Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton vs. Obama on Electability

In a just-concluded conference call, Mark Penn, a senior strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) campaign, argued that his candidate alone is positioned to beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall thanks to her past ability to fight against the Republican "attack machine" as well as her skill at neutralizing the issue of national security.

"The Republican attack machine redefines the Democratic candidate," said Penn, pointing out that Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) both felt the sting of the GOP efforts during their respective national bids. Penn added that while Clinton is well known in national circles, Obama is less so -- a lack of name recognition that leaves the Illinois senator open to being defined by the Republican nominee. "Hillary has withstood this process and this will make a tremendous difference if she is the nominee," he said.

The other prong of the Penn argument is that the likely nomination of McCain means that national security will again be at the forefront of voters' minds this fall, as it was in 2004.

McCain has made no secret of his proud advocacy of the surge strategy in Iraq and, in order to win the Republican nomination, he has relied heavily on his personal biography that includes five years spent in a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam.

Nominating Clinton would "block [Republicans] from playing the national security card," argued Penn, adding that Republicans have already begun to attack Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) on his foreign policy credentials. (In an interview yesterday with Fox New Channel's Chris Wallace, President George W. Bush had this to say of Obama's foreign policy bona fides: "I certainly don't know what he believes in.")

Penn's call is the latest in a series of assertions by Clinton's camp that she is more electable than Obama in the general election because Obama has not been as thoroughly vetted as the former first lady and remains a new-ish figure on the national scene.

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, is making its own electabilty argument, releasing a memo late last week that shows the Illinois senator running stronger than Clinton in most recent national polling. "Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to win independents, play well in red states and beat John McCain in November," the memo reads.

As evidence, the memo cites recent polls from Time, CNN, Cook Political Report, Post/ABC, Fox News and Rasmussen -- all of which show Obama running slightly to considerably stronger than Clinton in hypothetical matchups against McCain. A new survey out today -- conducted by the Associated Press -- affirms that idea with Obama leading McCain, 48 percent to 42 percent, while Clinton leads McCain, 46 percent to 45 percent.

The central difference in the electability appeals by the two campaigns is temporal.

The Obama campaign argues that the way to best understand who is the more electable is to look at current polling and past results to see who leads the likely Republican nominee and who is better able to lure crucial independents to the Democratic cause. The present is what matters, says Obama.

For Clinton, it's the future that's the issue. Sure, they argue, Obama may be ahead right now, but Republicans have only begun to define him, a process that would strip away much of his independent support and leave him on the losing end of a race against McCain.

"In a general election the Republicans will spring into action and quickly, if he were the nominee, roll out his whole record," said Penn. "The kind of independent support that he has had so far would evaporate relatively quickly once he faced Republicans."

The electability argument is, at its center, dependent on how Democrats view this nominating fight.

Clinton and her team believe that the party is essentially risk-averse, a position born of the disappointing results of the last two presidential elections in which the party's nominees were negatively defined by a concerted Republican effort.

Obama's claim of electability is based on the idea that the way politics has been conducted over the past several decades need not to be the way it operates going forward. The driving force behind Obama's argument is that unlike the past several elections that have been focused on turning out the base of each party and trying to peel off just enough independents to win, the 2008 contest could well be a transformational choice in which independents and even many Republicans put aside partisanship and cast a vote for him.

Left unsaid, but of course implied, is that Clinton is far too polarizing to change the electoral math and that, if she were able to win, would do so in a squeaker.

Who's right? Well, Republicans have already begun their effort to define Obama for voters. Of late, almost every email out of the Republican National Committee notes that Obama was the most liberal Senator in 2007. (Don't forget just how damaging that same vote rating system was to Kerry in 2004.)

On the other hand, it's hard to imagine Republicans not joyous at the prospect of dredging up all of the old attacks against the Clintons if the New York senator winds up as the nominee.

Either choice represents a risk for Democrats. Obama is less well known and less tested on the national stage but has shown a capacity to reach independents and Republicans that Clinton won't likely be able to match. Clinton is the more polarizing figure of the two, but what else bad could be said about her that voters haven't already heard?

Such is the nature of the choice Democrats face in the next few months.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 11, 2008; 3:30 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Endorsement Hierarchy: The Obligatory Endorsement
Next: Potomac Primary Prediction Time!

Comments

Let me try this again.

I think Hillary is ahead in the electoral college race. She'd be even farther ahead if Florida had counted.

Too much focus on Hillary not having enough delegates to be nominated when the same holds true for Mr. Obama.

So just what is the electoral college totals head to head?

Posted by: info | March 19, 2008 3:14 AM | Report abuse

Let me try this again.

I think Hillary is ahead in the electoral college race. She'd be even farther ahead if Florida had counted.

Too much focus on Hillary not having enough delegates to be nominated when the same holds true for Mr. Obama.

So just what is the electoral college totals head to head?

Posted by: info | March 19, 2008 3:14 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary is ahead in head in the electoral college race. She'd be really far ahead if Florida had counted.

Too much focus on Hillary not having enough delegates to be nominated when the same holds true for Mr. Obama.

So just what is the electoral college totals head to head?

Posted by: info | March 19, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida: The states' legislatures and governors knew they were throwing away their states voters' right to be seated. Why isn't anyone in those states blaming their legislators? Why isn't the media asking this question? Don't count the delegates until the states take responsibility for their irresponsible actions and fix it themselves by footing the bill.

Posted by: a.dodd | March 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

To gandalfthergrey
We don't want someone in the White House who voted no on raising the minimum wage
also voted no on dental health for SCHIP
Read his voting record when he was Senator in Illinois

Posted by: yankeenana2 | February 14, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I live in England.
If enough of you believe that 'change' is possible - and Obama is the only one of the three with a chance of doing that - then the question of electability is answered.
Recently on the main BBC politics programme leading politicians from each of the three main parties were asked who they wanted to be the next President of the United States. They all said Obama. The audience agreed.
He is what America needs, and what the world wants.

Posted by: jnbubbers | February 12, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"She is a good legislator - she will return to the Senate and wonk away"

Clinton for Senate!

Posted by: bsimon | February 12, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is crippled as a candidate on the most important issue of this election....

George W. Bush took our nation to WAR.

There is no higher duty or responsibility for any President than taking this country to WAR.

NONE !

On that critical issue - more critical than any other

Clinton voted YES.

Now, if she believes that we should have gone to war...like many, many patriotic Republicans and millions of Americans...all she has to do is say so. Just say she was for the invasion and war.

But she won't.

I'm sure because she knows to say so now would kill her.

So why can't she do as John Edwards did? Just admit that her vote was a mistake?

The truth is sometimes very simple.

She voted YES to position herself for this election cycle. There is absolutely no other explanation.

That is an act of personal cowardice and her deceit since then disqualifies her from the highest office in the land where she would have the power to try it again.

She is a good legislator - she will return to the Senate and wonk away - and in the Senate, Bill is kept at bay.

She blew her shot at the White house by stepping over the line beyond cunning...

And, now - still fearful of McCain's attack - she steadfastly refuses to admit that her vote was a mistake -(unlike John Edwards who is an honest man).

WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER PERSON IN OUR WHITE HOUSE THAT CANNOT ADMIT A MISTAKE.

Clinton must be denied the nomination.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 12, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"A muslim for Presdient? Na"

Not this year. But we already have a Muslim in Congress, representing a district that he is likely to retain for as long as he wants to keep it. Give him a couple more terms to move up in the Congressional leadership and who knows - Speaker Ellison? Its not impossible.

And once you're speaker, you're only a couple heartbeats away from becoming President. Not that its happened yet, of course.

Shoot, if Obama wins this year, I could see a whole new wave of younger Dems entering government. As the boomers continue to age & start retiring from gov't, people like Ellison are well-positioned to rapidly rise in the party ranks. Looking on the GOP side, its pretty clear they need to entirely rebuild their party, so just might get the jump on the Dems in that regard.

Posted by: bsimon | February 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters get offended when you use his full name because you're clearly doing it to be offensive. It's very simple. But I'm not surprised you couldn't figure that out, since you don't seem too bright.

But congratulations on noticing that "Obama" rhymes with "Osama". That's a brilliant insight. And so original, too.

Posted by: Blarg | February 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Osama Bin Obama
Osama Bin Obama

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 12, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Why is that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama supporters get offended if you call him by his full name?


Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama - Don't buy the hype - see "OPERATION FLIGHT SUIT"

Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama -
Don't buy empty speeches - see "MISSION ACCOMPLISH"

A muslim for Presdient? Na

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Why is that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama supporters get offended if you call him by his full name?


Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama - Don't buy the hype - see "OPERATION FLIGHT SUIT"

Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama -
Don't buy empty speeches - see "MISSION ACCOMPLISH"

A muslim for Presdient? Na

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 12, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame JD that all you can do is personally attack me and Hillary. You are extremely rude and belligerent and still not talking about anything of consequence. My typing is not the best right now and I am using a voice software program because my arm is broke, which is why I am at home, after a fall down a set of stair after teaching at our university. Where I have taught careers, math and computers. I also have minors in psychology, philosophy, business and economics, and two post graduate degrees in education. I also have devoted over 10 years of teaching to minority programs to students from inner city schools. My T.A. usually does my typing. But I am sure my credentials don't mean much to you.

I think you are really good at presumptions...only time will tell. Those of you wishing to debate, not argue, really debate the issues, although there is some rude people on either side, might want to go to: http://www.sodahead.com. Its not a perfect site but it is better than most.

But some other facts you might want to know: source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/


56.0% Missed votes
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Representing: Arizona
Votes: 257 votes missed (56.0 percent of 459 total votes)

37.9% Missed Votes
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Representing: Illinois
Votes: 174 votes missed (37.9 percent of 459 total votes)

25.5%
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Representing: New York
Votes: 117 votes missed (25.5 percent of 459 total votes)

PERSONAL CALLENGE: Please step back and look what is best for the party which is a Hillary/Obama ticket and 16 years in the white house. Compare their resumes side by side, look at each of their plans, look at what each person has done in the whole of their life, look at who has the most respect of their peer to get things done, figure out how we can be in the white house for 16 years not 4. Then what ever your decision, it is the right one for you. No one can take that from you. Not by insulting someone's typing skills with a broken hand and no one can argue that you don't know what the detailed platforms are. Best of luck to the democrats...not matter what your personal decision.

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

country, this one's for you. How to explain this latest news flash? What, her coal-miner's daughter upbringing caused her to become, as Carl Bernstein called her " among the most self-righteous people I've ever known"?

It appears that Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs can't stop coming back to haunt his wife, presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton.

A new book by Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein alleges the former president was on the verge of divorcing his wife, leaving her for "the other woman" now identified as marketing executive Marilyn Jo Jenkins.

The Daily Mail reports that the crisis ended with his wife talking him out of the divorce. She supposedly told a friend, "there are worse things than infidelity," according to the Mail."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275697,00.html

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 12, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

countrygoddess, frankly, you don't make a lot of sense.

But I will correct another misconception on your part. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent voter. From what I can tell, Hillary Clinton's greatest accomplishment in life was deciding to marry a future president. Once she made that decision, she jumped on the fast track to notoriety. I don't see anything in her life prior that set her up for a future presidential run. Come to think of it, I don't see how marrying Bill qualifies her either.

And that is the crux of the issue. What has Senator Clinton accomplished, on her own, that qualifies her for the job of being the most powerful person in the world?

Posted by: bsimon | February 12, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"I hope their are more well read and well informed members..."

you mean "there"


"The republicans are watching--their watching this party tear itself apart..."

you mean "they're"

Guess none of those 6 degrees was in English, eh? (Rufus?)

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

You have not addressed anything? I have asked questions? Go back and read...Their the one's with the questions marks at the end. But I have a life and it is apparent that you don't, because you are so for you candidate that you don't see the problems on the horizon for the party. When you are ready to answer the issues that he has no experience and review their resumes, offer comment on uniting the party, address that he has been campaigning more for president than representing illinois interest such as the 1.5 billion dollar coal project that would have brought jobs to Illinois? Addressed that he earns over 1 million a year and he is not a 40k a year nominee, not that really matters, I would expect either candidate to be financially sound but lets not make him out to be "Oliver Twist." For the parties good, I hope their are more well read and well informed members of our party out there that see the big picture...Right now...not in November we are having the General election---doubt it not. The republicans are watching--their watching this party tear itself apart---and your attitude is a perfect example of how quickly its down fall can come unless the party smartens up and in a hurry. Like it or not, it comes down to united we win, divided we fall...THE END

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

thecountrygoddess, I respect the fact that you like your candidate, but it's a little difficult for me, as an Obama supporter, to get excited by the idea of a dual ticket when you come on this site say that I haven't done my research because I support Obama. Can you appreciate that?

I have done research, and I've made a decision as a result of that research. I'm willing to have a discussion about issues, but your posts so far haven't included anything that would make me want to change my mind.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

wow country, for someone with 6 degrees you might study a bit more about the concept of a 'paragraph'. Feels like I'm talking to Rufus. Oh well.

Even overlooking your several thousand grammatical and syntactical errors, we've been able to divine that you don't like Obama. We get it. Good for you.

Notwithstanding my previous prediction to M in A, I now don't think he'll accept a vice spot. I think he'd rather be Gov of Illinois until 2012, after McCain beats HRC (assuming she wins the Dem nom).

Then, barring McCain personally inventing cold fusion and single-handedly defeating Osama BL in a duel, Obama has a cakewalk to the WH.

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign didn't have a healthcare plan before it felled and they don't have one now. Well to be honest, if everyone is a goverment employee, then the Clinton healthcare plan will work for everyone. Unfortunately some are self employed, independent contractors or work for private employors or small business. Under the Clinton healthcare plan these people would be penalized if they don't pay for their healthcare. This means that most of your family members and friends will have their paychecks garnished. We all know that it doesn't stop there if it is a goverment enforcement. There will be fines and then misdemeanors which is a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Why did Ms. Clinton decide on this approach? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Big business, big Corporation call it what you will, they want their money back and in order for Ms. Clinton to get their support in her race to presidency she is giving victory to one side (the healthcare providers) by promising to them that she will have the poeople wages garnished if they continue to give healthcare. Thus allowing her to shout the words "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" This is a shady tactic and makes fools out of every american that falls for this trick. The Obama healthcare plan is for the people. Poor people, middle class and rich people can rest assured that there is no tricks or penalties in the Obama healthcare plan. VOTE OBAMA!!

Posted by: cmroots | February 12, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

countrygoddess writes
"Again, you avoid the questions?"

What questions? I reviewed your 12:06 post (to which I first responded) and your 12:40 response to me. I didn't see questions.

I was merely correcting your mis-statement about the coal miner background (thanks JD for the cite). My only point is that if you want to promote Sen Clinton, try to do it factually, rather than making up a good story.

Posted by: bsimon | February 12, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and Obama now spar over who is best able to beat John McCain in November.

Their basic pitch is: McCain will run against the D nominee with assistance of the Well-Oiled "Republican Attack Machine" (WORAM) and only I am tough and savvy enough to fend off McCain and his fearsome goon squad.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Documentary on MSNBC, but that's not the only place I have seen that doc....and apology? Who do you think your are? Why don't you address the real questions? You don't? Do you have NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER? This party is divided? We in Illionois know in terms of just the amount of work OBAMA has done in Illinois, he has worked less that any of the three candidates (no show and no voting). Those of us not from Chicago, have been watching him...he has not kept a singel campaign promise to us. He talked change, and yes it go him elected in Illinois, of course when Jerry Ryan's exhusband had to drop out of the race because of a sex scandal he pretty much ran unopposed. He's not had to do any work, he's not paid his dues, you have to earn peoples respect...A lot of people would cross the Republican line not to vote for him....The best thing can happan...and it is a real possiblity...if you do the math as other political historians have...is both of them are going to end up tied going going into the convention. There is going to be a lot of pressure to count Michigan and Florida which will give HIllary the edge but at a cost, so more pressure will be applied for HIllary to pick Obama as a running mate, and even though I absolutely do not support him, together it is what is best for the party. They have to run together Hillary P, and Obama VP to win the ticket. Together they are a force, seperate Hillary may win by herself but Obama will not--the Republicans will eat him for dinner. There are a lot of consertative democrats that just will not vote for him alone, they will cross party lines--he can't afford that. She can't afford to loose the african american vote, they both bring to the table what it will take to win. For those of you don't know history a fight like this in terms of numbers has happened before...the party did not unify and the party losts each time...can we afford that?

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

countrygoddess posted:

"My husband and I (who both wrote it) hold 6 degrees."

What did you both write? The antecedent was a reference to a book by BHO, I think.

Perhaps I am confused.
-----------------------------------
Mike, Aside from "The Fair Tax", my other problems with MDH are that he made a speech about amending the Constitution to God's word and he does not believe in genetics or cosmology, which could be seriously limiting to a 21st C. President. Nevertheless, I think well of him, because the practical applications of my "issues" with him do not keep me from thinking that there are a great many public service functions he would perform honorably and capably. He was a good Governor, for instance - incomparably better than Rick Perry.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 12, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

If we're dredging up biographical info, here's a neat tidbit...Bill Clinton's name at birth was William Jefferson Blythe IV, born as the only son of Virginia Kelley and William Jefferson Blythe 3rd, a traveling salesman who died in an automobile crash three months before his son's birth.

So, Hillary's name may have ended up being Hillary Blythe if she had married him with his original name. Because her marraige to Bill was the singularly most important event in her politcal life, and without that she would never be where she is today.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey, look at this

http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43


Her dad actually was a small textile supply owner, not a 'coal miner'

However, the Dad did in fact descend from a line of Scranton coal miners

http://www.spock.com/Hugh-Ellsworth-Rodham

Still, you were wrong countrygoddess. We accept your apology in advance, and thank you for your vote for McCain as reparations.


Posted by: JD | February 12, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign didn't have a healthcare plan before it felled and they don't have one now. Well to be honest, if everyone is a goverment employee, then the Clinton healthcare plan will work for everyone. Unfortunately some are self employed, independent contractors or work for private employors or small business. Under the Clinton healthcare plan these people would be penalized if they don't pay for their healthcare. This means that most of your family members and friends will have their paychecks garnished. We all know that it doesn't stop there if it is a goverment enforcement. There will be fines and then misdemeanors which is a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Why did Ms. Clinton decide on this approach? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Big business, big Corporation call it what you will, they want their money back and in order for Ms. Clinton to get their support in her race to presidency she is giving victory to one side (the healthcare providers) by promising to them that she will have the poeople wages garnished if they continue to give healthcare. Thus allowing her to shout the words "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" This is a shady tactic and makes fools out of every american that falls for this trick. The Obama healthcare plan is for the people. Poor people, middle class and rich people can rest assured that there is no tricks or penalties in the Obama healthcare plan. VOTE OBAMA!!

Posted by: cmroots | February 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

countrygoddess, either provide a cite, or provide bsimon an apology for acting like an a$$

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

As I said, he raised himself up...Wicipedia by the way is incomplete and can be edited by anyone. Universities bar students from using Wikepedia as a source of information for that reason..Again, you avoid the questions?

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

countrygoddess, what's your source? Wikipedia says: "Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a son of Welsh and English immigrants and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry."

Considering the baselessness of the rest of your rant, I suspect you choose to believe what you like, rather than what is true.

Posted by: bsimon | February 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I am sure her father was a coal miner and yes there are coal mines in Illinois. Her father raised himself up to be more and he wanted more for his children. Isn't that the Americna dream. My father was a coal truck driver my mother was a historian and shop owner, they raised theirselves up to own a mine in Virginia. Raised all of us to study and we all have degrees, two of us, me included, have advanced degrees and devoted a good portion of my life to public service and minority rights and education. I am sorry you are so bent on attacking people that you don't want to ask the hard questions, do your research or compare resumes and experience. I am sorry you don't want to ask yourself even if he got elected--which is doubtful without Hillary and visa vera considering how the party is divided right now--because historically, this has happened three times and of those times, the party lost. Mathmatically, neither can win enough delegates to secure the nomination. Hillary still has Florida and Michigan and they will be seated...because you can't ignore their votes. Obama will get a portion of those delegates, Michigan about 40% of them and Florida about 33%. Hillary will win Texas I believe at least one of Penn and/or Ohio.It will come down to the superdelegates, their are informed and knows who is more likly to get congress behind them for make concrete change "Hillary"...but as I said, great pressure will come to bare, on it being a dual ticket or the party looses.

