Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: John Lewis and the Superdelegate Stampede

The defection of Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) -- congressman, civil rights pioneer AND superdelegate -- from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) drew wall-to-wall press coverage after it was first reported in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Lewis's decision to cast his superdelegate vote for Obama rather than Clinton is important on several levels.

Symbolically, Lewis's support for Clinton was seen as evidence that the black community was not monolithically behind Obama. Lewis's decision to switch sides to Obama -- and the words he used to describe why he did so -- signal that a movement is afoot in the black community and the country that even a politician as powerful and savvy as Clinton cannot stop.

On a practical level, Lewis's defection is part of a broader trend since the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday votes. In the three weeks since, Obama has added 34 superdelegates while Clinton has lost a net of six, according to the cracked NBC political unit. Clinton still leads with 254 superdelegates to 203 for Obama but the margin is growing narrower and narrower.

(Looking for more on the specifics of superdelegates? A new feature on washingtonpost.com has their names, allegiances and anything else you might want to know. Bookmark it. Immediately.)

To avoid an avalanche of superdelegates to Obama, Clinton likely needs to win in Ohio and Texas next Tuesday. A loss in either state could open the superdelegate floodgates, a development that would put considerable pressure on Clinton to think about stepping aside. Wins in the Ohio-Texas Two-Step, however, gives Clinton life and likely preempts any sort of superdelegate stampede.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 28, 2008; 12:04 PM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bobby Bright and The Question of Obama's Coattails
Next: Bloomberg Bows to the (Seemingly) Inevitable

Comments

It is close to the time when Democrats must begin to mend fences if a Democrat is to be President.

I know the Obama and Clinton probably do not like each other (and that this is shared by their supporters).

That said, I believe that an UNBEATABLE ticket is OBAMA ~ CLINTON 2008!

Posted by: jpm321 | March 4, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Welcome back home John Lewis, how could you have supported a candidate such as Hilary. We know she wants to win, but is it necessary to tear down a fellow democrat in such a despicable way. How could you ever have supported this woman?
But have no fear when this race is over there is going to be a lot of blood on the carpet for fellow african American supporters of Hilary Clinton. I am totally ashamed of her win at all cost. There is no way that she could ever count on African American votes in the future.

Posted by: hendal2 | February 29, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Not so - being born on an american military base qualifies you as an american citizen, no questions asked. I confronted this issue with my security clearance. those locations are US soil, like embassies. this is just more wishful thinking at the NYTimes - tha paper of bird cages.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 05:08 PM
----------------------
Someone gave you security clearance? Boy are are borders more screwed than I thought. Military yet, God I hope they didn't give you a weapon as well.

As for Dual citizen ship, it varies from country to country. I found out that when the EU came into effect that all members respect other countries laws, I am covered due to my Grand Parents being born in Ireland. As are all their children and Grand Children, after that it ends.

Hey Spec, I think I found out our pal here's problem, his name, King Zouk. He thinks he is in charge of some magical kingdom and we are all his peasants and should bow down and kiss his and W's butt.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 28, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Roy Norton, the minister of public affairs for the Canadian embassy, is flatly denying that any Obama campaign official spoke to the Canadian ambassador in recent days or told him that Obama's anti-NAFTA stump speech is merely "campaign rhetoric."

"No, none," Norton told me when I asked him if Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., had spoken to any Obama advisers recently. He added: "Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson about NAFTA."

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

So, you're saying that Senator Obama's foreign policy spokesperson categorically denied the story and that's not good enough for you?

(besides the fact of not even in all fairness mentioning it in your first post?)

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Actually, a spokesperson for Obama denied the story which is a far cry from debunking it. Since MSNBC is so sweet over Obama, I would expect Tucker to be fired for even mentioning the subject. I do not expect them to follow up on this or any story that may damage Obama. They continue to bash Hillary and kiss Obama's tail.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | February 28, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I heard on Tucker's show today that someone from Obama's staff called to tell the Canadian ambassador that Obama was going to trash NAFTA during the debate. The purpose of the call was to make sure the ambassador knew that what Obama said would not be his true feelings on NAFTA. Anyone else hear this story.
------------------

If you watched the show, why don't you also state that they completely debunked the story. Or did you suddenly stop watching?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

"I heard on Tucker's show today that someone from Obama's staff called to tell the Canadian ambassador that Obama was going to trash NAFTA during the debate. The purpose of the call was to make sure the ambassador knew that what Obama said would not be his true feelings on NAFTA. Anyone else hear this story."

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

We saw two different shows.

The Tucker show I just saw completely debunked that story.

Wasn't true at all.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"I heard on Tucker's show today that someone from Obama's staff called to tell the Canadian ambassador that Obama was going to trash NAFTA during the debate. The purpose of the call was to make sure the ambassador knew that what Obama said would not be his true feelings on NAFTA. Anyone else hear this story."

