone from an underrepresented ethnicity is. The very fact that Obama's name and religion would even be liabilities in America, reveals the center-right leaning of the country.

Posted by: con_crusher | March 6, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

BOTTOM LINE: Obama is an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Remember, these are the direct proxy for the will of the people.
Here are two paths:
1. Based on rules that everyone agreed on: Obama has the pledged delegate numbers. The "super delegates" can reverse the outcome, or they can follow the lead of the people.

2. Change the rules, either seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan as is, or do a shoddy redo and add "super delegates" and coronate Mrs. Clinton. How do you spell 1968.
The Democratic Party leaders can help engineer a Clinton coups d'état. The result: a permanent alienation of their most loyal constituency.

Posted by: nm2pluto | March 6, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Nobody is immune to concern about the safety of our children. I thought the "Red Phone" or "3 am" ad was effective in that it forced voters to focus on who will be minding the security store as President.

For all his soaring rhetoric and tribal chanting by his followers, Senator Obama simply does not have the foreign policy experience or exposure that Senator Clinton has. Americans are hesitant to embrace someone's foreign policy credentials when those credentials are predicated on claims of being right on a 2002 vote that he didn't have to make. Voters are having buyer's remorse over Obama and they seem to be saying that Hillary is the reliable 'grocery-getter' candidate while Obama is the trendy sports car that isn't much good for anything else other than gleaming in the driveway.

In addition, the Obama campaign has justifiable fear of what may ooze out of the Rezko trial. The Obama campaign cannot bring itself to come clean to the charge that Obama says one thing about NAFTA to the American people while his top advisors whisper something quite different to the Canadian government. The NAFTA-Canada issue is both growing and problematic for Obama as it muddies his 'new kind of politics' sheen and raises stoney doubt in the minds of voters.

And, as it's been written in the last 48 hours, Obama can't drive Senator Clinton out of the race. His chances to mortally wound her chances--in New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday and this past Tuesday--have shown voters how tough she is in the face of enormous odds and how voters in Democratic primaries have serious doubts as to whether Senator Obama should be the party nominee.

Posted by: Politicalpuck | March 6, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's experience and judgment come from having lived through and thought deeply about both domestic and foreign policy issues. She was in a position to receive information as Bill's wife that Obama would not have known. She has made the judment calls in her own mind already. Obama's eight years in the Illinois legislature can not compare.

Posted by: khlong | March 6, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

The story of the Clintons is that they will do anything to win, based apparently on their notion that only they can pursue the agenda that is good for the rest of us.

The first example was when in the 1992 campaign Bill made a showy point of allowing the execution of a mentally disabled death row prisoner to prove his "toughness".

Hillary one-uped him by giving George Bush a blank check to start an unnecessary war in Iraq to prove her "toughness". Now there are thousands of dead and broken American soldiers, and thousands of more broken Iraqi families that are the victims of her political expedience.

Now the Clintons will say or do anything to snuff out the excitement and energy and optimism that many of us have found in Barack Obama's campaign. Their personal attacks intended to drive up his negatives and make the rest of us hold our noses and vote for her have just begun.

Posted by: dmooney | March 6, 2008 6:56 AM | Report abuse

The news for Obama was bad in the days leading to the march 4th primaries. However, I would suggest that it was the Nafta/ Rezko issues with Obama playing defence on these issues on the eve of the elections that were responsible for the surge in Hillary voters in the last few days prior to the election rather than the 3.00AM issue. I think that voters are almost imune to scare tactics these days after the Bush administrations' constant use of this tactic. Unfortunately, the Nafta/Rezko issues, neither of which is insurmountable for Obama given the details so far, were badly handled. However, the Ohio win, was on the cards for some time given Hillary's much better, and more detailed economic approach.

Posted by: paulgroom | March 6, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

"Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Après lui, le déluge <

The kitchen sink runneth over.

The fact that many would fall prey to such a desperate, Rovian grab-bag of distortion and misrepresentation brings home a truth that, now more than ever, must be recognized--a truth about us.

As long as we remain susceptible to negative campaigning --as long as we allow inchoate fear and primitive doubt to overwhelm our capacity to understand and check the facts--we will get the winners we deserve-- namely, those who win ugly.

Democracy takes more than participation--a goal we have yet to achieve--it also takes a willingness to apply thought over fear.

We have been trained to respond to fear appeals aimed at the pursuit of electoral success very well over the past 7 years--and at this point, we should begin to become inured to them. In plain speaking: we should wise up.

The Clinton camp has discovered a formula that, at least in the days of its brief burst of novelty, has worked. We can expect a deluge of such tactics in the coming weeks.

However, despite a sink that will likely fill to bursting-- paired, of course, with the conciliatory words that are meant to justify and allow further attacks--we now have time to adjust and evaluate.

We can and should do so.

A campaign that wins in adversity by the use of distortion and fear will govern in adversity in the same manner.

This is the true "red phone" lesson, one that we should remember over the coming weeks. Overcome vague appeals to fear. Pursue their reality. In the face of appeals to induced doubt, unproven "experience", and dark insinuation, tenaciously learn--and vote--the facts."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 6, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company