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

um jduran? technically, I think Bubba was in fact impeached. Just not convicted (although he did lose his law license because of his lying).

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Many questions linger regarding Obama's gifted speechifying. Do his speeches give us a glimpse at a very special man with a unique vision? Or are we merely witnessing a political one-trick pony?

Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician. But does his special skill set here actually mean anything, or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs--unusual and riveting, but not especially significant?

It was thus interesting to see Obama climb to the stage at Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. As he strode to the podium, Obama clutched in his hands a pile of 3 by 5 index cards. The index cards meant only one thing--no Teleprompter.

Shorn of his prompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. He looked down at his obviously copious notes every few seconds throughout the speech.

Unlike the typical Obama oration where the words flow with unparalleled fluidity, he stumbled over his phrasing repeatedly.


The results weren't just interesting because they revealed Obama as a markedly inferior speaker without the teleprompter. Obama's supporters have had ample notice that the scripted Obama is far more effective than the spontaneous one.

The extremely articulate and passionate Obama that makes all the speeches has yet to show up at any of the debates. For such a gifted and energetic speaker, he is an oddly tongue-tied and indifferent debater."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp?pg=2

The question is which Obama is the real Obama? --the one who read beautifully crafted words from a Teleprompter after his victory in Iowa, or the tediously angry liberal who improvised in Virginia?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 12, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

We all know what the Clinton's were like, and we took a chance on a young JFK and he did well. Why doesn't someone ask the Clinton's to pay their bill in Des Moines, IA so those people are not stuck. She throws dirt at Obama to turn the story from her, but it was on NBC and ABC this AM. She is no better than a common criminal and is married to someone who committed Perjury in the White House. Remember people, REMEMBER.

Posted by: backtofdr | February 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

When exactly has Hillary been tested against the "Republican attack machine?" Was it that rough and tumble contest against Rick Lazio? The central myth of her campaign is that her husband's accomplishments = her accomplishments. Contrast that notion with the assertion that this isn't two for the price of one, it is her campaign and she is calling the shots. If so, then perhaps she should stop beefing up her resume - lawyer with disgraced law firm, famous wife of accomplished individual, and two term Senator - with her husbands credentials.

Posted by: justj | February 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

thecountrygoddess writes
"She was the daughter of a coal miner people, she was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth..."

Are you sure? Far as I know, there aren't many coal mines in or near Park Ridge, IL. Perhpas you're confusing her with Loretta Lynn?

Posted by: bsimon | February 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Did you know that Hillary changed military parties to speak out and stop the war in Vietnam. She was also one of the lead investigators on the highest comittee in Congress to start and investigation into the stories that were coming down from the current adminstartion. She has visted our troops 6 times (that 6 times more than the current president in Iraq itself, not on neighboring bases). She was the first sentator there to help the police and fireman after 9/11 walking the streets but a day after the tragic event at risk to her own health. She has fought for them, she has fought for minorities in this country (although some seem to have a short memory and have feed her to the wolves just because of the other candidate's race--it make you wonder for those us us that give our lives working at programs for the disadvantaged and minorities are we even appreciated--I'm one of those people who gave a considerable time of my life to this very cause). Hillary has done nothing but scarfice a millions a dollar year salary at any lawfirm she could ever want or to have her own multi-million dollar law firm for public service. She was the daughter of a coal miner people, she was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth...She is a role model to all people that from humble beginnings even in the face of the most difficult times in our lives, we too can endure and excel. The way people act, its a wonder anyone ever goes into public service.

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton "wait until next month" strategy is sounding a lot like Rudy Guiliani's pitch to supporters last month.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/fighting-the-big-mo/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

For one thing, I am tired of Hillary supporters saying that she is better on national security and is better fit to survive the "Republican Attack". I would like to know how being a senator from NY provides one with better national security credentials than being a senator from Illinois does. Oh I know...they must mean when she was First Lady she was able to travel to more places and meet more leaders AND she voted for the Iraq war. Hence, she is better suited to address national security issues. I see now.

And let us not forget how strong the Clintons are against the 'republican attack'. While her husband was being slaughtered in the final years of his presidency both Hillary and Bill made it through alive and he was not impeached! Duck and cover, congrats on the survival tactics! It is hard to imagine exactly how much the republicans are drooling over the possibility of using all their old ammo on the Clintons.

I believe that the Clinton-Bush era will come to an end and that people will look to a change. Unfortunately, this country has not voted for drastic changes and that will be Obama's battle. He must convince moderates that it is time for a different pace. Without that...duck and cover.

Posted by: jduran1978 | February 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

LeftwithNochoice--can't handle the truth...Read his book, he describes down south in Illinois as Bloomington, there are 300 more miles of Illinois south of Bloomington. Did't take days to write it either, despite the Media's trying to convience people that Hillary's supporters are uneducated. My husband and I (who both wrote it) hold 6 degrees. Those with commonsense and an education both are asking what has he done for anyone? what experience does he have? and just who is he? He has not been in office long enought to answer any of those questions--but in Southern Illinois we can def. answer them thus far and the writing on the wall is not pretty.

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

This from an NYT article about the Clinton campaign's struggle; the quote is from a national finance chairman:
"I'm telling donors and supporters: Don't be overly concerned about what goes on in the remainder of the month of February because these are not states teed up well for us,"

Left unsaid is that, if the ball ain't teed up just right, they can't hit it. This strategy works if you can drive the green on every hole. Problem is on all the other holes, when you have to hit the ball off the grass. God forbid you have to take a swing in the rough.

In short, the speaker unwittingly chose a rather apt metaphor for the Clinton campaign. They hit a great tee shot, but discovered they're on a long par 5, not a short par 3. This game is played without mulligans.

Posted by: bsimon | February 12, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Do Clinton supporters honestly think that she has national electability when half the country can't stand her to begin with and she continues with the status quo Hillary standard procedure of blatant lack of transparency in refusing to release tax returns AND refusal to release her papers from the Clinton library??? Ok she really represents "change" and has national appeal...wake up and get real!

Posted by: dcsackers2 | February 12, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

what do people think about the possibility of an Obama - Bloomberg ticket? Talk about breaking from the politics of the past, looking for real solutions, and stealing the middle from John McCain . . .

Posted by: millart | February 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry - but I just don't see Senator Clinton having a chance at being elected President. She's got way too much baggage and the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" she railed against while her husband was in office has done an excellent job vilifying and demonizing her. Even from within the Democratic party she's going to have a tough time. Remember all of those "Reagan Democrats" from nearly 30 years ago? Traditional blue-collar democrats jumped ship to install a Republican dynasty that we're still living through today. If Ms. Clinton is the indeed the choice of the Democrats, then history will repeat itself and McCain/Huckabee will win in a landslide.

Posted by: rikkirat | February 12, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I've supported the Democratic party for a while, and have worked on a number of Democratic Campaigns. However, there is no way I will vote for Hillary. If I had too, I would vote for Bush a third term before I voted for Hillary.

Whether or not it's fair, Hillary is too much of a polarizing figure outside of the beltway that would drive independents and a lot of Democrats to either not vote in 2008, or vote for McCain (especially since McCain has done a pretty good job of courting independent support).

If you talk to any Republican insider and McCain supporter, they are hoping and praying for Hillary to win the nomintation. They believe Hillary will simply get into a policy debate that McCain can win.

However, Obama (whether he deserves it or not) has turned into a movement, and respresents more than a laundry list of campaign promises.

Here's my prediction for all Democrats, Hillary's nomination will drive a wedge in the Democratic Party. On one side you'll have the old Washington guard and on the other side will be the younger Democrats (regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity), and frankly, the future of the pary.

It's time for new blood in politics and the Democratic Party. Not only are the 30 and under voters looking for it, Baby Boomers not attached to any special interest groups are looking for it as well.

Fair or not, Hillary represents the old guard in the Democratic party. It's time for her and them to step a side, and let the Democratic Party become the party that represents change and hope - much like her husband did in 1992.

Posted by: cattexmd | February 12, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

..where we stand today...

'USA Today leads with a poll that shows Democrats remain deeply divided about their choice for a nominee but most think they're both good candidates. For his part, Sen. John McCain is clearly the front-runner, but almost half of Republican voters would rather have someone else. In a hypothetical matchup, McCain runs about even with both Democratic candidates, although Sen. Barack Obama does have a slight lead that is within the poll's margin of error.'

Posted by: drindl | February 12, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Ho much is a dead boy worth?

'The father of a 9-year-old Iraqi boy who says his son was killed by Blackwater security guards tells ABCNews.com the company has offered to build a monument and make an unspecified cash payment to compensate him for the death of his son, Ali.

Officials familiar with the case told ABCNews.com that Blackwater had resisted U.S. government demands that the company pay at least $100,000 per death, claiming the U.S. government has not paid that much in similar situations in Iraq.'

Posted by: drindl | February 12, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

If the Democratic Party plays not to lose, the only thing they are promising themselves is not to win. Kerry was the safe choice. Unfortunately, he was the wrong choice. Do not do it again.

Posted by: clwhitworth | February 11, 2008 11:01 PM


That's SOP, isn't it? Democrats love to date one guy then marry the other (Date Dean but marry Kerry, date Hart but marry Mondale, etc). So will the Dems date Obama but marry HRC? Yuk.

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

For you paranoid lefties out there:

Read Robinson today in WaPo. He talks about the left's fretting that the GOP is trying to manipulate the Dem nominating process to get the most easily beatable candidate.

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

AggieMike, i saw your Sunday post directed to me and responded on the "Heirarchy" thread at 10:43P.

Let me add to it that I thought Jack Kemp was a terrific HUDSec who reversed years of waste and graft in that Department.
---------------------
bradcpa, are you a 'Horn?
---------------------
NovaMatt, did you see the bb game last night?
--------------------

Hook 'Em!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 12, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

certainly a lot of loonies on here recently..

check out john stewart on mitten's withdrawal. funny...

http://www.universalhub.com/node/12782

also, listen to what romney says. it's the new script, well a actually the old script. it's everything john mccain will be saying, over and over and over and over, until November. the bush 2004, word for word. it goes like this, sort of like what dogs hear:

'liberals' 'surrender' 'terror' 'taxes' 'borders'

now, simply repeat that 5 trillion times, and you have the next several months of your life. it's just like deja vu, is't it? groundhog day...


Posted by: drindl | February 12, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Last night I went down the Victory Grill to welcome the Obama paid staff into Texas. About 300 enthusiastic supporters welcomed 25 young paid staff people into Texas (if you call $50 a day paid). Most of these 20 something's have been on the road for Obama for over six months. Coming from Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico they have poured into Texas the new battleground. The author of the "Audacity of Hope" has an inspired army of volunteers who have put their lives on hold I have not seen since my first caucus where I supported George McGovern. Yes I signed up to be a precinct captain for Obama last night and will go to my first caucus in 36 years.

Posted by: bradcpa | February 12, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Oh, Chico, I totally empathize with your plight. I, too live in Senator Clinton's district, and am Very Unhappy with her.

You see, my name is Geoffrey Smith, and I own a factory on the north side of town. Ms Clinton promised to allow me to expand my factory if she got elected, which she did, thanks to my financial contributions, not to mention the large posters of her all over the plant that I forced my workers to view all day.

Anyway, what had happened was this:

She got into office, stopped calling to check on me, and never readjusted the zoning to allow me to expand my factory. And what a fine factory it would have been, too.

We were gonna turn political propaganda into horse manure, to fertilize fields of daisies and daffodils. But, NOOOO, she didn't want daisies, she wanted to keep churning out political propaganda.

So, Chico and Sra Salgaputa, I feel your pain and suffering at the hands of Hillary Clinton, too, though for different reasons, OK?

So, in conclusion:
I, strongly believe,
that Hillary Clinton
Is
WRONG For America.

Seriously, America, take it from the people who live in her district... DO NOT LET HER DO TO THE COUNTRY WHAT SHE DID TO OUR POOR LITTLE DISTRICT

THINK OF THE MANURE FACTORY AND THE DAISIES AND DAFFODILS SHE SQUANDERED AWAY

BOO HOO sniff

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 12, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

My name is Chico Duarte and I am a Latino voter in Hillary Clinton's district in New York. I am writing to warn other Latinos about what she really trying to do.

First, I bote for her, because they tell me, Latino voters, they like Hillary. But then, she change. All Latinos in her district have to show Birth Certificates to drive, and to rent apartments.

Then, Police is locking up everyone, sending them to immigration. Nobody can get a job because they start checking social security numbers. Lot of Latinos have to leave the state. They cannot even open the bank account!

Then, she makes it illegal to look at the women's hind areas. That's what I want to say, now I'm writing from jail. Hillary Clinton is bad for Latinos. Hillary gonna do the same to whole country.

You gotta be real scared of her. Hillary Clinton is SOOOOOOO Bad, OK?

Believe Me. And my wife, Carlotta Asuncion Garcia Salgaputa.

Por Favor! Diga "NO" por la bruja Clinton!

Salvate!

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 12, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

WOW, countrygodess, or Michael Payne or his wife or whoever:

Very well written... must have taken you days.

Nice emotion, urgency, and Fear Mongering, you slimey, slithering, slack...

I hope you got paid well for that BS. Why not go on the road with your losing candidate if your so worried? Put your money where your loser mouth is.

Fear Mongering Fools... How are you gonna scare anyone anymore?
We survived 8 years of Georgie Bush, and you think we're supposed to be squeamish about Obama?

THINK ! Crybaby!

Nobody's buying it. Keep your Fear in your panties, Michael Payne and his caring and emotional Wife.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 12, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

More Fear mongering by the Clinton people.

"if we elect Obama, the Evil Republicans (who, it is noted, are actually laying in wait) will tear him limb from limb, enslave our children, kill us, and rape our wives"

Fear, Fear, Fear, blah, blah, blah, scaredy-cats.

Bad enough to have all this fear-pushing from the Clinton Camp during the Primaries,

But then, you have to Fear the Republicans,

THEN, Back to fearing the Terrorists,
the Chinese,
the Immigrants,
the Economy,
H5n1,
Sars,
AIDS,
Serial Killers,
Chinese Toys,
The Planet,
Killer Bees,
And Finally, the Old Standby,

Barack Obama (as the BoogyMan)

What a bunch of Chickens.

(I had a better word in mind, It rhymes with Wussies)

How can they look themselves in the mirror? All this Fear Mongering is weak.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 12, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

After today's Potomac wipeout, I suspect the polling numbers in Texas and Ohio will change dramatically in Obama's favor. Then we may start to see "Supers" moving to Obama even before March 4th.

Posted by: zb95 | February 12, 2008 5:36 AM | Report abuse

BREAKING -- FRom NYT article today:

"She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she's out," said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama's momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately "go with the flow," in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.

=========

Wow. That is indeed candid. I also like that "go with the flow" statement but maybe it should be "go with the tsunami!"

Posted by: zb95 | February 12, 2008 5:34 AM | Report abuse

The question, for better or worse, in a typical voter's mind will be: Which candidate do I like the most?

I have no doubt that the GOP smear machine can effectively bring Obama's negatives up to the current level of Hillary's.

If Obama is the nominee, where will the energy and commitment of the Clinton -Carville -DLC machine be focused? For him, against him, or sitting on its hands?

If Clinton is the nominee, where will similar support from the Obama-Kennedy machine be focused? And, will Clinton's people again try to win eight states plus another one that will magically drop into their laps against McCain?

With all the problems the next President will inherit, there is a strong motivation for all three (Hillary, Obama, McCain) to simply wait for a one-term president to fail and then run again in four years.

Posted by: bayern-guy | February 12, 2008 5:21 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY BEST FOR US--OBAMA & ILLINOIS LOSES 1.5 BILLION DOLLAR COAL PROJECT

Greetings to you America, home of the free, the brave and the disenchanted. Home of the internationally disgraced, economically challenged and the politically confused. This year is a year that we can turn around our fortunes, both internationally and economically. This is the election year.

A year that has finally come around after seven years of embarrassments by a leader that no more cares for the lesser citizen than the lint in the back of his sock drawer. A chance for you and me to go to polling places across this nation and vote our conscience for who we know will be the leader to rub off the tarnish that once was most powerful, wealthy, and respected nation on this planet. Our dollar is weaker now than what it was when it was created. Our leaders are mocked rather than respected. Our leadership is more feared for its stupidity than its financial and military might.

Our three choices for our next leader boil down to a centrist conservative, a woman that has had the benefit of seeing politics from many different career angles and the third choice is a wannabe rock star.

Barack Hussien Obama the newest, latest American idol craze of politics. Whose resume barely includes two and half years of national-level work and a spotty performance as a state legislator as well as a U.S. Senator. A man who basically ran unopposed for his Senate seat and has no idea how to protect the interests of his home state, let alone run a nation.

Obama says his is the voice of change from the typical Washington politics. Who stands on bipartisanism but could never get the support of the republicans due to his lack of experience wants to unite the country. Being from the southern most part Obama's home state I can tell you when word of this man running for US Senate filtered down south, my thought first was - "Great another Chicago politician whose wallet is fattened by my tax dollar and wants me to vote for him while he gets his pet Chicago projects paid for." Well, unfortunately, I gave the man a chance since he was a Democrat--it was a costly mistake. His message of change was his rallying cry. That jobs would be created for southern Illinoisans and our coal would be used again. That all Illinoisans would be heard and their voices would enact that change.

Sound familiar?

I can tell you, as well as many others Illinoisans from across the state, my voice is still the same as it was before he was elected. A little hoarser from shouting into the wind, but still the same While he works for relief packages for the Congo, most Illinoisans go without adequate healthcare and can't pay their electric bill, we just lost one of the biggest job projects in the history of this state from the federal level, think about that on a national level. His constituents, the one's who elected him in overwhelming numbers, have now lost a $1.8 billion dollar coal refinery earmarked to help produce cleaner coal including the high sulfur, nearly unusable by EPA standards, coal of southern Illinois. The project known as the FutureGen Alliance was to build a coal energy producing plant that would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from coal refinement into energy. The fact that the state of Illinois only spent $1.5 million in their bid and the state of Texas spent $5 million in their bid to woo the FutureGen Alliance was at the forefront of a controversial Department of Energy decision to not move forward with the construction of the plant when east-central Illinois was announced as the site for the plant. What was Obama's response? Nothing yet.


America, it's time to stop thinking this is an episode of American Idol.

It is time to look hard in the mirror and get behind the one candidate, Democrat or Republican that can expertly guide this nation and turn things around.

Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton has been there time and time again, from Watergate to fighting for Arkansas less fortunate and as First Lady going up against Congress in an unprecedented role in the fight for health care that would be a precursor of things to come. She has the experience, the tenacity, the knowledge and more importantly, the know-how and the respect of her colleagues to navigate and effect real change this country's capital of legislative swamp. She doesn't talk change, she is change. She is growth, she has overcome and she can lead us back to respectability.

The here and now that we live in is almost as critical as when we broke free from British rule. Experience and maturity are the most important qualities that we as Americans need right now. Do we want a leader that barely has two and a half years of experience as a junior senator with no international experience and has spent more time campaigning than working for his own state? Or do we want a leader that has been entrenched in American politics from her days as a law student to a powerful voice alongside one of America's most effective leaders of all time, and one of the most effective leaders in her own right, such as 9/11 in New York and serving on the highest Congressional committee in Congress. She has been to IRAQ to talk to our troops and survey the land 6 times.

Hillary's voice is one that represents all of America. Not just the poor or uneducated as most have been misled to believe, my wife and I hold six degrees. The media's sexist bias and misinformation campaign is afraid to give her a voice and ask the tough questions of her opponent, notice how the media handles Obama with kid gloves? They don't even give her equal air time and resort to personal and family insults. What are they afraid of? A real leader?

All this voting season has been a popularity contest. This isn't high school. This is life. Vote to reclaim your life and your nation with a real candidate, vote for Hillary Clinton not a rock star wannabe.