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

We saw two different shows.

The Tucker show I just saw completely debunked that story.

Not true at all.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I heard on Tucker's show today that someone from Obama's staff called to tell the Canadian ambassador that Obama was going to trash NAFTA during the debate. The purpose of the call was to make sure the ambassador knew that what Obama said would not be his true feelings on NAFTA. Anyone else hear this story.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | February 28, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"you are right its only a snapshot but the BigMo has definitely movery towards Hillary in the last 48 hours here in Texas and the 35 million dollars raised has shaken the once cocky Obama campaign, so sure that they were ready to start measuring for curtains. Texas voters are now saying not so fast Senator Obama."


========

good! competition is as American as apple pie.
No one gets in easy.

Hillary is not out by a long shot. I want to see Barack fight for it. Cause he's gonna need to fight for a lot more over the next 8 years.

Still waiting for those tax returns.

I think Barack pulled in over 50 million this month.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

you are right its only a snapshot but the BigMo has definitely movery towards Hillary in the last 48 hours here in Texas and the 35 million dollars raised has shaken the once cocky Obama campaign, so sure that they were ready to start measuring for curtains. Texas voters are now saying not so fast Senator Obama.

Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Polls have been particularly worthless this year but if you want to look at them, look at all of them not just one.

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

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 28, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

obviously you have zero knowledge about how the budget process works. Its the President that submits the budget to Congress not the other way around. You might have noticed the stacks of budgets every year shown on CNN. And your biggest lie is to say that the Republican Congress balance the budget in 1993. It was Bob Rubin and Bill Clinton who submitted 500 billion in tax cuts and raising the top bracket by 2% that led to the largest economic expansion according to someone who knows absolutely nothing about economics, Alan Greenspan wrote in his book. And it was my wonderful Senator Phil Gramm and Dick Armey, who want on the air and predicted that if the 1993 budget passes; 1. it would be over his cold dead body and 2. they guaranteed it would drive the economy straight "into the ditch" his words not mine.So for Republicans to try and take credit for the expansion we would call chutzpah. They did everything thing including a filibuster that was stopped with a cloture vote and it was brave dems who put their legislative seat on the line for, so you are just flat wrong. I am happy that you would use your 2% tax cut to hire more people, but actually my business which has layed off 5 employees since 2001 and my stock portfolio (yes Dems are investors too) did a heck of lot better in the 1990s , so yea I would trade a booming economy, booming stock market and healthcare that might cost $300/month vs $1200 month to have the top 1% pay in a few more dollars. Notice by the way Dems talk about increasing middle class tax cuts which every economist says does more to stimulate the economy then your phony cuts for the top 1%. Incidentally have you ever heard of the bipartisan Bob Dole base closing commission that recommended military cuts in the 1990s. Again selective amnesia,and rivisionism is a wonderfil tonic for republicans.

Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Better do some fact checking/proof reading on the super-delegates list. Just for fun I looked at Minnesota. (Being a Minnesotan) Nancy Larson is listed as for Clinton and as undecided. The last time I checked she was undecided. Then having clicked on Maryland by accident I noticed that there was one individual listed twice for Clinton; or perhaps it was two individuals with the same name?

Posted by: jsherman602 | February 28, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the congress is responsible for the budget. the clinton budget was the result of the Republican congress and some rather stark choices on the military. then there was that internet bubble thing and the holiday from history.

I am sure bill gates doesn't need his taxes lowered but as one of the 1% I do. does that cancel out his vote? In fact, if I paid less taxes, the first thing I would do is hire another person to work for me.

so compare giving 1 dollar to everyone or giving 70,000 to one person.

I admit Bush and the recent R congress spent way too much, but the Dems always spend more - always. barack has lined up 800 billion already in additional spending with no position on any cuts, other than the military.

If we had the clinton military, we would have a balanced budget. times have changed. that was too weak in a threatening world.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

the Pelosi recession? interesting but dumb. W submits a budget which incidentally has never been balanced since Bill Clinton left office. W came to office in 2001 with a $200 billion dollar surplus which he managed to blow in months just like he did with the $2 billion dollar rainy day fund when he was governor of Texas. And those great tax cuts for the top 1% that the uninformed people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet say they don't want, that along with the 1 trillion spent in Iraq have done wonders for the economy, right? Let me guarantee you one thing though, when a Democratic President takes office next January, they will be blamed for your 2008 rescession that you and the rest of your 19% percenters created, since your party always seems to have amnesia about economic policies.Don't trust Republicans with your tax money, all they know to do with it is flush it down the streets of Iraq and hand out to their corrupt friends at Blackwater and then demagogue about it and whine we don't know how things got so screwed up. This economy has not been run properly since Bob Rubin left the treasury which even Wallstreet is beginning to now understand.

Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Not so - being born on an american military base qualifies you as an american citizen, no questions asked. I confronted this issue with my security clearance. those locations are US soil, like embassies. this is just more wishful thinking at the NYTimes - tha paper of bird cages.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain may have to go to the Supreme Court to settle the question about what The Constitution says about to be eligible what are the requirements, age, and many others are clearly there, but the Big question is--Where he was born, and does this disqualify him?? I have often thought how long it would take The Media to bring this question to the public. As of now, it would appear The Court will play another critical role in who will be The POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | February 28, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

while I appreciate the liberal tendency to emotion and irrational reaction to issues, which has its place in certain discourse, it is clear that certain subjects, such as military and economics, are not amenable to this kind of analysis. when liberals try to apply their usual emotional approach to these subjects, they always end up making fools of themselves and revealing this inadequacy to the public.

Examine the response given by Barack Obama to the question as to whether he would invade Iraq after withdrawing. he said yes if it presents a threat to america.

Does it currently present a threat? are their bad guys there now? If being there is wrong, why is going back right? If being in other countries is wrong, how is expanding to Pakistan and Afghanistan right. Liberal ideas are either not thought out or ar a mish-mash of emotional responses with no basis in logic. Is he a tough guy who will attack or will he retreat?

economics: If the Pelosi recession indeed holds firm and deepens into an actual recession, how is raising taxes at that time going to help? how is raising the capital gains tax going to create more capital and hence more jobs?

Again, liberal ideas just don't make any sense.

Now I do agree that in other cases where feelings are important, their ideas are better. for example, I may feel that my government has no right to listen in on my telephone. this doesn't rely so heavily on actual data, because if it did, since there are no victims that have emerged because of this, no one would care, but it does "feel" wrong.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Today's latest story from Insider Advantage about trends in Texas:

"Clinton: 47%
Obama: 43%
Undecided: 10%"
===========================

Exciting!

As I thought, Pennsylvania may be the final battlefield...the 21st century Gettysburg. How fitting.

Never a dull moment this election year.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

you seem to have a pretty large vocabulary.

Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Remind me not to hire any of you Liberals to run my advertising business, my media business, etc.

It seems that the NYTimes is being run by one of you idiots though. the drop in stock price, the fleeing of advertisers, the loss of subscribers all the while they are ruining their reputation by printing lies, misinformation, political slant and biased opinion as news, or as you liberals call it - a "good" paper.

too funny to believe. this is Liberal economics at its best.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

So how do you know it's a "good" show?

by the ratings moron. how do you think?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 04:25 PM
----------------------
That was the whole point, which brought us to Paris, the tramp not the city.

I was a big fan of M*A*S*H, the first few years, but after Radar left it was so bad. The last show was painful to watch, but it was the highest rated show in history.

On the other hand, I Love Lucy was one of TV's biggest hits and still is much better than any of the crap you find in the top ten rated shows today.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Please don't Spec, it's like poking him with a stick to hear him make funny sounds. I laugh myself silly with this clown, it makes work go by so fast. LOL"

LOL, that just about sums it up perfectly. It's just too much fun.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Today's latest story from Insider Advantage about trends in Texas:

"Clinton: 47%
Obama: 43%
Undecided: 10%

The survey has been weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. Margin of error +/- 4%

InsiderAdvantage/Creator's Syndicate's Matt Towery:

"This is a classic sign that a race might be starting to turn. We see the undecided voters increasing and unsettled numbers in key age brackets. Moreover, Clinton has expanded her lead among Hispanic voters, while holding onto white votes. She has dropped slightly among women, but has gained among men.

"Let me stress that these polls are snapshots of the moment. I am not yet willing to say that there is a definitive trend, such as the one that our polling on Super Tuesday detected for Mike Huckabee in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee.

"But Southern states - and Texas is well within the scope of coverage for our Southern Political Report, founded by Hastings Wyman in Washington 30 years ago - tend to have more complex demographic weightings in polls than most other states.

"If these trends continue over the coming days, then it might be fair to say the race is slowly drifting Clinton's way. For now, I think it's at least fair to say that has turned momentum, to some degree, back in her direction."


Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

wpost: you're right, of course. I have had days where I have been able to refrain from interacting with the idiot, but this was not one of them. I will try to do better tomorrow.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 04:20 PM
------------------------
Please don't Spec, it's like poking him with a stick to hear him make funny sounds. I laugh myself silly with this clown, it makes work go by so fast. LOL

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

So how do you know it's a "good" show?

by the ratings moron. how do you think?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

do you see how stupid that is?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

do you see how stupid that is?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

zouk at 4:22: I think we need a fifth category for zouk posts: Complete and utter drivel.