By Michael Payne of Illinois and Crystal Basler Payne of Illinois, formerly of Virginia

Posted by: thecountrygoddess | February 12, 2008 4:31 AM | Report abuse

IT'S AMAZING GRACE!

With Barack Hussein Obama's PULPIT PASSION, and his "CONGREGATION" lapping it up like gullible fools, one has to wonder if his supporters ARE IN DIRE NEED OF SOME GOOD OLD-FASHIONED, DOWNHOME RELIGION and should attend church services this Sunday.

"THERE IS HOPE!"
"AMEN!"
"YES, WE CAN!" (Yes, we can what?)
"HALLELUJAH!"
"CHANGE IS COMING!" (In the form of a contribution.)
"AMEN, DEACON!"

WE do not need a black PREACHER in the White House! WE do not need someone who is doing nothing but stirring emotions and tugging at the heartstrings of AMERICANS!

THINK! FOR THE LOVE OF THIS COUNTRY!

ALSO,OBAMA is using the same strategy that Karl Rove used when Bush ran for office---DIVIDE AND CONQUER---he certainly isn't uniting us. The media supported Bush just as it now favors Obama.

WE all realize that a MAJORITY of OBAMA'S supporters are the elite/well-educated and African-Americans. How sad it is to notice that RACISM HAS REARED ITS NASTY HEAD.


AMERICANS need to pull themselves together EMOTIONALLY and rely on their INTELLIGENCE, NOT THEIR THROBBING HEARTS! Selecting a presidential candidate is not the same as buying a valentine.

HILLARY is more qualified than OBAMA, she is more informed on issues. (This is why Obama does NOT want to debate her.) AND HILLARY STANDS FOR, AND WILL REPRESENT, ALL-AMERICA!

AND, it too, shall come to pass and come November, we shall have another Republican occupying the White House.

AMEN, BROTHER!


Posted by: jbh13 | February 12, 2008 4:09 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone on this blog actually remember anything REAL about the previous Clinton Administration? Say what you will in your Obama induced revery, but this Nation prospered during Bill's years in the White House and he would have been re-elected in 2000 if he was eligible to run. I suspect that is also true today. Hillary is the right candidate, and Senator Obama should be her running mate to unite the party. She has the experience, and despite what you are all deluding yourselves about, the vicious and well funded right wing noise machine will devour Senator Obama if he is the nominee. She can win the big States that we need to have an electoral victory. I am not moved that Obama got 60% of the vote in Idaho, Idaho has eleven people in it and they will all vote Republican in November. The neo-conservatives want to run against Obama. That is why they are playing nice with him right now. Hillary Clinton is a decent person who has spent much of her life trying to help the forgotten children of this world. Stop the snotty comments and recognize that this is a serious business and Senator Obama, no matter how smart he is, is untested. The guy makes a great speech, I will give you that, but so do a large number of televangelists. He is just as effective as Joel Osteen, and just as experienced on issues of national importance. For those of you who only know the previous Clinton Administration from the current media reporting, look at the current state of our Country. When Bill Clinton left office we were at peace, we were respected by our allies throughout the world, and our economy was healthy and Americans were working, buying houses, and generally happy. Look around and realize how far we have fallen under the pathetic leadership of George W. Bush. Get Barrack Obama on board with running for Vice-President. Let's have someone who can actually beat John McCain, and then really run the Country starting next January. I don't have time for on the job training with my next President and neither do you.

Posted by: metromitch | February 12, 2008 3:17 AM | Report abuse

Thank You KRUMBAGEL -

I was hoping that someone was going to tackle this point, which I see as yet another false claim by the Clinton Administration concerning Hillary's qualifications, and hoping it would be someone located a little closer geographically to NY who might have a more detailed memory about Hillary's battles for her Senate seat.

I do remember Rick Lazio (what ever happened to him?) being thrown into the campaign at the last minute in the hope of derailing Clinton's Senate bid, but did she face anyone at all in the Democratic Primary that year, or was it a complete gift nomination from the Democratic Party? There is no doubt that New York was an easy fit for Hillary's Senate (stepping stone to the White House) bid which was why she went the "carpetbagger route" rather than return to her home in Arkansas or her previous home in Illinois where she might have to actually run against real opponents. Clearly, her reelection was nothing but a formality in 2006. So where does all of this history of defeating Republicans in hard fought campaigns against tough competitors where she was required to fend of viscious GOP attack dogs? That clearly never happened in Arkansas! Hillary did actually seek to become governor of Arkansas, again hoping to follow in her husband's ex governor footsteps. Unfortunately, she dropped her bid when polls revealed that she was likely to lose the race to her GOP opponent and Bill had to step in and run successfully for a third term as governor of Arkansas. Thank God he can't due that with the Presidency or we might be looking at Bill taking this campaign off Hillary's hands too.

Posted by: diksagev | February 12, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Well lovelace, perhaps you might be right in a normal year...but 2008 is not normal. The level of disgust and outright loathing agaionst the Bush administration is palpable. This seems to have led to a general mobilization of voters to go to the polls in these primaries in huge numbers. If, for example, you look at the democrat versus republican turnouts across the country (even in a traditionally red state like S.C., you will find an enormous advantage for the Dems.

Now, I do not believe that huge numbers of Reps afre crossing over to the Dems -- although many are.

Rather, it may be that the way in which the Republicans are registering their disgust with Bush's inept admionistration - is to just stay home on election day.

Either way, the numbers in nearly every case are decidedly in the Dems favor.

Whether that holds for the GE, depends on who the Dems nominate and what else is happening in the world between now and then.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 12, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Well said - citystreet.

It gives me pause to think about how fragile and tenuous this leadership versus management notion is, as well.. I've been making the case, with some passion, about the differences between the guy I've come to support and Mrs. Clinton. One of the arguments I've tried to advance is that Hillary seems to be a very good legislator, smart, extremely quick on her feet with regard to policy detail, and able to "horse-trade" across the aisle. But, I've argued, she does not seem to have that capacity to inspire, the innate ability to paint a vision for folks and then to marshall the forces to work together to achieve a goal.

Now, this stumble suggests that perhaps her judgment about selecting and delegating responsibilities may not be as keen as one would hope. Of course, we are all hypersensitive about President being able to choose the correct key players to handle the work of our country...Bush has failed time after time.

So, I find myself, feeling just a little bit sorry for Hillary...but validated in my original assessment of her strengths and weaknesses.

I'm glad I've made a real commitment to Obama.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 12, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

As far as the red states that Barrack won he won't win them in general election. South carolina will never be a blue state (GA,AL,Utah, etc) Hillary can win AR, TN, OH, and maybe even FL.

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 12, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Barrack destroyed his chance with hispanics when he ran the spanish ads in Nevada. Bad decision.

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

The dilemma with Hillary's campaign is that her senior management team despite being well financed and she being the establishment candidate with access to huge resources has done a very poor job in managing her campaign. They have been completely outsmarted and out strategize by the Obama's team. One very recent glaring example was the timing in replacing Doyle, a Hispanic female, as campaign manager with Williams who happens to be a black female. They have already lost the black vote, at this point, and with Texas and Ohio having a very large percentage of Hispanic voters who they will need to rely on to stay competitive, why alienate Hispanic voters by playing another race card? The Williams for Doyle swap could have certainly waited a couple more weeks until after the Texas and Ohio primaries. They really had nothing to lose and much to gain. From the looks of thing, Obama's team does not need much help into "hacking" into the Clinton's firewall in March ...They have already provided them with the encryption key to decode the circuit. I shutter to think that these would be the same people who would be running her campaign in a general election in the event she so happens to beat Obama to the finish line for the nomination

Posted by: citystreet | February 12, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

"Either choice represents a risk for Democrats."

You nailed it, Chris.

This was true a year ago. It's still true today. The Big 3: Clinton, Obama, Edwards have always had big problems.

I voted for Obama in my state caucus, but I think Joe Biden was the most solid candidate across the board from the beginning. No one ever gave him the time of day.

Hillary and Barack have had all the flash, but also the highest potential negatives. That's what we're left with still today.

Posted by: MNobserver | February 12, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Grey is Obama your daddy???

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 12, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton Campaign has now come full circle; returning to the claim that she repeatedly trumpeted during the Iowa campain that she was the "most electable" of all the Democratic candidates. If this is the best her newly restructured campaign team can do, she is in even deeper trouble than I thought. I did not believe those claims before Christmas when Hillary still enjoyed leads of more than 20% over Obama im virtually every national poll, and I'm certainly not going to buy into it at this stage of the campaign.

By suggesting that the GOP will be able to define Obama in some negative way that will destroy his candidacy is the same old "politics of fear" that both the Clintons and Bush have been using for decades. Hillary fails to remind voters that it was largely the spector of the Clinton campaign that the GOP used to define Al Gore and many people (certainly Democrats) believe that he still beat George W Bush in 2000. Four years ago, John Kerry came very close to defeating Bush despite the fact that Bush was an incumbant and had very strong support from the right wing evangelical base. If Kerry would have ben able to turn out the vote better in one or two key states (Ohio in particular) he would have taken that election away from an incumbant who is much more popular with the GOP than McCain is in 2008. With all due respect to both Gore and Kerry, neither had the grassroots organization that Senator Obama has been building or the inspirational leadership that has created the groundswell of enthusiastic support that has been responsible for record democratic turnout in virtually every state this primary season.

Make no mistake about it; the Clintons have been looking for any way they could find to redfine Barrack Obama for the entire primary season. They have not shyed away from trying to exploit every little thing they could find or inventing lies when they came away empty in their search for skeletons in his closet. The fact that the Clintons apear to believe that every candidate running for President must have the same kind of baggage (scandals and corruption) in their background that Bill and Hillary have should tell voters everything they need to know about Hillary's candidacy.

The premise that Hillary would be better equipped to take on McCain on the issue of National Security is absolutely absurd. National Security has been the weakest area for Hillary against Senator Obama and it's downright insulting to the intelligence of Democratic voters for her campaign to suggest the she (who voted to authorize the War in Iraq) and her draft dodging husband would somehow fare better against a war hero than Senator Obama.

With McCain as the apparent GOP nominee, the independent voters will likely once again be critical in this election. It was that important block of voters that allowed the Democrats to wrestle control of Congress away from the GOP (after they lost that control in the first mid term elections after Bill and Hillary's first trip to the Oval Office. I doubt there is a political pundit anywhere who would say that Hillary has a prayer of winning the Independent Voters against McCain, but most of them would give Obama at least a slight edge with Independents. In addition to the all important Independent voters, Obama will energize the Democratic base and create a higher turnout which can deliver states that have gone to the GOP in close elections the previous two elections (the MidWest could be the key). Obama is even a threat to capture a fair amount of votes from dissatisfied Republicans (those dissatisfied both by 8 years of George W Bush's failed leadership and the nomination of McCain). All Hillary will do is energize the Republican base and those right wing radio talk show host who have not been able to get themselves into this race on their own or be inspired by Senator McCain. In addition to taking key MidWestern states away from the GOP, Senator Obama is a possible threat in several southern states that have large African American voter registration - states that Hillary has no chance whatsoever of taking. At the very least, Obama would require the GOP to work much harder and invest far more time and money to hold those states which could make them more vulnerable in several key swing states. I see no reason to doubt what the polls are saying about Clintons chances VS Obama's chances for defeating McCain. Look at the HUGE swing in momentum that has occurred over the past 3 months. Would you rather place your money (or your hopes) on the candidate who has lost 20-30 points in most states that have voted, or would you rather have the candidate who has been making up that kind of ground? Obama has fared far better in states when he has had more time on the ground to make himself known to voters; while Clinton has suffered more in states that presented a more prolonged campaign on the ground. A prolonged National campaign against McCain clearly favors Obama and works against Clinton.

I hope the Clinton campaign continues to make electability the cornerstone of their campaign for the rest of the primary season, because it is a case they can NOT win with the voters. The only thing that has prevented Clinton from losing all viability as an electable candidate at all over the course of the last 3 months is that large cushion of Super Delegate votes she has been counting on to steal the nomination away from Senator Obama. Democrats need to keep in mind that Hillary will not benefit from a single Super Delegate vote in the general election.

Barack Obama is the candidate who is best qualified to provide real "leadership" and change the direction of this country's government at a time when change is absolutely essential, AND Barack Obama is the most electable candidate in a general election against John McCain. Obama '08

Posted by: diksagev | February 12, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

dcmenefee1,

I apologize for my last comment, I did you a great injustice. I hit send too soon. I totally sympathize with you. You are making very, very valid points, and I'm just as annoyed as you are with this horse race nonsense where strategy is a daily headline and issues are buried, if considered at all.

I deeply feel that either Democratic candidate will vastly exceed anything you can expect from even the very best Republican candidate -- who I feel is Mr. McCain, by the way.

My personal measure is: who is most likely to lead a national unity government? Because I do believe we are on the edge of a precipice, and many people are laying aside ideology at the moment to deal with that. So I hate seeing ideological ranting. Which your message most certainly was not.

Again, I very much apologize.

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

OK, enough. Rezko has been fully vetted, and amounts to nothing. Besides, Rezko was widely considered a decent developer in Chicago for a vey long time. But, assuming we accept that Rezko is a problem, that pales in comparison to the Clintons' laundry list of shady deals (which are too numerous to list). And what about McCain and the Keating 5 scandal? Seriously, Obama looks like a saint compared to the Clintons and McCain.

Posted by: hikaya | February 11, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

What about the 5 hours he spend working for Rezko. He received $200,000 in campaign money not to mention the cash he got!!!

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 11, 2008 11:39 PM

^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Lovelace -- got home from work early eh?

Another hot time on the old town?

Make sure you hang up your sheet and hood.

BTW - How's that cross-burning thing workin' for ya.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

dcmenefee1,

"So where are the tough questions for Obama?"

Well, Hillary has had 18 debates to pose them directly to Obama, so I think it's a little lame to blame the MSM. Maybe you should blame Hillary? But don't: so many others are already blaming her for so much irrational nonsense, it would just be piling on.

Posted by: nodebris | February 11, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

FirstMouse, so many facts, so little context! Nice example of cherry-picking.

Posted by: nodebris | February 11, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Re: the statement: "Clinton is the more polarizing figure of the two, but what else bad could be said about her that voters haven't already heard?"

This "conventional wisdom" totally ignores that the Clintons have not been under presidential race-type scrutiny for 8 years -- 8 years in which they made a lot of money and raised huge money for Bill's library. Does anyone really not believe that the Repooblicans are not busy turning over every leaf regarding supposed Saudi contributions to the Clinton libary (the Clintons won't even release the donor list), Bill's shady dealings with Ron Burkle, more very shady sounding dealings with a Candian uranium magnate in Asia (as chronicled in the WP and NYT), etc., etc.? The vetting of Hillary (and Bill's financial dealings will be a "valid" issue, thanks in part to the $5 mil loan to the campaign) has not even begun! I am not making a pro-Obama point here, I just think the "they've given her everything they've got and she's still standing" argument for Hillary's electability is empty-headed: afetr all, her nagatives are in the mid-40 range, NOW, before the "attack machine" has even revved up this cycle.

Posted by: 504Bob | February 11, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

And, BTW all those who think that either theReps are going to eat Obama for lunch
Or
would not have tried to give Hillary her just rewards for all the "35 years of experience" she has...

Here's what I think:

Obama is a clean, lean fighting machine..

and Hillary would have been hoist on the own petard (as they say).

Luckily for her...the hundreds of bombs the Reps have waiting for her will not get dropped on her sputtering, tap-dancing candidacy.


Enough is enough.

Your ball.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

What about the 5 hours he spend working for Rezko. He received $200,000 in campaign money not to mention the cash he got!!!

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

kingofzouk spews undigested Limbaugh episodes for our amusement. Thanks for the laugh, "king!"

Posted by: nodebris | February 11, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the previous poster and would add that any cursory examination of Mrs. Clinton's 35 years of experience will find several interesting anomolies - including the 15 years she worked as a partner at the Rose law firm in Arkansas.

Then there is the time she spent as first lady in the white house...during which she crafted and guided throught Congress a comprehensive healthcare bill - with the help of her husband and a Democratic Congress.

What's that?

Oh yes, she FAILED to craft and pass a comprehensive healthcare bill with the help of her husband (the PRESIDENT) and a Democratic Congress.

Here are a few other facts that bear directly on the tremendous job the junior Senator from New York has done since she actually started earning her own political experiences.

(This listing was complied by another resercher and I post it here for your edification).


Senator Clinton, who has served six (6.) years in the Senate including a year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation.

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 Revolution 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 System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Obama's list is too substantive, so to categorize, (however) 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 veteran's affairs and many others

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he co-authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427.

These included **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.

www.thomas.loc.gov

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

As even the untrained eye can see...Hillary has contributed mightly to advance the cause of freedom, justice and the American way.

NOT!

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Umm, Thinker, proudtobeGOP, why are so intent on maintaining that Obama has no substance? You both seem adept at using the internet - why not do a simple search and watch one of the numerous Q&A sessions Obama has done in the past few months? See, for example, the nearly hour-long discussion with the SF chronicle editorial board. He is just as good, if not better than Hillary at details and issues (he was president of HLS Law review after all, where details are key). Obama makes inspirational speeches because that's what you're supposed to do in front of 20,000 people. His speech fits the forum. Obama supporters are not just blind followers - we know he is both substance and style.

Posted by: hikaya | February 11, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

mgcrhcp:

"I am a registered democrat. I will vote for ANYONE running against hillary clinton !!!"

Then you should certainly un-register as a Democrat. Obama and Clinton are two of our very best hearts and minds, and if you can't support either, I don't know what you are, but you certainly aren't a Democrat.

Posted by: nodebris | February 11, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Barrack likes to say that his judgment is superior to Hillary but if you look at his record as an Illinois State senator you will see bad judgments and poor decision making. His dealings with Rezko and the poor people he let down as their only representative is unbelievable. His past will be his undoing.

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

Clinton feels experience is the best measure of leadership and being there taking heat makes her best able to take more heat.

Obama believes leadership is about vision, about his ability to work with others, about making decisions based on moral guidance.

Which kind of leader do you want, one with lots of experience who others dislike alot and attack alot? Or, a leader with a vision of where we need to go in the future and how to get us there by working with others. The choice is all ours. Go for it.

Posted by: dbc12390 | February 11, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

I'll say it! Race will be a factor in the general election. More than sex, race will cause Barrack to lose. He has used it when he needed to (South Carolina) and it will come back to cost him. Barrack would be a disaster for the Democrats. The people I know will not vote for him because they see him as using his race to beat down his opponents and at the same time saying he above all the race baiting.

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 11, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

As we know, the Thinker likes to get in someone's face and ask questions.

A couple of days ago the Thinker threw out a different sort of challange.
I responded, as is my wont to do, but he never signed back on...

so I thought that maybe he would enjoy reading what I had to offer on the Idea that Republicans would never...


Thinker wrote:
Republicans are never going to vote for Obama - what a ploy.

^^^^^^^^

Hey thinker --you must be right - of course. I think that you must be mostly right...

But this is what they (the moderate Republicans) are writing about in the public press:

"What is at the core of Obama's appeal?

Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. By all accounts, Obama is a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable. ....

A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt. Among the effects of the Obama-Clinton race is that it is forcing Democrats to come to grips with the mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine.

Conservatives have long believed that the Clintons are an unprincipled pair who will destroy those who stand between them and power --

When the Clintons were doing this in the 1990s, it was viewed by many Democrats as perfectly acceptable. Some even applauded them for their brass-knuckle tactics. But now that the Clintons are roughing up an inspiring young man who appears to represent the hope and future of the Democratic Party, the liberal establishment is reacting with outrage. "I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons," writes Jonathan Chait of the New Republic. Many conservatives respond: It's about time.

A third reason for Obama's GOP appeal is that unlike Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama has a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment. He stresses that "out of many we are one."

And to his credit, Barack Obama is running a color-blind campaign. "I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina," Obama said in his victory speech last weekend. "I saw South Carolina."

That evening, his crowd of supporters chanted as one, "Race doesn't matter." This was an electric moment. Obama's words are in the great tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. Obama, more than any figure in America, can help bind up the racial wounds of America.

In addition, for the past eight years, one of the most prominent qualities of the American left has been anger, which has served it and the country very poorly. An Obama primary win would be a move away from the politics of rage."

The writer, formerly deputy assistant to President Bush, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So... thinker, if you take a few minutes to read the newspapers (opinion pages and letters to the editors) of 2 dozen daily newspapers - and do that every day - like some political junkies do - what you see is a huge number of Republican faithful beginning to listen to Obama's message of HOPE and TRUST in each other.

As he tells audiences (he spoke yesterday in Seattle while Hillary was just down the street) like the 17,000 who completely filled the arena and to the additional 4,500 who stood outside (in the rain)"

"We ARE the ones We've been waiting for."

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

If the Democratic Party plays not to lose, the only thing they are promising themselves is not to win. Kerry was the safe choice. Unfortunately, he was the wrong choice. Do not do it again.

Posted by: clwhitworth | February 11, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Like many of us - I read a lot of comments and blogs posted to open (or close) conversations.
Yesterday I ran across a sudden flood of commentary that addressed criticsms of Barack Obama's record.

One was posted by: Chilmark on February 10, 2008.

Here is an excerpt worth taking the time to read.

***
Similarly, people often wonder whether Obama's call for a new kind of politics is just empty words. Here again, I think he has a real record to point to. He has consistently worked for ethics reform. In Illinois, where he helped pass what the WaPo called "the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure."
In the US Senate, he was the Democrats' point man on ethics, and was deeply involved in the ethics legislation passed this year. He didn't get all he wanted -- for instance, he and Russ Feingold couldn't get a bill establishing an Office of Public Integrity to deal with Congressional scandals. But he accomplished a lot, and wants to accomplish more.

Moreover, he is very interested in open government. The searchable database of government grant and contract recipients that I mentioned above is part of that.

But Obama's proposals (pdf) go further.

For instance, consider these proposals:
* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

* Create a Public "Contracts and Influence" Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients -- or tax earmarks -- are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

These are all proposals designed to allow public scrutiny of the business of government. As I read it, one of Obama's goals in introducing them is to permanently alter the incentives politicians have.

As long as legislators did not have to disclose their earmarks, there was no way of finding out that the person who stuck a favor for an obscure casino in one state into an appropriations bill was from another state entirely. There was therefore no way for that person's constituents to wonder why s/he was expending political capital on people outside the district, and no way for reporters to see just who was doing that casino favors. Once legislators have to own up to their earmarks, however, that changes. It won't make abuse go away, of course, but it does make it a lot easier for people to notice and object to the fact that their representatives are doing inexplicable favors for people they have no obvious reason for caring about.

Likewise, if all bills had to be posted to the internet five days before they were voted on signed (oops), it would be much, much more difficult for Congress to sneak some appalling provision through in the dead of night.

If all contracts over $25,000 had to be competitively bid, certain sorts of corruption would be a lot more difficult to carry out. And if there were a database of tax breaks and tax earmarks, not to mention a database of lobbyists, it would, again, be much, much easier to track who was doing favors for whom, and why.

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

Posts like these can help those of us who like the person to begin to see how he might debate against John McCain, (who is a fiscal hawk), and how he will lead this country.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama is on Larry King right now. Obama is uniting folks around hope not race.
______

Is that like when she says to an all black audience, "It's our turn" or "Black People should vote for Barack because we need a black President". Just wondering, because I've followed her on C-Span and I've never seen such blatant race-baiting. But the media completely ignores it. Wonder why?
m

Posted by: brigittepj | February 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

gandalf (hardly) - you're here! You say: Yes we can what. Yes We Can - what??? Please be specific - because Obama hasn't been and I'm dying to know.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 09:12 PM

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

Thank you very much for asking...I would have answered sooner but I was busy watching the next First Lady of the United States of America being interviewed on Larry King live. What a performance...and she was great!

Anyway...you asked a legitimate question, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a legitimate answer:

The campaign chant "YES WE CAN" grew out of the civil rights and labor organizing struggles of the early sixties and later.

Obama uses it in his rallies to motivate the crowd and get them off their feet and shouting. (In his rally warm-ups the staff use other slogans and shout responses).

Because Barack turned down big six-figure salaries upon graduating from Harvard Law School (he was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and thereby was offered many corporate positions) and worked instead as a community organizer on the street of south Chicago, he became quite familiar with using language to exhort and motivate volunteers to bring about community support for neighborhood change and development.

He adopted some of these slogans and shout responses when he moved into politics. They have become synonomous with his message of change. Now they are shorthand for his whole enegetic and uplifting style.

Here is an example of how he uses the term - I took these sentences from his victory speech in South Carolina.

Barack said "....When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who is now devoted to educating inner city-children and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change.

Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.

Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.

And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words -- yes, we can.

*******

So, Thinker, thanks for asking.

I know that you do not like him....but sometimes it is wise to understand what your adversary is all about.

Maybe I helped you do that.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I completely disagree with the assertions here that Obama is the stronger candidate to face McCain. First, he has never faced a viable opponent until this campaign where he quickly chose to play the race card and the polls are based on what the public KNOWS about Barack, (which is nothing).

Now the Clinton camp, who have unfairly been painted as racists, are afraid to even critisize him, even though he's out there trashing Hillary and saying she's unelectable.

The Republicans will not be afraid. They will jump on his past drug use, his lack of experience, the photo that shows him clearly disrespecting the flag, his refusal to wear a flag pin, his vote to ban the ownership of handguns, his pressing the wrong button when voting, his voting present 130 times, his absolute lack of any military experience or knowledge, his 17 year relationship with Rezko, the U-tube video of Larry Sinclair, and anything else they can possibly dream up.

It will be ugly and he won't get away with whining about racism or anything else because they don't care. Hell, Bush said McCain had a black baby to win SC. Get the drift?

Dream on if you think Barack will ever be president.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 11, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Hillary has copied Barack's messages and themes. Initally she was all about experience then she became the "agent of change" when she realized that the voters wanted it and it was benefiting Barack. Also, now suddenly her new theme is "Yes we can!" also copied from Obama once she realized that it connected with voters. Hillary is a political chameleon. You can't trust what you see and hear from her.

Posted by: zb95 | February 11, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

for not four.... got way too excited for a blargument. I need to go to Europe.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

"CHANGE" is so freaking vague. He says nothing. She has it all together. I don't even know why she puts up with us and this. Brilliant vs the Pied Piper.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

It's ok for Obama - because he is half black - to use race in this election. Because, as we all know, every average American black kid is like his -- going to private schools and taking ballerina lessons. He takes time out from his busy schedule to get to those ballerina recitals. Oh My Gawd. What a Dad.
After the recital, per his latest speech tonight he's "gonna go forward and change America, and change the world. Thank you Maryland, I love ya." Oh my Gawd Obama. Spare me the ha ha ha. Then he will buy us all saunas, ballerina lessons four our kids and a masseuse and political and media consultants like David Axelrod. Geeze, we - too, can be free and rich and President. I'm being insulted. My intelligence is totally insulted. I know Hillary is the only one who cares about me and my REAL problems.

Hillary is Chris Everett - she has the finesse and the court coverage - knows what she is doing, needs to do and doesn't over-promise. She says it won't be easy getting everything done. She is honest with us. So important in a leader.

Obama is... well, either dishonest or just plain ridiculously naïve.

GO HILLARY CLINTON - the REALIST WITH EVERYTHING PLUS THE HONEST TRUTH IT TAKES vs THE FLATTERING SHOW HORSE OBAMA

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

JD, I have to agree with Thinker...Obama is the pied piper. Yes we can what??? Yes We Can - what??? He has yet to explain or offer substance of any real sort.

His speeches are like rhetorical souffle's; words and pitch rising higher and higher as folks nod their heads. They dutifully genuflect to his visions and poetry, his promises of unity sound so grand, so nirvana-ish. But there's nothing behind the rhetoric... there's no meat on the bones.

Just because he makes empty promises more convincingly than Hillary doesn't make them any less empty.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 11, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama was just on Larry King. Wow. What an impressive person. She will make a great First Lady. Gutsy to come on national live television the night before one of the biggest days in this race... and she nailed it!

Posted by: zb95 | February 11, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

to thinker: --------- Lets replace HOPE with LIES...would that not bring us back in the era of prez BU_ll_SH_it ??

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 11, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

to thinker: --------- Lets replace hope with lies...would that not bring us back in the era of prez BU_ll_SH_it ??

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 11, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I am sure Chelsea Clinton grew up like the average American.

Better leave off on the Obama as elitist line of attack. The McCain/Conde ticket is authentic if you want to go average American.

But good job getting off the all capitals.
Now we see you really think.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 11, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Reports from around the MD,VA,DC area indicate there is little support for Hilary Clinton. Looks like 3 more blowouts for Obama. I think Hillary OH, TX strategy is flawed. Obama's bigmo in February will carry through to the March primaries.

Posted by: zb95 | February 11, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't be safer to nominate someone who can with the larger states, which would also include Florida and Michigan which favor Clinton?

Posted by: dcmenefee1 | February 11, 2008 08:08

There are several false assumptions in your argument. Firstly, do you seriously think that Obama would not carry the usual Democratic states? Secondly, the Florida Democratic primary voters are quite a different species than the overall Florida electorate. Assume that either Democratic candidate will carry the reliably blue states and the question is - which one can bring additional states into the D column. It seems obvious, based on results so far, that Obama can expand the electorate and attract more independent swing voters than Clinton. That is how elections are won. Clinton's assertions that she has done better in the bluest states are totally irrelevant to the task of assembling a winning electoral combination in November. She has very little crossover appeal and the highest negatives of any candidate in the race.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Thinker, you might stop humiliating yourself anytime now.

What is your beef with Obama? Is it policy based? If so, which ones, and how are HRC's better?

Is it because his kids go to private school? You mean like Hillary's did (Sidwell Friends)?

Posted by: JD | February 11, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

How many average American's have ballerina classes to get to? Obama does, along with PTA and Halloween. Real people issues. If McCain takes Condoleezza Rice for VP - watch out Obama. Big guns and experience competition.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Hope not race Michelle Obama says.... Well...
Is HOPE going to stop the ice caps from melting? Is HOPE going to feed your kids? Is HOPE going to lower your energy bills? Is HOPE going to get you affordable healthcare? Is HOPE going to get you your next job when you're laid off? Is HOPE going to find the next energy source. He steals Hillary's ideas - all of a sudden talking green energy. What a flattering fake.
Her kids go to a private school. She takes nothing for "granite".

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Hope not race Michelle Obama says.... Well...
Is HOPE going to stop the ice caps from melting? Is HOPE going to feed your kids? Is HOPE going to lower your energy bills? Is HOPE going to get you affordable healthcare? Is HOPE going to get you your next job when you're laid off? Is HOPE going to find the next energy source. He steals Hillary's ideas - all of a sudden talking green energy. What a flattering fake.
Her kids go to a private school. She takes nothing for granite.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama is on Larry King right now. Obama is uniting folks around hope not race. Questionable. Depends which day and state he's in. But even if he is, hope isn't a promise of anything. That's very unfortunate. Hope doesn't pay the bills. Hope doesn't fill my oil tank. Hope doesn't feed the kids. Hope doesn't "change" the world. Hillary will work for us, Obama just wants to flatter us. I don't need to be willy nilly inspired, I need to know I have a capable leader of the free world who can take care of the economy and has specific, thought out plans for doing this. She is brilliant. He is a Pied Piper - and a full of himself Leo at that.

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

Hillary is on the ropes. NYT article tomorrow first paragraph:

=====

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said Monday.

==========

Finally some reality from NYT. Hillary is finished.

Posted by: zb95 | February 11, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

mike, I would say that Hillary has a decent shot at winning.

In terms of contrasts though -- the war; lobbyist dollars; the Washington politician angle -- Obama makes for the substantially better general election contrast.

McCain trumps Clinton on the government program angle over health care (people want it, but I'm guessing they don't want to be forced into a one-size fits all Washington solution as would be the case with a universal top-down mandate).

Clinton can make a slight contrast on Iraq, but the way that she's come to her position is much harder to defend (she was for it until it became unpopular; McCain is for it without any regard to its popularity; Obama was against the entire exercise from the beginning at a time when his position was unpopular).

On social issues, Clinton might be able to triangulate OK and neutralize these issues.

Her biggest burden though is Bill, coupled with the couples unwillingness to be forthcoming about potential conflicts of interest. (What's this nonsense about not releasing tax returns until AFTER she gets the nomination? The Clinton library donors list? The White House papers in reference to relevant areas like the disastrous health care reform). The Clintons carry an awful lot of baggage with them. In a national election the specter of the Marc Rich pardon still hangs over the couple like an albatross.

As far as the Obama has no substance argument goes, I think that's more of a statement about the declining literacy rates in this country than it is a statement about the candidate himself. Any half-hearted trip to the candidate's website, a book store, or to periodicals like Foreign Affairs offer sufficient evidence that this guy has thought long and hard, and dealt first hand with a number of the issues that are likely to confront him as president.

Posted by: JPRS | February 11, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

gandalf (hardly) - you're here! You say: Yes we can what. Yes We Can - what??? Please be specific - because Obama hasn't been and I'm dying to know.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I support Universal Healthcare which is one of the reasons I support Sen. Clinton. Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain both oppose Universal Healthcare. Is that why so many of Sen. Obama's supporters say that they will vote for Sen. McCain if Sen. Obama loses?


Posted by: Democrat08 | February 11, 2008 08:58 PM


Yeah, me too. I don't want to pay for healthcare. If the Government were to pay for it, it would be free!

JD

:-)

Posted by: JD | February 11, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3352017.ece

"Asked to cite the differences between herself and this "shiny new toy Barack Obama", she replied: "Well, I'm battle scarred. And I'm proud of those scars.""

"Yesterday Mrs Clinton dismissed claims that the appointment indicated her White House run was beginning to lose its way. Instead, she said: "There is just too much to be done, so we had to add some more people. There really is not significant change, we really just got to get more help.""

"She suggested that Mr Obama's multiple victories in caucus states - including many of those holding elections last weekend - were of far less value because they are "dominated by activists which don't represent the electorate". She even appeared derisive when discussing earlier contests such as heavily Republican Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska. "We're not going to win them ," Mrs Clinton said."

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 11, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

shrink2. Thanks for the tip.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Yeah - we members of the VRWC did that, we even stained the dress, stole the files, sold the pardons, etc.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 04:24 PM


Zouk, you actually raise an interesting point (maybe accidently?). If HRC is running largely on Bill's record of accomplishments (and her 'participation' in them), does she then have to reasonably defend his record of shame (especially the pardons given to Rich, a fugitive not even convicted, and something no other president has done).

Likewise, will her famous temper come out the way McCain's has? It's widely known that she throws lamps, fired the travel office folks to get her own people in there, etc.

Posted by: JD | February 11, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no substance. All parade. Won't get down off the float and talk to Americans Q&A... why? Because he's afraid we'll see how little is there. Imagine him really being in a room with a dangerous or TRULY powerful foreign leader. Gawd. What a picture. Maybe he'll try to speech and woo the man/woman. Can't speech and woo foreign leaders - have to have REAL answers. Not fluffy flatteries for whatever crowd he's appealing to.

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

hey "thinker"


Here is a hint.

People who talk to each other "on line"

;-)

they don't use all capitals or leave their fingers on the !!!!!!!!!!!!! button,

unless they want to expose themselves.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 11, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

I support Universal Healthcare which is one of the reasons I support Sen. Clinton. Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain both oppose Universal Healthcare. Is that why so many of Sen. Obama's supporters say that they will vote for Sen. McCain if Sen. Obama loses?

Posted by: Democrat08 | February 11, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Half the country hates Clinton and will never vote for her. Obama is going to raise a ton of cash and can define himself before the Republicans get the chance.

Posted by: fulch | February 11, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse


VERY, VERY, VERY SIMPLE.

HILLARY vs OBAMA = WORKHORSE vs SHOWHORSE

ANSWERS vs PIED PIPER

REALITY vs ANYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR

Posted by: Thinker | February 11, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Chris, for keeping the analysis even-handed. I think both Clinton and Obama would be pretty roughed up by the Republican P.R. machine by the time November comes around, and it's truly an open question which one of the two can tough it out better. That said, McCain supports an incredibly unpopular war and has buddied up to an incredibly unpopular president, and if the Democrats can continue to link McCain to the status quo, either Hillary or Barack has a decent shot at winning. Personality? Experience? Flip a coin.

Posted by: mike | February 11, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

dcmenefee

Turns out he is not a psychotic, ALL CAPITALS person. Suddenly a number wonk.

I wonder how many people here are paid to do this? How many of these Clinton posts, so relentlessly "on message" are from the same staph member?

I bet gandalfthegrey is a real person.

I bet Mr. Krishnam. is real and chrisfox and I sure as hell am. I work with the homeless mentally ill, a population so despised and feared...they don't vote, but they are the relatives of people just like you.

This is not a game anymore, this is about the soul of this country. Will Bill and Hillary do better than they did last time?

Barak Obama people, lets get behind him and see if he can help us. We need it.


Posted by: shrink2 | February 11, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

1. Hillary is "not" the experienced candidate of 35 years of government experience. That is playing loose with the facts. Hillary is what she is, a term and half Senator, state & US first lady, and lawyer who has private practice experience.

She has the highest negatives of any candidate, which are nearly equal to what she and Bill had seven years ago when he left office (Bill has fared a lot better). She has most of the "true" support that she is going to get. Even if the rest of the Dem party backs her, it will be lukewarm (more anti-Bush than pro-Hillary).

It seems her only chance is a strategy of 50% plus 1 in all the states Kerry won plus either OH or FL to win a general election. (Similar to the 2000/2004 Rove/Bush strategy).

2. Barack is a liberal and yes, the Republicans will use that and other personal attacks against him (his drug use as a young man for example). The question is does he respond like Kerry or stand up and fight as he did against the Clintons in SC? Kerry lost because he let himself at Swiftboated and defined (flip-flopper).

Barack is not the unknown that he been painted. He has had a lot of coverage and most people recognize him now. The question is as he speaks beyond the "change" core of his campaign, will the swing voters support him? He has shown a perceived level of honesty that could be very endearing to voters, or a weight that could drag him down.

3. McCain has always had problems with the Republican party, long before SC 2000. He is a well-known moderate ironically not so different from Bush I. It will help with independent voters but hurt him with fundraising for the general election.

McCain is going to do well with the groups who support him now but can he convince swing votes he is the "real deal"? More likely, if he wins, it will because of "not them" votes then "for him" voters.

Posted by: rhinohide | February 11, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

hello, another one:

'Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) will announce this evening that he will retire from the House upon the conclusion of his current term, according to a well-placed Republican source.'

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama named the "most liberal" Senator?

Some post that like it's a bad thing .. I bet it gives him another boost.

My how times have changed.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zb95 | February 11, 2008 07:30 PM

"...Obama has inspired me to get out and do this. Hillary does nothing for me. In fact she deinspires me."

To which I respond:

YES WE CAN

The intense, widespread and deep revulsion for the Bush Administration and its policies of foolish bluster, smirking denial of failure and nearly universal ineptitude here and abroad, have combined rather unexpectedly with the power and hope expressed by Barack Obama to generate a tsunami of voter commitment to throw the rascals out of office. I feel sorry for the old war hero. Ever a warrior, he is going to throw his body on the grenade of certain defeat.

Your volunteer assistance will be well valued and much appreciated. Mine was and still is. In the meanwhile - log on to his website and donate a few bucks. Doing so made me feel like I was part of the most amazing political experience I've seen since JFK.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

A Hillary nomination could lend itself to charge of being a flip-flopper; kind of like John Kerry. She voted for the war--has not exactly renounced her support for it, yet she wants to end it.

Posted by: lieb666 | February 11, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Hello Mr. Fix

I was tabulating states Clinton and Obama won to see which states bring the most electoral college votes in a general election.

So Far:

Obama 159
Clinton 185

After the Potomac primaries, assuming Obama sweeps, it will be even, because MD, VA, and DC total 26 electoral votes.

The March primaries are supposed to favor Clinton. States which are rich in electoral votes in the general election.

Will party leaders (Super Delegates) weigh this when determining electability?

Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are worth 75 electoral votes. If Clinton sweeps it may be a tough call. While Obama has picked off the small game Clinton has proven she can win in delegate rich states.

There is also a concern the red states Obama has won have small Democratic minorities and will probably go red anyway.

Wouldn't be safer to nominate someone who can with the larger states, which would also include Florida and Michigan which favor Clinton?

Posted by: dcmenefee1 | February 11, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Face it, if there's one thing the Republican Party is unified in it's dislike/hatred of Hillary Clinton. A nomination of Hillary would likely cause the Republican Party to paper over their differences and unite behind Mccain.

Posted by: lieb666 | February 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

danram, I think many of us are curious to see how an inside the Beltway politician like McCain fares in 2008.

We all know about McCain's service to this country. He is an American hero. However, in more recent years he has become the king of flip flops. He is fueling his campaign with huge wads of special interest money the likes of which he has decried the past few years. He now wants to make Bush's "dump more debt on your grandchildren tax cuts" permanent, and the guy is talking about a 100 year war.

Did I mention that Mr. Straight-Talk has SIXTY lobbyist bundlers working for his campaign?

It kind of makes me worry that he might have another S&L relapse.

This is coming from a Virginia voter who broke McCain's direction in the 2000 primary. Needless to say, a lot has changed over the past 8 years.

Posted by: JPRS | February 11, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Te Hillary folks still haven't realized that Obama is winning the electability argument. He's got a moderate base and the change factor.

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

Posted by: parkerfl | February 11, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

"Vote Obama and the join the New American Majority. And don't worry, the Clintons will join us and BOTH will play key roles in guiding this country's FUTURE."

You make a very telling point here: you confidently assert that if Obama wins the nomination the Clintons will turn up to support him.

I completely agree with you. Hilary herself recently stated as much by reminding people that - regardless of whether the nominee was a man or a woman - in November they needed to vote for the Democratic nominee. But can you tell me this: when have Obama or his wife Michelle ever indicated that they will stump for the Democratic nominee if it is not Obama? Recently Michelle was asked if she would be on the hustings in November if the nominee were Clinton, and she would not answer it.

Obama can show he is the Great Uniter by coming out and saying that both Michelle and he will be out there for the Deomcratic nominee even if it is not him.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

..."block [Republicans] from playing the national security card,"...

Someone once said: It's the economy stupid.

Posted by: DonJasper | February 11, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I tend to agree with Mr. Penn. As an ardent McCain supporter, I would rather run against Barack Obama in the Fall. The reason for this is that while Hillary can, claim (accurately or not) to be moderately left-of-center while McCain is moderately right-of-center, there's no denying that Barack Obama is a creature of the EXTREME left. He was just named the U.S. Senate's most liberal member, beating out such luminaries as Russ Feingold, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy for that honor. THAT takes some doing! Plus, he is woefully inexperienced in foreign affairs, and that's something the Republicans can use against him with McCain.

Obama has been able to get a free pass in the primary season, making soaring speeches about "change" but offering relatively little in the way of specifics. But once the GOP contest is formally ended and the party turns its attention to the Democrats, Obama is going to have to account for his very liberal voting record as well as the very liberal positions on issues he has consistently taken. In short, the more people find out about who Barack Obama really is and what he would do as president, the better John McCain is going to look. Hillary comes with her own set of baggage, which is substantial. But all things considered, but I'd rather run against Obama in the Fall.

Posted by: danram | February 11, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to rain on the Obama parade, but he does have very little experience on the national stage. Can he just keep giving those great speeches? In the past democrats have put forth liberals from the northeast and have generally been big losers. That doesn't speak well for Hillary. It's a democratic election to lose but you could have said the same about the last two and Bush won both. No matter who, its going to boil down to Florida and Ohio. The democrats might pick off a small red state or two, but it will still be close. Obama is a real wild card for the democrats. He could win big but he could also lose big. Hillary would probably win. My guess is that both bases will turn out in big numbers because by October people will really be engaged in the campaign. This is a big-big election for the religious right and those interested in the Courts. It's going to be fun to watch and when its over, we will all still be here.

Posted by: pg1923 | February 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA by plan has thus far avoided giving us any clue as to what plan he might have on any issue. His campaign has been a series of bell ringer applause lines coupled with a repeated "yes we can". Since he has virtually no voting record and has aggressively used the "present" tactic for voting he offers the Republicans a very low profile to attack him from. On the other side of the coin,however, the more creative Republicans will build and try to sell a profile of him that would make him Americas last choice as a candidate. We shall see.

Posted by: AZdave | February 11, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis: every time zouk gets a response it guarantees she will be here another two weeks. Just ignore her, scrupulously, and keep ignoring her no matter how wildly she posts looking for attention.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"Realize they know not what they do."

But accept willful ignorance only so long. Forgivness is golden. But can anyone continually forgive for the same thing over and over? No. The person who is wronging must repent and change. If they do not do that, as a chrsitian and holding "chrsitians" or the religous right to account, then they are not chrsitians.

I can say Sean hannity regardless of waht he says is not a christian. What he says or does that I don't know is irrelevant. Smae with O'Reilly. Coulter wearing a cross makes me sick physically. :) You are not a chrsitian/american patriot/buddist/pilot/police man/anything by your words. We are by our actions.

Love your enemy is the greatest of all concepts. Even when they must pay for crimes, still don't hate them. Justice is what it is. Big differance. does the right hate all or most muslims? What about liberals? socialists? The media? judges? gay people? and on and on and on. Chrsitians? We'll let god sort that one out. I'm calling bullsh*t. I'm not letting them claim chrsitians and misleading the herd. The cbn is now republcain propoganda. I'm calling bull sh*t. Fight for your religon chrstiians. Do not let the political fascist dictate. You can worship under a tree. Do not sell your souls, any chrsitians out there

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Just in ...

American Research Group shows Obama beating Clinton tomorrow AMONG WOMEN!!!

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

In Maryland, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton among men 57% to 34% (43% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads Clinton AMONG WOMEN 54% to 40%. ...

In Virginia, Obama leads Clinton among men 59% to 35% (45% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads Clinton AMONG WOMEN 53% to 40%.

LET'S TAKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BACK TO A HIGHER ROAD ...

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 11, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Right ddraper81. We should fear rush and fox? What is a newsman with zero credibility? A propogandist?

anyone that would not vote for obama due to what fox or rush says, was never going to vote for him anyways. Anyone who would willingly give up their own mind and vote to another to control is a sheep. Do not fear the sheep. Without their masters they are powerless. Unlike the patriotic movement going on with us. Bottom up, rather than gop top down. OR should I say trickle down? ahahhahahahaha

We shold fear rush and fox? If they even make it though the year I'll be impressed. Do I fear them? About as much as I fear stubbing my toe. Wasn't always that way. I was worried for this coutnry for a spell. When people WERE blinded and follwoing a real cult. that scared me. When they were not looking at facts or laws and taking marching orders from lying propoandists for profit.

Those days are a distant memory, thank God. Now, do I fear them? No. They are powerless. Even with their viewers and their cult followers, they still are powerless. Less than 20% of america. Do not fear what the right wing attack machine will do or say. They had their balls cut, by their people. About time. I wondered openly for years why and how. How can people follow these liars and propogandists nothing what they are and why they do and say what they do. Party over country was is and will always be treason.

I was hopeless and scared for my country.I, it felt like, fought these demons on my own, with God. Now I see I was not alone. God will always be with us. If we stay loyal. and don't sell him out for power and money like the catholic church and the "religous" right did. Like the catholics. God leaves you when you leave him. God is always with us. He/she doesn't come when you call. But He/She is always on time. Sometimes God, as well as america, just needs to know who is on it's side, and who is one their own side. Or evils side or money or party. All are treason. Regradless of what propogandists tell you. Love your country and it's freedoms. Fight for your country whatever side your on. Remember we all all americans. both sides feel the other is misled. Fine. But we are all americans. Even if the right forgets this for decades on end. Do not recipracate. Jail criminals but do not hate the gop like they do us. If you are an american. Espiecally of you are a christian. Love your "enemy". Realize they know not what they do.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem if Hillary is the nominee, we will lose all the excitement and enthusiasm Obama has generated. I for one will actively campaign for Barack if he is the nominee but I won't if Hillary is it. I have never worked or volunteered for any candidate before. Obama has inspired me to get out and do this. Hillary does nothing for me. In fact she deinspires me.

Posted by: zb95 | February 11, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

It is easy for anyone with a sound mind to see that Obama is much stronger in the general election. He would walk all over McCain.

Clinton is un-electable in the general election ( period ).

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 11, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

All I can say is that so called analysis that Mark Penn is putting out is less elementary than my 5 year old nephew can come up with. The fact is when Obama gets pass Hillary - - and he will, he is going to kill John McCain. He is already preparing for, he has basically said "Bring It Own". The Republicans will not be able to use any of those tactics on Obama. They do not understand this "movement". We are ready. Everybody already knows what they are going to try and do. It will not work. Lifelong Republicans have already publicly endorsed Obama. Not a one has or will ever endorse or vote for Hillary and this is fact.

Posted by: ddraper81 | February 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is winning the liberal-elite vote now, but if he is already having problems convincing the moderate half of the democratic party, he will have a very hard time in the general election.

Posted by: ghokee | February 11, 2008 06:59 PM
"

Explain. He has destroyed her in most states. What states has she destroyed him by, by double digits leads? Arkansas? Excuse me.

He wins by 20 and thirty points, in idaho by 60%. White votes. iowa?

You clinton supporters crack me up. But yo uhave to elaborate for people to buy it. Please do. What states has she destroyed him in. I can list the ones he killed her in. She squeaks by in her vicotries. When that happens the delegate totals are even. She only won nevada and california due to illegal votes.

you clinton supporters sure do grasp at straws. How are clinton's lying propogandists any differant from bush's? They're the same people in most cases.

clinton is the republcains only hope. For all her supporters who lie spin and discredit here. You show yoru face.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

And it's pretty clear that all the Republicans have "he's a liberal," "he's inexperienced on foreign policy," and Rezko.
---------------------

Those are more significant issues than you make them appear. Most of the country isn't blogging on WashingtonPost.com. Most want to know that the commander-in-chief has some experience and most do not want someone whose answer to every societal-ill is government subsidies.

McCain's security and spending policies will be very appealing to middle-america.

Obama is winning the liberal-elite vote now, but if he is already having problems convincing the moderate half of the democratic party, he will have a very hard time in the general election.

Posted by: ghokee | February 11, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

You suck at life.

hahahhahahahahahha.

Zouk needs to be in a nice safe place. an institution that will take care of him. He needs help. He's sick. Conservatism is a disease after all. :) America is the cure.

The fascists are not americans. They are fascists living here. they hate our freedoms. If I could send you all to northern canada, if it would make you people happy, I would. then we could build this great nation without gop sabotage for profit

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

My healthcare provider sucks, I'm unemployed, and I have a nephew in Iraq. I want healthcare but not at the cost bankrupt the country for generations. I want the troops out of Iraq, but I don't want my nephew to live the rest of his life knowing he abandoned his Iraqi friends. And, I want an economic recovery that benefits the middle class. I want to know these things.

Posted by: dcmenefee1 | February 11, 2008 04:34 PM

A little more time pounding the pavement and a little less time on line and you might find a job. Since you are so interested in Hillary, perhaps you could find a new career in the military fighting for the war she supported.

Posted by: eor11 | February 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

So, continue friends, yes you can ruin this country by electing one of the most inexperienced, manipulative candidates in the history of politics.

All of the people who don't have healthcare and have lost their houses, those who are really feeling the pinch of our sliding economy are making the right choice: Hillary Clinton.

And for every upscale Republican /Independent vote Obama supporters feel so smugly assured of, what happens when a traditional blue collar or older voters is lost ?? Because he has shown very little penetration of her base communities and there is every reason to expect them to continue to feel alienated by rhetorical promises to their very real everyday hardships.

All of these exaulted assertions that there is somehow a straight line between winning caucus Independent/Republican college students and victory in November is patently ridculous. It is likely many are even choosing him as a set up for McCain to most easily knock off.


nd that mandate is quite simple:

-END the Bush Doctrine and EVOLVE American foreign policy

-Make health care more affordable and accessible IMMEDIATELY

-Pass a COMPREHENSIVE immigration bill and ensure that our boarders are SAFE

-LEAD the world on fighting terrorism, speading human rights and protecting our environment.

-If we get on that path, I suspect the ECONOMY will be just fine.

Vote Obama and the join the New American Majority. And don't worry, the Clintons will join us and BOTH will play key roles in guiding this country's FUTURE.

So Obama gets to Washington and passes around position papers to Republicans and lobbyists off his web site. Oh, here's my mandate by the way -- I never talked about the issues directly to the people, but all these moderates voted for me. So you can bet they all agree on these position and that's what we're going to have to do together. Besides I'm such a nice guy who got where I am by virtue of my skin color...you can bet anyone that has accumulated power and wealth in this administration is going to be mighty impressed by such a charismatic message.

Posted by: elayman | February 11, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I think the Obama campaign's bareknuckle response to Bush's comments yesterday should indicate exactly how a GE campaign would be fought by Obama. And it's pretty clear that all the Republicans have "he's a liberal," "he's inexperienced on foreign policy," and Rezko. Well, obviously independents don't care that he's a liberal. And the Republicans can't possibly expect to win a foreign policy argument this cycle. And Rezko is a stupid blunder that Obama was very up front about. McCain has a few small skeletons like that, plus his flip-flops on things like the tax cuts which Obama has already signaled he will hit hard on. Clinton has way, way more than either of them.

Posted by: Nissl | February 11, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you are a giant, throbbing tumor on the side of this comments section and every other one you've posted in.

And I'm surprised you tell people to get a job. You either don't have one or are very terrible at it - you're blabbering right-wing troll rhetoric 24/7. Plus you suck at life and are an idiot. You lose.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 11, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats should be eager -- not afraid -- to have the 2008 election turn on a referendum on whether Americans want to continue paying for the indefinite occupation of Iraq, and more so, whether we will start new Americans wars -- i.e., whether they want to have the same neoconservative extremists who got us into Iraq continue to dominate America's foreign policy, as they will under President McCain. McCain's supposed great strong suit is actually his greatest vulnerability, if Democrats are willing to make that case.

But what has characterized establishment Democrats for the last eight years, at least, is an unwillingness to challenge Republicans on national security. Ever since the 2002 AUMF vote, their "strategy" has been to cede national security to the Republicans by trying defensively to insist that there are few differences between the parties ("we're strong, too") -- all in the hope of shifting the political debate to issues they perceive are politically more advantageous, such as domestic and economic issues. That's why there has been so little contrast between the two parties on foreign policy and national security issues -- because most Democrats believe that the wisest course of action is to become replicas of Republicans on national security policy as a means of eliminating those issues from consideration. The "strategy" has been as ineffective as it has been craven.

"

Glen greenwald.

And clinton along with di fi and reid and the other republcains posing as democrats have been at the heart of this.

In 09 we change the donkey mascot to a Lion. And screw anyone scared of the elephant. Sabouters and traitors belong in jail, gop. Not runnign the country and making fortunes.

http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/PD--12184523/SP--B/IGID--12184523/No_Fear.htm?sOrig=SCH&ui=48D6F857B0484AE589CE743B119CFFBF

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Vegasgirrl - I think that giant headress you wear every night is causing your brain to fail. Perhaps if you put a shirt on...

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk wrote (to another poster):
"how about instead of complaining about your sorry lot in life, you quit blogging and go out and get a real job instead?"


Um, YOU'RE telling someone else to get a job? YOU have to get a sense of reality, zouk! Don't make us laugh here, OK.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

And to the clinton supporters who refuse to vote obama you show yoru are republcains. why? the country (not just obama supporters) have real valid reasons to not go for hillary. I can list in detail, but I will hightlight two.

1. Where was clinton the last 10 years when bush was destroying our country? I know her husband was touring the world with his dad. But where was hillary? She was authorizing bush's criminality.

2. Would bush have gotten away with half of what he did without clinton to point to as an excuse? Would he have been impeached without the previous one being impeached over personal affairs? I think so.

Obama haters have zero facts other than gossip or wishful thinking, or lack their of. I can list in detail my problems with hillary. They are real valid issues. You won't hear them from rush or on fox or cnn. They are my personal issues. Please don't let the propoganda these hillary supporters do, and in the media, effect or drown out yoru vote.

all power back to the people. That is what this movement is about. You must start small. We start with accountability and credibility Again. It has been lost. Seems small but it is huge. In the ancient republcs the biggest penalties were treason and bribery. Both are now routine (won't point fingers). how do we fix it? We must start there.

I think it's quite funny the clinton propogandists. Only gop buys it. They are republcains. Let them (the moderate sell-out dems who enabled bush's criminalty) join the gop cult and sabotage together. That is where they belong.

D
o

N
o
t fear

t

h

e

fascists.

they are scared powerless old people. do not fear them. The only power they have is the power WE give them.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk wrote:
Agreed - you should declare your love of high taxes, losing wars, big government bureaucracies, corruption, unions, bad education, poor retirment plans, trial lawyers, extreme greens, junk science, foreign policy of appeasement, etc."

Right, zouk, and you should declare your love of administration and corporate corruption, false wars, moral bankruptcy, theocracy in place of science, meddiling into the personal lives of Americans, shredding the Constitution, hypocrisy, borrow and spend Republican policies, environmental destruction, looted pensions, right-wing education and above all, making terrorists even stronger with a faileed pre-emptive war.
And that's the state of today's GOP. Sorry you can't deal with that.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 11, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"No, seriously. Someone please explain "Yes we can". I know it was ripped off of Cesar Chavez's "Si se puede." and it makes sense in that regard -- motivating the Hispanic population and so forth. "

It's from a speech. If you really want an answer, and are not a hillary propogandists. I am an obama supporter. I yelled this to the undecideds at my cacues. Got us two votes .WHoa. :)

I'm glad they took it on as a marketing campaign/slogan. this was my favorite speech to date.

Any clinton supporters. Watch this speech and his 2004 convention speech please. So you know what you are running your mouths against. If you do not know, please do research. If you feel the same continue with substance. Otherwise, if you don't know what yoru talking about, please leave this serious business to peopel WHO DO know what they are talking about. Our children's future is at stake.

"We want change"

"YEs we can"

this is the speech that started the big mo. And this was in a "losing" effort don't hate the player. Hate the game he is forced to play. As they say. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

A few nights ago, on one of these WaPo discussion boards someone responded to me about my opposition to Hillary's vote to authorize Bush to go to war.

That person said "...nobody really cares about the war."

Others have gone on to say that my outrage toward Hillary was off target and that she was swinging the national debate to healthcare and the economy.

The person concluded, "It's a nice dig, but that's all it is, because most of us don't think about the war at all."


This was my response:

Now that is too bad.

So you think that nobody cares about the war?

Well, I can guarantee that the parents, husbands, wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters of the tens of thousands of Americans killed or maimed on the battlefields of Iraq NEVER STOP thinking about the war.

Lots of those folks are Republicans. About half, I would guess. The rest are either from Democratic or Independent families.... THEY THINK ABOUT THE WAR.

And they live in communities that think about the loss or terrible maiming of a neighbor. Or they go to church or synagogue with someone that has been affected by the War.

Or they lay flowers on some spontaneous and tender shrine on a high school football field or at the little circular flagpole garden that sits in front of every single high school in this United States of America.

And they grieve.

Then they go back to work - but, sometimes in the middle of a chore, or when they least expect it, they just find tears rolling down their cheeks again...and they cry for the one they lost....or for the continuing pain of the one they love.

And, they think about the war.

And they wait...

for November 4, 2008.

So it is with me.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

he has a porsche, and a yacht, and a supermodel wife, you know.
Posted by: claudialong | February 11, 2008 06:07 PM

drindl, tsk, tsk. we already know your entire life is centered around envy and victimology. no need to display its ugliness to the world without some sort of warning or disclaimer.

how about instead of complaining about your sorry lot in life, you quit blogging and go out and get a real job instead?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"chrisfox -- warning: this troll has no other life [one of those genune lives-in -his -mother's basement types] so reply only if you have lots of time to waste listening to his fantasies. he has a porsche, and a yacht, and a supermodel wife, you know... and a secret cupboard with 500 bags of cheetohs, in case of attack by commie Islamofascist socialist homosexuals...

Posted by: claudialong | February 11, 2008 06:07 PM
"

don't forget everything is made in china. The walls are closing in around him. AAWWWW. So scary, for zouk. The world around him changes and he must change. Poor zouk/gop. If only they could live in perpetual 1955 america and watch john wayne movies all day. And have their wife do everything without complaining. Then they will be happy. right zouk? Nah. Even if everything went exactly how they want with no interuptions, they still would be unhappy. Screw them I say. We all should have a pursuit of happiness. Not just republcains, with their happiness a drain on ours. :) Anyone ever see that new movie "there will be blood"?

I agree we should not fear the gop machine. They are toast. Only the cult buys what they are selling. And the cult's unity is broken. Only clinton can save them. If only she ran as a republcain.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

states in play that McCain can win and hilary can lose, bring the lanslide possibility into focus:

PA (21)
NJ (15)
CA (55)
OR (7)
CT (7)
NH (4)
NM (5)
CO (9)
MI (17)
WI (10)
MN (10)
Result McCain = 422
Hillary = 118

LANDSLIDE

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I am somewhat in agreement with svreader about a Clinton/Obama ticket, but not the other way around. A few days ago, someone did misinterpet my remarks about the History making aspect as a reason for the ticket. That was not what I had in mind, but for the Dems this would bring most of us together in our effort to retake the White House.

Posted by: lylepink | February 11, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

No, seriously. Someone please explain "Yes we can". I know it was ripped off of Cesar Chavez's "Si se puede." and it makes sense in that regard -- motivating the Hispanic population and so forth.

But what does it mean in regard to the big O's campaign? Yes you can... what? Yes you can parrot every word that comes out of this guy's mouth?

Yes you can change America? Oh yeah? How are you going to do that? By electing someone who will leave 15 million fellow citizens without Healthcare?

By electing someone who is supported by the very status quo representives of the Democratic establishment that you so condemn? John Kerry voted for the war, so why has Obama so graciously accepted his support? (Oh and you are not allowed to say that Kerry realized it was an error because if Clinton can't do that, neither can he.)

By electing a man who has so-called superior judgement and will be 'right' from day one? Or by electing a man who contradicts this statement 20 minutes later by not hiring 'yes men' in his cabinet because he won't always be right?

By electing a man who claims to not accept money from special interests, but actually does like every other politician in the country, and blatantly lied about Rezko on the South Carolina stage -- "it was only 5 hours of legal work... etc.... church group... etc"? Or by electing a man who lied about making deals with Exelon (sp) under the table while campaigning in Iowa?

By electing a man who serves on a senate committe about European relations, but has not visisted the region for years and in fact has not created one piece of legislation in the same committee for just as long?

So, continue friends, yes you can ruin this country by electing one of the most inexperienced, manipulative candidates in the history of politics.

All of the people who don't have healthcare and have lost their houses, those who are really feeling the pinch of our sliding economy are making the right choice: Hillary Clinton.

I'm just as bourgeois as the rest of you. I am a 21 year old college student who believes that it is my civic duty to elect someone who will better the lives of the American people, and not by promising "unity" or "change" and other buzz words, but by actually being committed to the process of change and unity and is more than explicit about how it will happen -- starting with providing UNIVERSAL HEAlTHCARE.

Obama's 24 year old speechwriter really has you all going. Look it up on the NY Times. He literally writes the speeches with "JFK, RFK, and MLK, Jr." in mind.

Follow the yellow brick road to failure in November. Because when you get to Oz, it's all smoke and mirrors. You can count this Democrat out. I'll be writing Hillary in on the ballot.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

oops - head jackel drindl shows up, insults and runs. Drags intelligence level down below rufas again.

rufas, how does it feel to be the most intelligent and substantial of the drindl pack of jackels and yet not get the credit. Drindl is Moe, chrisfox is larry and spectator is Curly. there is no fourth stooge.

how will your self-worth and dignity survive?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

all you Libs certainly remember President gore and President Kerry and President
Dukakis? when will you learn Libs lose.

Defeat defeat in 2008

Vote r:

When you hear that the demise of the Republicans is a foregone conclusion, remember that when the campaign is joined this fall and voters will have to make real choices about the direction of the country, the result is likely to be close. Recall that pundits were ready to crown Michael Dukakis the winner of the 1988 election after he opened up a 17-point edge over George H.W. Bush. In 2000, they declared the race over around Labor Day after Al Gore opened up a clear lead over George W. Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120268013352957191.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox -- warning: this troll has no other life [one of those genune lives-in -his -mother's basement types] so reply only if you have lots of time to waste listening to his fantasies. he has a porsche, and a yacht, and a supermodel wife, you know... and a secret cupboard with 500 bags of cheetohs, in case of attack by commie Islamofascist socialist homosexuals...

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The electability issue is bogus. Democrats should be playing offense against the GOP, and not worrying about the attacks any Democratic nominee is sure to endure. Seriously, who really believes that the nation is going to vote for a 72 year old Senator who wants to be in Iraq for 100 yrs and bomb Iran tomorrow? And if Americans want that ancient warmonger in office, then we'll get the country we deserve. Michael Dukakis should beat McCain in 2008!

Posted by: vfazio | February 11, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

New Hampshire For Ohio Is a Surprisingly Good Trade

Team McCain is full of good cheer this morning, and part of the reason is this John Fund column looking at the electoral college map in 2008. Perhaps most surprising? Imagine Republicans "trade" a loss in Ohio (where the state party crashed on the rocks in 2006) for a win in New Hampshire (which McCain has carried twice in two GOP primaries, and where independents love him).

Under that scenario, McCain wins, 270 electoral votes to 268.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"My 85 year old white life-long Republican mother just called me to tell me she is changing her registration to Democrat to vote for Obama in the Pennsylvania primary. Wow.

Posted by: genepool | February 11, 2008 05:40 PM

"

Wow indeed. All praise to God. :)

Yes we can. Obama is not the movement. Your mother is the movement. Obama just HELPS to light the little candle inside her and others. That candle is always there. It has just been drowned out by years of "no you can't."

Obama is not the movement. WE are. Obama's is not going to "save" this great nation we all love. WE ARE. JEsus is not going to come back to save us. He wants us to save ourselves.

Great post sir. WOW.

YES WE CAN

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Losses, what losses?

Odd she was never complaining about caucuses after Nevada...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

"WHITE MARSH, Maryland (CNN) -- Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community."

"Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that.""

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 11, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

warrentowers13 comments:
"I also think Hillary is polarizing. Clinton supporters ardently disagree and 50% of the country agrees - that sounds pretty divisive to me."

The same applies to Obama. please...

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 11, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm a mother, nearly 50 years old (can it be?), and I can't help but support Obama. He is the way forward.

Posted by: MWHollar | February 11, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Among the Dem candidates only Obama can neutralize McCain because only he offers an alternative to neocon imperialism as a foreign policy. Mark Penn should go back and work for Blackwater again, with his Republican friends.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=240313

Posted by: B2O2 | February 11, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Nothing on the substance of my posts, zouk? Like always. You got nothing. The only power you have is the power WE (as americans give you. I can rip all you gop'ers posts to shreds. All you can do is call barack black. Or say I'm a moron. Or edwards is girly. You nazi's have nothing.

I can't belive you still run your mouth like you have any credibility here. Change your post name. Start sucking up. that's my suggestion to you. What you are doing is not working :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Influenced by the paragon of truth and virtue to whom she is married, Hillary stepped across the line of good judgment and common sense and has suffered a wound fatal to her Presidential aspirations.

Why? How?

Hillary Clinton's vote aided and abetted George W. Bush in his frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution when she agreed to authorize him to invade Iraq.

"Our Constitution expressly PROHIBITS an unprovoked and pre-emptive war against any nation in the world. It also prohibits the Congress from delegating the authority to declare a war to the President of the United States. This is one of the major pillars of the separation of powers."

Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - AFTER - she discussed with senior Democratic colleagues the likelihood that he would take the authorization and run.

Since then, in increasingly clumsy attempts to re-write history, she claims that all she did was to authorize an invasion if all other diplomatic negotiations failed. In this explanation she is once again standing with her finger in the wind trying to position herself for a general election.

Better that she stands behind her vote - or admits she was wrong - but again, in L.A. she refused once more to choose on which side of the issue she stands....

She spent over 6 minutes in that debate flip-flopping around on stage in embarrassing fashion on HER war authorization vote.

So..... WHY did she vote FOR the WAR?

She knew the Democrats would not carry the issue...a No vote would have cemented her in opposition to the stupid war. It would not have affected the vote outcome.

Why did she vote YES????

Why did she vote to join with the Republicans and give to George Bush the authority to take this country into a pre-emptive war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of American soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors?

She brags about her support of children...what about our sons and daughters in uniform?

Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq because she did not want to poison the well from which she thought (way back in 2003) she would have to drink when going up against a Republican in 2008.

She voted "YES" to insulate herself from Republican attack.

In other words,

...she took a position with an eye on HER future -

and NOT the future of the United States.

Hillary Clinton took her stance on the War with her eye on her political career. There is no other explanation for her vote - unless she supported the war and is now ducking that conviction.

Either way - she comes off looking like a cheap politician parsing her answers so as to deflect the truth. Poor Hillary - but, again, she was trained by Bill.

Hillary is guilty of the worst sort of political posturing for the worst possible reason - her own career.

The Republicans have their knives and spears sharpened and ready for the thrust. McCain will gut her in front of the world.

CLINTON MUST BE DENIED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Could he tolerate a real black President?

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

Stop with this garbage.

Posted by: ghokee | February 11, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

How far will Clinton's "35 years of experience" argument get her if she goes up against McCain?

Posted by: kmk62 | February 11, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

chris: what mccain brings to the table is what any senior citizen brings to the table: lots of pills.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Combined ticket people...

Are you serious? OF COURSE the Obama/Clinton ticket is a winner, the problem is Bill. What happens to Bill?

Could he tolerate a real black President?
Or even a real vice president, let alone his wife as president? Of course not and this is why this "issue" will never get past these boards.

It is Obama as president or the same old stinking pile of compost from either side.
We have held our noses long enough.


Posted by: shrink2 | February 11, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Look at the gop grasping at straws. With their maybe's. hahahhahahaha

BEtter to stick with the facts. If you want gossip go to us weekly.com or national enquirer. The what's will leave you wanting.

Obama's not a muslim. Sorry gop. What else you got? He did drugs when he was a kid? Only people who have never done a drug in their life, will that work on. The longer we go, timewise, the less likely you are to find a sheltered person who has never done anything. And should only they become presdient? The gop and their cult is funny to me. To watch their insanity from the outside. I never know if they really believe their garbage of if they will just say anything to win. Sometimes I have my doubts.:)

Whoelse can't be presidetn gop in this fake world you created?

No muslim can ever be president, we got that one gop. What else?

A gay man/women?

A person who did drugs in their youth?

Whoelse? Asians? Can a mexican become president? Can a buddist?

Since you make all the imaginary rules that are not valid and not on the books please enlighten me. I was under the false empression we were all equal and the laws applied to all. Since you make fake rules you are then the ones who must elaborate. Not obama. He is just being him. If he can't win because of imaginary gop rules, then please enlighten. So I (and my movement) can rip those to shreds also.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

rufas shows up and - get this, a mathematical absurdity:

due to the gross ignorance and stupidity of the moonbat pack of jackels, chrisfox and spectator mostly, rufas actually brings up the relative intelligence of this blog today. you ask how that can be possible - easy : chrisfox and spectator.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I remember an "svreader" who did posts worth reading .. looks like he handed his moniker over to someone who posts drivel about Obama and Clinton joining forces on the same ticket, which is not going to happen and which does not need to.

Either could beat McCain very easily; McCain has nothing to bring to the table.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

My 85 year old white life-long Republican mother just called me to tell me she is changing her registration to Democrat to vote for Obama in the Pennsylvania primary. Wow.

Posted by: genepool | February 11, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Nearly one in five "HillRaisers," the elite big-money fundraisers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, have ties to the 1990s fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband's presidency by offering Democratic donors sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom and other perks inside the White House

the old dirt is the new dirt is the same dirt. business as usual in the korrupt klinton kibutz.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

First off, each one of us here believes in our heart that our candidate provides the best chance for the future of this country.

Most of us here are very aware of the critical challenges this country faces and understand how much THIS election matters.

I certainly admit that I have let my heart and my passion for the candidate I support cloud my judgment and cause me to say stupid things about the other great Americans running for president - who, along with supporters all over - are working their tails for for what they believe is in the best intersts of this country.

But there are other things we must consider. I think there are serious questions about Hillary Clinton's ability to get things done in the White House. Let me be clear - I like and respect Hillary Clinton and believe progress would be stifled not because of a lack of effort or ability on her part, but rather because of short-sided obstacles placed in her way by Rove's henchmen. In other words, the more experience you have in Washington, the more enemies you have - many of whom are busy sharpening their axes right now.

I also think Hillary is polarizing. Clinton supporters ardently disagree and 50% of the country agrees - that sounds pretty divisive to me. You can blame it on the right-wing attack machine, or the media, or now even the Obama supporters. But it is REAL. Whether her high negatives are fairly earned or unfairly fabricated can be debated - but that debate does not change the fact that they exist.

There are also serious questions about Clinton's electability in THESE times and in THIS race. I base this on the points discussed above and what we have seen in this campaign. Obama has handled himself with grace and determination, won support all over the country and is building a new generation that actually cares about politics. And if we accept the idea floated by the Clinton camp - that she faces a media bias that has hurt her in the primary season - why is there any reason to think this bias won't also hurt her in the general election.

The Democratic base is already energized. I discount the notion that the heated race between Clinton and Obama will cause Clinton supporters to stay home. Those supporters are just becoming more and more invested in this process and they will unite to stand against the GOP. Clinton's ardent supporters will not simply walk away - they will bring the fight to the Republicans.

A few other points:

-Obama will attract antiwar Independents and Republicans, whose numbers are significant.

-Obama will be able to draw a sharp contrast with John McCain so that the Republican attack machine cannot blur the lines.

-Obama is the strongest to debate McCain on Iraq. Most observers agree that this has been Obama's greatest strength in the debates with Clinton.

What's the deal with all these young people being interested in politics? The youth vote does not make a difference when it is disaffected - it needs to be INSPIRED. And from what I've seen . . . their not the only ones. Obama's story, i.e., starting out with a foot on his back instead of a silver spoon in his mouth - is inspiration to both girls and boys alike who are not born into privilege. Obama is calling a whole NEW generation to arms. This will not only impact this election - it will CHANGE the future. Both in terms of votes and public service. I believe that the energy shown by the Clinton and Obama supporters alike (as well as those for all the candidates) - can be parlayed effectively after the general election. Not everyone of course - but even a percentage of that energy could do the world a lot of good.

How can Obama make a REAL CHANGE to the way politics is conducted in Washington - you ask?

Because the new American Majority that votes for him in this election - including Democrats, Independents and Republicans, along with the growing cadre of new-age leaders on both sides of the aisle that support him - will all make sure that politicians who get in the way of OUR mandate will be cast aside - no matter who they are.

And that mandate is quite simple:

-END the Bush Doctrine and EVOLVE American foreign policy

-Make health care more affordable and accessible IMMEDIATELY

-Pass a COMPREHENSIVE immigration bill and ensure that our boarders are SAFE

-LEAD the world on fighting terrorism, speading human rights and protecting our environment.

-If we get on that path, I suspect the ECONOMY will be just fine.

Vote Obama and the join the New American Majority. And don't worry, the Clintons will join us and BOTH will play key roles in guiding this country's FUTURE.

Posted by: warrentowers13 | February 11, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

You people are funny zouk. OOOooohhhhh a dui. OOHHHHHH a picture of him smoking a j. ohhhh.

how scary. on;y works with dittoheads, that us weekly gossip. Try it. You people STILL don't understand the old gop rules do not apply.

I hope they do. The "war on drugs" ,liek the "war on terror", is a gop waged war on america for money and power. I wish he would end it. We could fund all our schools by stopping the war on drugs. Freedom in america? Nope.

One day maybe. Before you point the finger, ask this.

Would any patriotic american not vote for a man because he once smoked a j? Espeically after all the lies and murdering bush and the gop enabled? Priorities zouk. priorites. Your party destroyed this coutnry for over a decade. Your praying for a picture to save you? You'd be better off praying rudy will jump back in

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The writer here "assumes" that all voters know all about the Clinton baggage, but I beg to differ. The majority of these 1st-time voters were too young to know what happened during the Clinton years, and most have not done their homework on them. People who are 18 today were only 10 during the Clinton years so how could they know?

The media has done a poor job at showing the public REALLY who Hillary Clinton is. I'm sure Hillary will cry big alligator tears for the sympathy vote (as usual) and claim the media is picking on her. Oh cry me a river!

For the media to continuously be talking about how many young people are campaigning and voting in these elections only proves the disservice the media is doing to these very same people. Not one story is being told to these voters of the history/BAGGAGE that we older voters keep talking about. They don't know, and the media isn't telling them. I find this quite odd given the facts in any other election up to this point; at least in my life.

Posted by: Solja | February 11, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

davidmwe's internet indicator is by no means scientific. It has not control of the sampling and have no indication of the demography been sampled.

On the other hand, the Gallup National Poll clearly show Clinton is slight ahead
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/polls/gallup_com-Gallup-Poll-2008-Presidential-Opinion-Polls.html

Clinton 48%
Obama 43%

With all the one side media coverage your candidate only get less than half of the
Americans' nod. I feel sorry for him.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 11, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

you see. The clintons and their supporters are closet republcains. Think larry craig. He hated gays and attacked them, but was one. Like the clintons and the gop.

Where were they when bush was destroying our country for a decade? Bill was touring the world with his dad, were was hillary. Right next to the son backing up everything he did.

Where were the clintons when we needed them? Enough said.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The clintons claim they all their dirt is out there, but Obama's isnt. THATS THE POINT, WE KNOW ALL THEIR DIRT AND ARE SICK AND TIRED OF IT!

Posted by: gckarcher | February 11, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

If everyone who says they're for Clinton votes for Clinton/Obama and everyone who says that they're for Obama votes for Clinton/Obama, Democrats are mathematically guaranteed to win the election.

Nothing can stop us if we all pull together.

How about Obama supporters?

CLINTON/OBAMA IS A MATHEMATICALLY UNBEATBLE TICKET

The only ones who can beat us are ourselves -- Let's make history, together, instead.


Posted by: svreader | February 11, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

hillary is holding onto the dirty pictures until one day before the big convention vote - you know the one where they are tied and the super delegates have to make a big decision in the next day or two.

Just like the Bush DWI "news".

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama is more electable because he is an inspiring and visionary leader who wins independents, brings in new voters, and can expand the Democratic Party beyond its base. Neither party wins with its base alone. The base of either party only makes up about 35-40% of the voters--maybe less with all the new young voters Obama will bring to the process.

Hillary Clinton criticizes Barack Obama for delivering "words only" and not substance. Yet, she keeps adopting his themes herself. When she saw Obama's successful theme of change, she (along with some Republican candidates also) started talking about change. Of course, she didn't understand (or at least didn't act like she understood) the kind of change he is talking about--change not only in who occupies the White House or even what party but in the way Washington works (or doesn't work)--in the partisan gridlock that predominates and would certainly continue in a Clinton presidency (assuming she could defeat McCain, which is highly doubtful).

Now, as I was listening to her speech Sunday in Manassas, VA, she has adopted some of Obama's theme about what "we" can do and about shared responsibility. Before, she always talked about what "I" will do as President, while Obama kept emphasizing that it's not about "me" but about what "we" can accomplish together. Obama had also been talking about how government cannot solve all the problems, that people would have to take some personal responsibility also to change things--e.g., parents getting involved in their children's education. Now Hillary is talking about personal responsibility also. I've listened to many of her speeches. She was not talking about these things before. She is clearly adopting and adapting Obama's themes. She criticizes the words and then she uses them herself.

In that same speech Sunday, she said people talk about how "specific" she is, instead of delivering "rhetorical flourish" to "pump [people] up." In reality, she is no more specific than Obama. She talks in slogans and generalities about many of the same issues Obama is also talking about, with at least as much specificity. Obama doesn't just say "we need change." He lays out a lot of ideas and agendas for change, and on his website are some detailed plans for addressing the same issues Hillary talks about. People need to learn the difference between campaign THEMES and a campaign's ideas and proposals. "Change" and "hope" are not the sum total of Obama's ideas. They are the campaign's core THEMES. Hillary does the same thing. Her themes are "experience" and "ready to lead on day one." Each campaign has themes. Each campaign has ideas and proposals. Don't pit Hillary's ideas against Obama's themes. That just confuses and distorts the issues.

Hillary also makes universal healthcare her signature issue. I believe the Obama campaign needs to find a tactful way to show her perceived strength to be actually her weakness. She made a noble attempt during the Bill Clinton Administration to push through substantive healthcare reform. But the fact is that she failed in the task of overcoming the resistance and getting the job done. And the reason she failed at it has a lot to do with the main difference between Hillary and Obama.

Hillary, as reflected in her speeches, believes you can achieve change by just working hard at it. That is naïve in its failure to grasp that the forces of resistance and opposition will also being working very hard to defeat it. And the way Washington works, it's easier to defeat legislation than to pass legislation. The fact is, it takes more than hard work. It takes an inspiring vision that motivates and mobilizes people to demand that their leaders act. It takes the capacity to move beyond partisan gridlock to find a common purpose that can unite people in a common cause cutting across party lines. Hillary calls it "words" and "rhetoric," but it's really called visionary leadership. I've been to a lot of leadership seminars and read a lot of books on effective leadership, and a common theme is that the task of the leader is not to work on getting the job done but to cast vision and move people to action. That's especially true when trying to break through the forces of resistance and implement significant change.

Hillary is a bureaucrat whose heart is in the right place (when she's not giving cautious, poll-tested answers and trying to please everybody) and who does have good ideas and works hard for them. But Obama is a visionary leader who is actually generating a growing movement demanding real change.

Posted by: PastorGene | February 11, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Every candidate has liabilities. Those cited for Hillary Clinton and Barack Omama are reletively minor.

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has liabilities too, his unapologetic support of a war that two-thirds of Americans disagree with, a looming recession which bode ill from a candidate trying to carry the mantle of an unpopular president who will catch the blame.

Sure, Barack is young and fresh, but is that a liability or a plus. Is he finally going to bring into the general election, two large voting blocks that have had poor turnout in the past, African Americans and the youth vote.

Clinton may be the candidate the GOP loves to hate, but hey, they weren't going to vote for her anyway. She does bring in experience as Bill Clinton's closest political advisor and now her Senate experience.

They are both great candidates. If they join together in a unification ticket (either one on top) they may just orchestrate the biggest Democratic landslide since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | February 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

If everyone who says they're for Clinton votes and everyone who says that they're for Obama votes for Clinton/Obama Democrats are mathematically guaranteed to win the election.

Nothing can stop us if we all pull together.

How about Obama supporters?

Clinton/Obama -- The only ones who can beat us are ourselves. Let's make history, together, instead.

Posted by: svreader | February 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The Dems can't fear the national security argument again. It's there and it has to be considered, but John Kerry's "Reporting for duty," showed one issue can't cloud our judgement. They Swift-boated him any way. The fact is, people who are voting in fear are going to vote for McCain. Obama can still win just like he's doing in the primaries--capturing voters who won't capitulate to fear and seek something better.

Posted by: amaikovich | February 11, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

harlemboy- one flaw in your theory is that you assume the GOP actually does have heretofore unknown dirt on Obama. A sub-assumption is that the Clinton machine is less effective than the GOP at digging up dirt. I don't know that either assumption is valid.

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Only one problem with the cultist approach - the cult members don't vote, they just go to events to score weed and chicks. even Obama girl couldn't find the time to vote in NJ. Most of his support will probably end up being "not hillary" voters and hand the landslide to MCCain once she uses the evil clinton machinery on him. the super delegates owe her and fear her. she has their IRS, FBI and CIA files in her notebook. Plus all those photos with the mistress. Where do you think all those millions got spent - creepy photos and private Eyes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Is Penn saying the GOP attack machine is better than his?

Here's the deal. I'm a Democrat who will never vote for Hillary Clinton. I feel this way because she just inspires the GOP too much for my taste.

She talks about what she'll do on Day One.

On Day Two it will be business as usual. Bill Clinton run amok, the MSM cooking up Whitewater II or some horse-hockey.

Who needs all that Clinton baggage? I say G'Obama!

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | February 11, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Many Obama supporters claim he is more electable than Hillary because he has "less baggage." But we really don't know much at all about his baggage.

I can't help but think that the Republican Party has some dirt on Obama that they are cleverly keeping under wraps. I'd like to be wrong on that, but why must people believe he's so squeaky clean? Doesn't history suggest that few politicians are as noble as Obama's supporters believe him to be? I personally wouldn't necessarily care either way, but I'm not sure his supporters wouldn't start to desert him if dirt came out.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that McCain would prefer to run against Hillary because she unites and motivates the right-wing base. Obviously, conventional wisdom has been wrong again and again throughout this process. However, based on that thinking, one interesting scenario was floated on a talk show: McCain wants to influence the Democratic primary race in terms of driving up Obama's negatives and improving Hillary's chances of winning the nomination, so the Republicans begin releasing some opposition research on Obama.

Based on that logic, I suppose continued Republican silence on Obama (except for the nice things they're saying lately) would support my theory that they prefer to run against Obama and are holding their fire until he secures the nomination.

However, I hope the media will begin to do two things: pressure McCain to provide some "straight talk" NOW on how he would make his case against Obama; and stop the double standard in terms of swooning over Obama while savaging Hillary.

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

Clinton would drawn down the ticket in swing states, because the Republicans would unite against her, hurting all the Democrats who vulnerable that will be on the same ballot. If she is the nominee it will be a disaster. We could lose seats in some conservative swing states. Obama doesn't have that polarizing effect.

Posted by: goldie2 | February 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama has it really. Here is just one important set of indicators...

Obama vs. McCain- The Internet Indicators:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

Posted by: davidmwe | February 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

getting rid of trolls is hard but ignoring them is the only thing that works

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 05:11 PM

We've been ignoring you for some time now to no avail....

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I'd add to sgr_astar's comment that Clinton is still proposing legislation while she campaigns. Something Obama isn't doing.

This is a pretty fair piece, though. It would be better of Chris could quantify each candidate's negative polling numbers.

For example, instead of saying Clinton is "polarizing" what does that mean? My understanding is that her negatives are about 40% while Obama's are about 35%. Not a drastic difference.

Posted by: ghokee | February 11, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Dems In Denial Pelosi Calls Iraq A 'Failure' Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi said twice Sunday that Iraq "is a failure," adding that President Bush's troop surge has "not produced the desired effect."

I wonder if she thinks this will draw attention away from her lowest ever congressional approval rating this month or her lowest ever success rate in the Pelosi congress (1 of 10 promises kept) or her aptly named Pelosi recession?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox: as you can see, even mentioning that other poster will result in more drivel from him with your name in it.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 04:51 PM
==

we all do what we can. Just posting a single reminder is enough .. note that he does two dozen increasingly frantic posts before he gets so much as a nibble.

getting rid of trolls is hard but ignoring them is the only thing that works

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"you really think the queen of avarice would step down for the good of anyone else?"

See, not all things the right wingnuts say are wrong. This is the central problem with the Obama/Clinton ticket idea. There is no air in the house of Clinton for anyone else.

Obama is no rock star and you all know it. He is really smart and even more tough. He is scary smart. If I were an enemy of this country I would be a lot more scared of Barak than of Dubya and his friends.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Since Bush only work for 50% of the time and draw 100% of the salary, most people think he is the laziest president. Let's look at the record of our three top candidates for their missed votes in this senate:

Obama 38.3% rank 4
Clinton 24.7 rank 7
McCain 56.6% rank 2.

The best work for 75% of the time (Clinton) and the worst work less than Bush. We now have some idea what we are getting in 2009.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 11, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

In most polls, the difference between Obama and Clinton is not significantly different than zero. In other words, we cannot tell who would win.

Frankly, I think that's not a good sign for Mr. Obama, who has so far gone completely unquestioned about his record and his ability to truly produce "change". He's never had a serious Republican challenger, and the media adore him. In contrast, the media has attacked Clinton to no end -- and the general public is all too familiar with the anti-Clinton talking points from Rush Limbaugh and (more recently) the Obama camp.

I think Obama is a bigger risk on the electability front, personally. There are other reasons to vote for him, but this is not a good one. Given his treatment as a media darling, he should be leading polls. Remember how Guiliani and Thompson looked in polls while the media was still fawning all over them?

Also, Obama has DIRECTLY mentioned Hillary's polazarization recently (the whole "she starts wtih 47% of people saying they don't like her" that has now been stated in two different events). So please stop this bias that constantly overlooks his direct attacks. In fact, a recent analysis of the two campaigns found Hillary to be the more positive of the two! Not that I think this is because she's "above"it -- it's just that she's got higher negatives so can't begin to pull the same tactics that Obama can. But if she did, you'd better believe the media would be all over it!

Finally, there's evidence that some Dems and independents (low-income working class) would vote for McCain if Obama was the candidate, but for Hillary if she were. Probably explains why, despite the Obama camps best attempts to assert that she drives away independents, the numbers don't look too different. Yet, we never hear this in the media (with the exception of Paul Krugman of the NY Times, who actually -- gasp! -- criticizes Obama sometimes).

Posted by: skeptic421 | February 11, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox: as you can see, even mentioning that other poster will result in more drivel from him with your name in it.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 04:51 PM

I see dim and dummer have arrived. all we need now is rufas and drindl to complete the braying pack of moonbat jackels.

the funny thing is, even with all her faults and ignorance, drindl is clearly the leader of you mindless waifs. she actually posts entire paragraphs stolen from other sources instead of the one line insults you trade in.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

then how do you know about it?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 04:10 PM

because the blogoshphere is talking about it while the MSM remains silent

Posted by: fedssocr | February 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

simple simon - the delegate counts are not significantly changed when they are split within a state. It is still essentially tied and will be for a while. the talk of momentum has been way overated this cycle.

you really think the queen of avarice would step down for the good of anyone else?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Having been the target of the Republican slime machine does not mean that Hillary Clinton survived it. It means that the Republicans only need to offer a refresher course this time around.

And the Republicans get two targets, Bill and Hillary, that can be more or less used interchangeably.

Might Obama fall victim to the slimers? Of course it is possible, but the best first defense is to have people like you before the slime hits the fan.

Posted by: jimk8mr | February 11, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

the waffle begins:

CBS's Steve Kroft asked Obama in a 60 Minutes interview if he would pull out of Iraq according to a timetable "regardless of the situation? Even if there's sectarian violence?"

Obama responded, "No, I always reserve as commander in chief the right to assess the situation."

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Until he gets enough votes to win - aka - the convention."

I think it happens sooner. If the predictions of another Obama sweep tomorrow come true, then two more wins this weekend in WI & HI, Dem leadership could start making noise about coalescing around one candidate. Particularly if those races are, again, in the 60-30 range.

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

How ironic that Mr. Penn, who has successfully run the Clinton campaign into the ditch, now turns his "insight" into Obama's weakness against Republicans. What a huckster! How much more money will he suck from HC before she demonstrates managerial savvy and fires him! "ready on day one" Take your money and go home, blowhard. Indeed!!

Posted by: Dahveed1 | February 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but Mark Penn's thesis of the impact of republican attack ads is overly simplistic.

First, we've already seen that Obama is turning out the young and independents in record numbers. They are already "buying in" to the movement and will see the attack ads for the cynical maneuvers they are. The ads worked against Kerry for two reasons: he didn't defend himself quickly enough and the depth of his support was only lukewarm in 2004.

Second, the republicans have been throwing the epithet "liberal" around at each other recently, forgetting that in doing so, they are robbing it of its "bite" as a weapon against democrats. If McCain is already that d*mned liberal, how can it hurt Obama?

Third, republicans will be dragging the ball and chain of Bush fatigue all through the election season. While a strident attack may play well with the republican base, they weren't going to vote Obama anyway. We must distinguish between the stridency of the attacks and their effectiveness in changing votes. It is entirely possible that Obama will face ads that are less effective in the general election than he did during the primaries. The atmosphere under which the campaigning will take place will dictate the success of the ads. It is clear that Mark Penn only understands one type of atmosphere where you scratch and claw for votes while counter-punching the enemy with everything you've got. That may be the game with Hillary as the nominee, but I suggest it will take a different tone if Obama is the nominee.

A clue is Obama's success in caucuses. The Clinton campaign has all but conceded the remaining caucus states, almost suggesting they are a perversion of democracy. Rather, this is an indication that Obama has a wide base of support, his "movement," that will not crack under the attacks to come. Kerry didn't have this to inure himself from Swift Boat attack. Neither does Hillary. Her voters are only willing to spend a few minutes at the voting machine at a time that is convenient to their schedule. (Not my characterization, hers.)

I would suggest a certain brittleness in the Kerry and Clinton support, especially beyond the base. In contrast, there is a certain resiliency in Obama support that is growing as he gets known around the country. May I dare suggest it relates to his theme of hope?

Bottom line -- Mark Penn isn't a good source for this whole electability argument. His conclusions are flawed.

Posted by: optimyst | February 11, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox: as you can see, even mentioning that other poster will result in more drivel from him with your name in it.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Thus far, they're holding off the coup de grace; how long can they continue to?


Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 04:48 PM

Until he gets enough votes to win - aka - the convention.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"In a just-concluded conference call, Mark Penn, a senior strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) campaign..."

What I'm wondering is, is this their new strategy for getting a little momentum? The pretty effectively managed the news cycle this weekend; while their campaign suffered significant losses, they've spun the media to portray the race as 'tightening'. Between the funding problems and management changes, the stories are about the status of Clinton's campaign, rather than on losses inflicted on the Clinton campaign.

So, the real question is, what do they say on Tues night / Wed morning? That's assuming the predicted Obama wins happen, of course. They seem to have prepared adequately - everyone expects Clinton losses - so they'll add another round of 'no news here, we expected to lose' excuses. Thus far, they're holding off the coup de grace; how long can they continue to?

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Gore won the election, he just lost the count.

moonbat alert!

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

JPRS: we don't respond to zouk around here. Thanks.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 04:37 PM

I amend my previous statement:

we usually only see panic and fear from chrisfox8

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me that Obama has withstood Clinton's attack machine pretty well. Where's the beef in her assertions that Obama can't take it? He's been taking it from her campaign for months and is winning.

The more often and more vociferously she makes this argument the more it disproves her point.

Posted by: egc52556 | February 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

CC, I am still not convinced that this is necessarily going to go on for a few more months. This campaign is not frozen in time until the Ohio primary. Look at all the changes in the last six days, alone. The best thing for the Democratic party would be for one or the other to rack up enough decisive wins to make the Fl and Michigan situation a moot issue. The most likely person to do this currently is Obama. The Clinton campaign is showing cracks. We may reach a tipping point before March 4. All of us political junkies would be mesmerized by a brokered convention, but it may not happen.

As for the electibility issue, I don't think McCain will win. He has been very lucky these past few months. A collapse in Iraq could make his support for the surge look like poor judgement rather than a principled stance. Furthermore, McCain would be really bucking history to win the election. Never in US history has the country elected someone from a preceding generation once the torch has been passed to a succeeding generation. I have correlated the birthdates of all the Presidents to the outline of generations as outlined by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning. McCain is a member of the Silent Generation which is between the Greatest Generation and the Boomers. The Silent Generation is the only generation to have no member elected as President. It would be truly historic if the electorate now elected a member of McCain's generation to the Presidency. I have my doubts whether it would happen now. After only two boomer presidencies the country may be ready to pass the torch again to another generation. It is the only way out of the culture wars.
As for electibiity, Obama will be the greatest contrast with McCain. It will be the clearest choice in nearly a half century.

Posted by: welchd | February 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

A headline you will never see under a Dem administration:


Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece

we usually only see panic and fear from Harry Reid.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Doh! Spoke too soon!

Bizzarro screed posted right above me.
Replete with "muslim/christian roots".
The "media" is responsible for all that is wrong with the Clinton campaign. Yawwwwn.

Poor Hillary Clinton. With supporters like these who needs enemies?

Posted by: shrink2 | February 11, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

If the Clinton argument is look what happened to Gore and Kerry, well Gore won the election, he just lost the count. For Kerry, the problem was he couldn't define himself. From June of 03 when Dean started firing people up until Nov 04 Kerry could never come up with an actual policy on Iraq. Not to mention he looked like and talked like a poster child for bi-coastal liberalism. That doesn't play well between the mountain ranges where I live.

Clinton has huge negatives from her husband's administration. Going against McCain she has been wrong twice on Iraq, once to vote for it and then to not exactly support McCain's surge. And to claim that everything is out there on the Clintons ignores the just starting business in Central Asia, the donor list to Bill's library and other initiatives and what Bill has been doing over the last eight years. The last thing you need is a reverse-Flynt. When some right wing millionaire offers $5 million for video or other evidence of Bill's philandering.

Obama has both more upside and more downside. He does have a liberal voting record, but he also has a history of a Bill Cosby attitude to the economically disadvantaged. That attitude plays well with religiously motivated conservatives. Not that he would see them voting for him, but it could keep them home on election day where HRC will bring them out in droves. Obama is light on experience, but the Republicans will blast Hillary for counting her time as first lady. What foreign policy experience does she have and was it more than Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton or the current idiot in chief? Not to mention, right now it is shaping up to be about the economy stupid. Foreign policy may not play a huge role and no one has brought out a detailed economic plan.

There is no doubt HRC has a better recall and depth of understanding on issues, but so did Kerry and Gore. People vote for people not encyclopedias.

In the end it comes down to HRC trying to win the same states Kerry did plus Ohio or Florida (and maybe the lost Gore states of Iowa and NM) and Obama fighting McCain for independents in MO, VA, LA, CO and many other states. It is certainly possible he could lose, and lose big, but he could also win big. He could coattail in a large number of Democratic upsets in the House and Senate. He is not going to lose the HRC voters. Latinos and democratic voting women won't suddenly vote Republican, but the independents Obama is attracting aren't going to be drawn to HRC when they could go to McCain. Some will, but she hasn't demonstrated an ability to beat McCain in the block she needs to win a general election. And finally there is the question of exhaustion. Her campaign is promising a hard fight with the Republicans. A hard fight no one expects to end on Nov 5. How many people are really excited by four to eight more years of hard political fighting? Obama, and McCain to a lesser degree, brings hope of some sort of moderation in Washington. I'll vote for either one of them just for that.

Posted by: caribis | February 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

dcmenefee1, if you're looking for specifics, there are plenty of details on the barackobama website among other sources.

If you're concerned about health care, the main difference between Clinton and Obama has to do with mandates (Clinton has them on the front end; Obama's focus is on lowering prices first and leaving the door open to applying mandates later). Plenty of good analysis out there on both proposals.

Posted by: JPRS | February 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Don't believe Hillary that her 'experience' will provide potent against R's. This argument is already laughed at by a number of Dems - the ones who bothered to look at Senate records and seen that Obama with less years has written more substantive legislation, the ones who look at the most substantive HRC initiatives in the Bill presidency and see that they were fiascos. Right now I desperately want a Dem to win but her experience and competence arguements that she struts out are actually weeknesses once people stop giving her the benefit of the doubt and the R's will do their best to make that happen. I see it as a major mark against her that what she sees as strengths appear to me as no more than vapor.

Obama is not the most highly experienced possible candidate but he knows it and turns it around by pointing to his freshness as an outsider credential, as part of his case for change. He knows this weekness and uses it as a point of strength. So the R's say he's not experienced and he can see that all this experience hasn't done the country much good thus far.

Posted by: cmsore | February 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

dcmenefee1 writes
"I WANT SPECIFICS"

Have you tried http://www.barackobama.com

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

JPRS: we don't respond to zouk around here. Thanks.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

We have nine months to look at McCain up close, nine months during which he will be driving himself with the zeal of a man half his age in his megalomania to be the Commander.

McCain is a boring speaker, he has a lot of deeply unpopular positions, and he is running as the direct successor to President Kidneystone.

He doesn't have a chance.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza,

The Billary mean attack machine has dumped all the garbage they have been able to cook up in their manure war room and Obama is still standing.

Scary.

Sen. Obama even beat Bubba last night at the Grammys. By the way, it's his second Grammy.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 11, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Is anyone ever going to thoroughly analyze the National Journal's rating system. Isn't it convenient that the likely Democratic candidate for President ends up being the "most liberal" in the Senate two cycles in a row? Why we would trust an organ of the Republican party to judge such a thing? I doubt very much if Senator Kerry or Senator Obama were the "most liberal" in their respective years. Both were carefully running for President, so it seems a little far fetched. Not that there is anything wrong with being liberal, to paraphrase Seinfeld...

Posted by: johnsonc2 | February 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk, it sounds like you've pretty effectively described the past 7 years of GOP rule minus the trial lawyers, unions, and greens.

Everything else -- declining median wages (similar impact to high taxes), losing wars, big government bureacracy (the largest expansion has occurred under Bush's watch with GOP approval), corruption (the largest congressional scandal in history between the MZM and Abramoff scandals -- one that has also implicated several members of the Bush administration including the #2 and #3 at Interior; then #3 at CIA in connection to MZM, ACDS, and Ralston and Safavian inside the White House), bad education, poor retirement plans (what more needs to be said when there's a declining median wage?), junk science (wow, too many places to start), foreign policy of appeasement (look at Russia and Pakistan). It's a pretty sad legacy.

The bar has been set so low after Bush that the next president could do absolutely nothing and be an improvement over the most corrupt, inept, and ideological administration this nation has ever endured.

Posted by: JPRS | February 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey, where are the usual racist rants ("Barak Hussein Osama, etc.") from the Clinton supporters. Even sv reader makes sense!

This is the smartest set of WP political comments I have seen.

It sure is goofy to think that because Clinton has been so awfully damaged that she has been inncoulated from further damage.

Naturally, we Obama campers believe the liberal label has lost all of its power to create negatives: McCain is Exhibit A.

And he owns the war, that horrible atrocity.

sv reader, with the combined Obama Clinton ticket, how would they deal with Bill and his people? Could he handle Barak and Hillary working closely together? Could he stand aside?

Posted by: shrink2 | February 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Who is Barack Obama?
I can't tell whether he's a rock star or a candidate for high office. The media love him and shields him from tough questions about his inexperience and the serious holes in his healthcare and economic recovery plans. Obama's healthcare plan has been tagged unrealistic and undoable by many healthcare reform experts.
So where are the tough questions for Obama? Hillary is called to task at every campaign stop about her fashion choices and her Iraq war vote.
Obama's strength is having no record to criticize, except his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty and abortion, but he's not getting drilled like any other candidate would.
There are no direct questions to Obama regarding how he can meet his Iraq pullout deadline and protect the people in Iraq who cooperated with us. Will Obama leave four million people at the mercy of a civil war after a US evacuation? Wouldn't this produce another "Killing Fields" similar to what happened in Southeast Asia 36 years ago? Why no questions?
I hear fiery speeches and I'm inspired, but at the end of the day I need to see some substance. Right now Obama is untouchable-- largely because the "rock-star-groupy" press doesn't want this ride to end-- and why would they? But the press lacks a certain curiosity that's applied to most candidates with limited experience. The press compare JFK to Obama, but JFK had considerable legislative experience before taking office, and JFK had personal experience with the horrors of war.
Conversely, the media give equal air time and print space to tearing Hillary down. In all of Obama's small state victories the media ignore the fact the Clinton has won states with three times the amount of electoral votes (215 - 70) than Obama. If it's close at the convention, will the super delegates consider that? The media confuses us with the notion that the number of states matters more than amassing enough electoral votes to win the general election.
Obama has won in states with large Democrat minorities , many of which would probably go red if Elmer Fudd is the GOP nominee.
All we hear are the sound bites going back and forth through the media proxies, but I see no journalism going on, and no real debate on the issues.
I WANT SPECIFICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sick of all the racial and gender antagonisms that have been promoted more by the press than the candidates themselves.
I don't care about the media's glee with Hillary's loan to her campaign, and I don't care about Obama's Muslim/Christian roots.
I want to know about what these candidates propose, and how they propose to do it.
My healthcare provider sucks, I'm unemployed, and I have a nephew in Iraq. I want healthcare but not at the cost bankrupt the country for generations. I want the troops out of Iraq, but I don't want my nephew to live the rest of his life knowing he abandoned his Iraqi friends. And, I want an economic recovery that benefits the middle class. I want to know these things.

Posted by: dcmenefee1 | February 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

As Commander-in-Chief wannabe, Hillary Clinton needs to assure Democrats not only how and when she would end the Iraq war (not merely "start" or "begin" to bring our troops home), but also how her experienceS have seasoned her to be C-in-C.

What part did she play in the decision hastily to withdraw from Somalia when a Black Hawk helicopter went down, for instance? What part played in the bombing of Khartoum that has poisoned relations with Sudan ever since? And what part did she play in turning our official back on the Rwanda genocide of 1994?

These questions have not been answered, nor have the documents sustaining her claims been shared with her fellow party members and the public at large.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 11, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The key question is: what states could Hillary win that Kerry and/or Gore didn't? While she has a large appeal among women and blue-collar workers, that won't get her any new converts. She might win Arkansas, and possibly a state like NM or Colorado with her appeal to Hispanics, but other than that, I don't see her winning anything that Kerry didn't.

On the other hand, Obama has the potential to open up the playing field with his appeal to independents. Sure, he might be knocked down a peg, but so will John McCain. He could conceivably win states like Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, even a North or South Carolina possibly. Just from looking at that, we can see that Obama is far more electable.

Also, to suggest that independents will be turned off from Obama by the Republican attacks is a false argument. Independents already know about Hillary, and prefer both Obama and McCain to her. Independents currently vote for Obama in droves, so even if the Republicans sully his image a bit, it probably can't be any worse in the aftermath than Hillary's is now. So we either choose to vote for someone who independents currently dislike (and will continue to dislike) or someone who independents currently like, and even if he loses some independent support, will likely have more than Hillary. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Posted by: qkanga | February 11, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Standing up to the Republicans on principle win, lose or draw is what we should be doing and that is why Obama is the best candidate!

Posted by: pathboy | February 11, 2008 04:14 PM

Agreed - you should declare your love of high taxes, losing wars, big government bureaucracies, corruption, unions, bad education, poor retirment plans, trial lawyers, extreme greens, junk science, foreign policy of appeasement, etc.

I think you should stop hiding it and scream it to the rooftops for all to hear.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

What more needs to be said about Mark Penn and his judgment?

First inevitability with the race being effectively finished after the New Hampshire result.

Then Iowa hit, and we were supposed to wait around until Feb. 5th.

Then Feb. 5th hit and he tells us to look for things to be wrapped up on or about March 4th.

The goal posts keep moving. If his reasoning actually provided credible evidence rather than bare assertion he might be a more credible spokesman for his client.

Posted by: JPRS | February 11, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary is the better choice. She is more specific in her plans on all of the major issues. She has more experience and is better known world-wide, which will go a long way in restoring our credibility in the world.

I believe the cable news media has influenced too many voters with, in my opinion, bias reporting. One only has to watch a few times before it is obvious that the majority of the stations lean away from Hillary. I thought reporters were suppose to be impartial and fair, guess I was wrong.

Posted by: s.h.hunt | February 11, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

the "Republican Attack Machine" has already defined Hillary

Yeah - we members of the VRWC did that, we even stained the dress, stole the files, sold the pardons, etc.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

People hate this war George Bush lied us into and John McCain is only too happy to take ownership of it. Mark Penn is an idiot.

Posted by: havok26 | February 11, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Penn is right on one thing: Fairly or unfairly, the "Republican Attack Machine" has already defined Hillary and, with a little help from her and Bill, has done so in such a way that she is permanently damaged goods. Try as she might, she is simply unable to redefine herself with the 50% of Americans who hold an unfavorable view of her.

On the other hand, the same "Republican Attack Machine" is scared spitless of dealing with Obama. They know that the use of their traditional methods will be counterproductive in that such attacks are subject to being viewed, again fairly or unfairly, as racist. They are also in mortal fear of some downballot Republicans or McCain surrogates saying something egregiously inappropriate that will put minority voters firmly in the Democratic column for another 50 years, thus effectively ending the Republican Party as a viable political entity.

Posted by: Stonecreek | February 11, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse


Allowing Republicans to scare us into a nominee is ridiculous. That is what we do every year. John Kerry vs Howard Dean who was less risk averse? Standing up to the Republicans on principle win, lose or draw is what we should be doing and that is why Obama is the best candidate!

Posted by: pathboy | February 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

'I can't help but notice that Conservatives are also painting the apparent GOP nominee as some kind of liberal too. Perhaps the label is not as toxic as it once was?'

No, it's just that are far fewer movement conservatives than their used to be, now that the abject failure of the the movement and its intellectual bankruptcy has been exposed.

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The idea that every attack against Hillary that can be made has been made just because there have been so many of them is silly.

Of course the Republicans will make up new lies about either candidate in the general election. And with Hillary, they have the advantage of also using attacks that worked well enough in the past. The attacks against Obama, however, should not gain as much traction because they will not be based on as much truth as those against Hillary, and they will risk sounding racist regardless of their content.

And as far as real, truthful attacks, despite the fact that she is running based on her First Lady experience, her Democratic opponents have given her an easy time about the secrecy surrounding all of the sealed Clinton documents and archives. Wouldn't one expect this to look very bad coming off of the Bush-Cheney presidency, and running against McCain, who presents himself as Mr. Transparency? Wouldn't McCain hammer this point repeatedly?
www.podger.net

Posted by: mrpodge | February 11, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I want to join Fix readers in complaining about Obama events being ignored. As a resident of Washington State, it was nearly impossible to find a can of whoop-ass I needed for a Saturday backgammon tournament. I heard that the Obama team had gone through the state, and had bought every single can of whoop-ass it could get its hands on, a rumor substantiated by caucus results throughout the nation. Why doesn't the Post tell its readers in the Potomac area that they will not be ablr to get their hands on any cans of whoop-ass over the next few days, not even the 64 ounce ones sold at Costco?

Posted by: bondjedi | February 11, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll repeat it one more time just to make sure I'm being clear.

Mathematically, if everyone who says they like Clinton and everyone who says they like Obama votes for Clinton/Obama we are garenteed to win the election.

Its being handed to us!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"In an interview yesterday with Fox New Channel's Chris Wallace, President George W. Bush had this to say of Obama's foreign policy bona fides: 'I certainly don't know what he believes in.' "

Ooooh, I guess that clinches it for me! President-in-a-Bubble Bush, with his marked disdain for anything smacking of reality, weighs in with his trademark enforced ignorance (e.g., "TERRORISTS INTENT ON STRIKING WITHIN THE US!" circa summer 2001) on Obama's foreign policy credentials. Never mind that they are 100 times those that a certain candidate from TX had in 2000, no, only strict obeisance to whatever our Lord and Master says on Faux News will do.

While we're on the subject of belief, anybody know what W. believes other than making the rich richer? I cannot, for one second, think of any of his policies that aren't derived from that. Gee, maybe we should cut taxes on billionaires one more time while we ponder that question.

Also, can't help but notice that whichever D is the most prominent in any news cycle immediately earns "The Most Liberal Voting Record in the History of the Universe" from the RNC. Do ya think it really means anything other than the RNC is a bunch of lying cowards? Is there any real point in reproducing this slander, CC?

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 11, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama was the most liberal member of the senate in 2007 only because he was campaigning full-time for President of the United States...

Posted by: Luiz.Bravim | February 11, 2008 03:50 PM

By that logic, McCain would have been the most conservative member of the Senate?

Please...

Posted by: JD | February 11, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

This should be a huge story! But because the press is so in love with McCain they can't bring themselves to mention anything bad about their man.

Posted by: fedssocr | February 11, 2008 04:07 PM

then how do you know about it?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Clinton/Obama is a mathematically sure win. If everyone who supports Obama and everyone who supports Hillary votes for Clinton/Obama it doesn't matter what the few remaining Republicans do.

The way the numbers work out, Democrats win.

Posted by: svreader | February 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is well known in national circles...

Sure she is. Unfortunately for her, her negatives are approaching 50%. I'm guessing that she has about every supporter she's ever going to have, right now.

Posted by: JD | February 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I had a longer post about this, but it was eaten. So here's the short version:

Hillary's electability argument is ludicrous. Being hated and attacked by the opposition is not a qualification for office. Otherwise the Democratic nominee would be Michael Moore. Bush has been attacked by Democrats for 8 years, and he'd lose in a landslide if he could run again. Hillary needs to get a new argument, and the media needs to stop repeating her spin as if it were credible.

Posted by: Blarg | February 11, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Easy choice - the return of jimmy carter or the return of the korrupt klintons?

Wait... there is a third option.

L-A-N-D-S-L-I-D-E

just like the last time an ultra-lefty ran - you remember Mcgovern or Dukakis or Carter 1980? you couldn't even beat George Bush with that lefty agenda (twice).

Santayana speaks wisely Libs.

Or in Lib talk "I am from the government and I am here to take all your money and I promise to solve all your problems".

notice I said promise to solve your problems, not actually do it. It's called a clintonism. this is typically followed by the famous line "I tried and I failed". Or sometimes "no controlling legal authority".

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

why isn't anyone at the Post talking about McCain stealing the Washington caucus? Lots of funny business going on there with the state party chairman declaring McCain the winner once he finally took the lead with just 87% of the precincts counted. Then they just stopped counting and declared him the winner! This could very well come back to bite McCain in the butt. The GOP faithful didn't care so much when the elections were stolen from the Democrats, but now that they are stealing their own elections people over on that side are crying foul. This should be a huge story! But because the press is so in love with McCain they can't bring themselves to mention anything bad about their man.

Posted by: fedssocr | February 11, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

gandalfthegrey makes an important point; Clinton's refusal to admit a mistake sounds dangerously Bush-like.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The campaign against McCain has already started...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The only way the Democrats lose this election is by self-inflicted wounds.

I want Obama to win as badly as I've ever pulled for any candidate to win the presidency, and I don't like Hillary much, but the substantive differences between the Democrats are minor.

The only way the Democrats lose is if the Democratic nomination descends to such levels that the Democrats, and their followers, have a genuine civil war.

The old Republican strategy of saying "Vote Republican or die and have your taxes raised" just isn't going to work after 8 years of the Bush presidency and his blundering incompetence.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please explain when Hillary Clinton was "tested"? Was she "tested" when she beat an unknown, late-entrant House member (Rick Lazio) in one of the most Democratic-leaning states in the nation? Or perhaps when she beat an unknown small city mayor (John Spencer), again, in one of the most Democratic-leaning states in the nation? This notion that Hillary Clinton is somehow "battle tested" that renders her bullet proof against GOP attacks or at least better prepared against them is one of the most oft-repeated and underexamined claims made regularly in this campaign.

Posted by: krumbagel | February 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I think that the Republicans will have a tougher sell against Obama. This is particularly the case because McCain has a long history of bucking the establishment and seeking reform whereas, fair or not, the Clintons have a reputation of scandal. This has almost been overlooked as the Democrats have campaigned against each other. However, the Republicans will not forget this in November.

But regardless, both candidates should recognize that once the people have spoken, if the "super delegates" choose otherwise, the people will punish the nominee.

Posted by: brigham.daniels | February 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Penn misses a MAJOR and ESSSENTIAL point.

Obama's supporters are immune to any negative advertising or swiftboating. We love the guy. We didn't love Gore or Kerry or Clinton like this.'

All those people at the ralliies..the tens of thousands...they are there to convert their disgust with Bush/Cheney to something clean and healthy with Barack.

This is beyond swiftboating.

This is beyond Mark Penn's microwhatever. Tell him to go back to his other client, Blackwater, and leave us, the real patriots, alone.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 11, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Mark Penn is either dreaming or lying. The Republicans are going to "play the national security card" over and over and over again no matter who the Democrats nominate, because that's about the only card they have. I'll happily send Clinton money and vote for her if she's nominated, but gandalfthegrey is correct: she voted for the war in 2002 because, like Kerry, she didn't have the courage to vote against it.

Posted by: mpittman | February 11, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Well, Republicans have already begun their effort to define Obama for voters. Of late, almost every email out of the Republican National Committee notes that Obama was the most liberal Senator in 2007."


I can't help but notice that Conservatives are also painting the apparent GOP nominee as some kind of liberal too. Perhaps the label is not as toxic as it once was?

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's electability arguments sound just like John Kerry's in 2004. That should give Penn reason to pause. Kerry thought he could win that fight on national security. I think the only way to get around that problem for Dems is to have someone who 1) can show he has judgement, and 2) can make voters believe he can communicate to the world in a totally different way. That candidate is Obama. Clinton would be Kerry 08.

Posted by: freedom41 | February 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris quotes Clinton spinmeister Penn as saying "his candidate alone is positioned to beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall thanks to ... her skill at neutralizing the issue of national security."

Just to be clear, what Mr Penn means is that in 2002, when faced with the chance to vote against the approval to use force in Iraq, Sen Clinton chose to bolster her hawkish credentials for a future presidential run rather than vote for sanity in our foreign policy. She chose not to read the relevant National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq prior to voting, instead apparently making the decision on publicly available information, rather than the best information available from our intelligence services. That is how she plans to 'neutralize' McCain on National Security. Her plan is worse than the Kerry plan.

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is crippled as a candidate on the most important issue of this election....

George W. Bush took our nation to WAR.

There is no higher duty or responsibility for any President than taking this country to WAR.

NONE !

On that critical issue - more critical than any other

Clinton voted YES.

Now, if she believes that we should have gone to war...like many, many patriotic Republicans and millions of Americans...all she has to do is say so. Just say she was for the invasion and war.

But she won't.

I'm sure because she knows to say so now would kill her.

So why can't she do as John Edwards did? Just admit that her vote was a mistake?

The truth is sometimes very simple.

She voted YES to position herself for this election cycle. There is no other explanation.

That is an act of personal cowardice and her deceit since then disqualifies her from the highest office in the land where she would have the power to try it again.

She is a good legislator - she should stay in the Senate -and in the Senate, Bill is kept at bay.

She blew her shot at the White house by stepping over the line beyond cunning...

And, now - still fearful of McCain's attack - she steadfastly refuses to admit that her vote was a mistake -(unlike John Edwards who is an honest man).

WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER PERSON IN OUR WHITE HOUSE THAT CANNOT ADMIT A MISTAKE.

Clinton must be denied the nomination.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 11, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I am a registered democrat. I will vote for ANYONE running against hillary clinton !!!

Posted by: mgcrhcp | February 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama was the most liberal member of the senate in 2007 only because he was campaigning full-time for President of the United States. This is the same reason John Kerry was #1 and John Edwards #2 back in '04. Presidential candidates only come for major votes that are expected to be close. The rest of the time they are out on the trail, spreading their message and asking for votes. A politician as skilled as Obama will knock this weak argument right out of the park. There is no way he is more liberal than Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and half a dozen other true liberals. Look at Sen. Obama's statements to the media on a host of hot-button issues. He is nowhere near as polarizing as Hillary and has shown the ability to work with Republicans in Springfield and Washington. I see the whole issue as a moot point which only worked in 2004 because of the Kerry campaign's hesitancy to hit back hard and fast.

Posted by: Luiz.Bravim | February 11, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't think McCain could beat either of the leading Democratic candidates. America wants to pass this kidney stone and McCain wants to keep it.

I want to see an Obama-McCain election; the contrast between this aging hawk and his silly "victory" talk and Obama's lean and youthful presentation of vision could not be more stark.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 11, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The risk for nominating Obama is that it is in hopes of changing the political arena and our civic discourse for the better. That is a choice to be made with hope.

The risk of nominating Clinton is that it is a decision to rehash the past ad nauseum and taking our collective divisions into our national future. It is a choice that is made from fear.

I, for one, am choosing to hope that America can still be better than it ever has been before IF enough of us - Democrat, Independent AND Republican - will choose to take a chance and risk it all on BEING better than we were.

TOGETHER - YES WE CAN!

Obama '08

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 11, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company