How do you crank this garbage out so quickly? What exactly is wrong with you?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

that ratings are the metric of a good show. Are you backing away from that position, now that you've been shown how stupid it is?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 04:19 PM

Yes, your opinion is the only important measure of a good show.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"american idol is just about by any measure a good show if not a great one. It does not suit my tastes and I don't watch it, but I don't begrudge anyone who does."

So how do you know it's a "good" show? You just don't make any sense, zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Pure nonsequitur

do you actually know the meaning of that word. just because you are too stupid to follow and participate does not make it what you call it. Was that on your word of the day calendar today? Maybe you should go back to pavlovDJIA, it makes just about as much sense and shows your immense ignorance just as well.


why don't you and your jackel friends try to offer some original content for a change, some opinion you have discovered in that empty cavern you call your brain, something that is interesting to consider besides how stupid anyone who disagrees with you is.

start with:
explain how the market rejects liberal ideas in books, movies, TV shows, radio, etc in the only reliable metric available.

Or cut and paste this entire paragraph and add at the bottom:
classic zouk.

that would be enlightening.

I suppose I ask too much to expect a moronic liberal to think.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

wpost: you're right, of course. I have had days where I have been able to refrain from interacting with the idiot, but this was not one of them. I will try to do better tomorrow.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, zouk, but you're the one who claimed -- erroneously, of course -- that ratings are the metric of a good show. Are you backing away from that position, now that you've been shown how stupid it is?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

we're weren't talking about "good shows" at first. this is the post that started this:


Market check:

Cable news:

fox still reigns supreme with O"reilly at number one for years. Krazy Keith nad the warped out MSNBC falls to 26th. are there 26 news cable channels?

NYtimes bestseller list:

Liberal Fascism - #1

when will you moonbats learn that your stale old 60s shop-worn notions are not even popular with anyone but the flat-earth 15% pelosi extemists.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 02:04 PM

notice when Libs have such poor ideas and nothing factual to support thier views, their first reaction is to try to change the terminology of the structure. "do you reject or withdraw the support". Only Dems could argue about this for so long.

OK, I will stipulate that all succesful shows are not necesaarily "good" shows. Notice this is different than what I set out to say.

but it does bring up another interesting issue - the definition of a good show. I can only guess that Liberals
have some notions about this that has little to do with reality. the evidence for this can be found in the recent academy awards, which had the lowest audience ever and the movies had the lowest box office ever. what liberals think is good is not shared with anyone else.

american idol is just about by any measure a good show if not a great one. It does not suit my tastes and I don't watch it, but I don't begrudge anyone who does.

notice the condescension offered by the moonbats about this one. west wing or nothing for them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"zouk at 4:05. Pure nonsequitur, and lots of it. The man needs a hobby. Just look at how two words sends him off into paragraphs of drivel."

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

Spec...the fact that you continue tro debate with zouk is like continuing to debate with an autistic child. It reveals more about you than him/her. Why bother?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

To sort of quote Tim Russert: if Texas and Ohio end up virtually tied on March 4 but Obama still with his lead does Hillary consider it a "victory"?

No matter what happens, this convention in Denver is going to be fun to watch.

Posted by: mac8081 | February 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

zouk at 4:05. Pure nonsequitur, and lots of it. The man needs a hobby. Just look at how two words sends him off into paragraphs of drivel.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

nonsensical nonsequiturs?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 03:55 PM

Is that like irregardless?

Are you toying with me? I find it hard to beleive that a person could be that stupid.

If I admit that air america is a great product and the West wing was the best TV show ever, will you relent?

Of course the advertisers and the others who actually have to put their money where their mouth is may still disagree. when I tell them that Krazy Keith Olbermann is really a good show and they should pay just as much for that audience as for Bill O"Reilly's audience, which is about 8 times as large, they may look at me and ask :

Are you doing Lib math again?

you know Lib math, where you raise taxes in a down economy. where surrender is a form of winning, where book sales have nothing at all to do with the quality of the product. where income is not a measure of success but rather a reflection of how rigged the system is and how much government intervention is required to correct it. yeah, that Lib math. no signs of it in the math department or econ department yet. Perhaps over in the liberal arts building. I think Professor Kruggman is teaching it this semester.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

that simpleton Paris Hilton made over $700K last year just showing up at clubs. not to mention the millions in products, movies, books, etc.

Of course, none of that is acceptable to Libs because she won't come out against Bush like all well-behaved celebrities do. success is so evil in Lib circles.

sure beats blogging all day to hide a failed writing career or venting aggression at the political process that won't succomb to your wacky demands.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 03:51 PM
-----------------------------------
Man have you got anger issues, plus that was not the point, the issue was 'quality' over ratings. And I don't think everyone judges success buy how much money you have. The fact this spoiled trash gets paid to show up at clubs just shows how screwed up people are. Oh and Paris for her latest birthday bash pulled a real class act.
http://blogs.lasvegasmagazine.com/VegasLuxeLife/paris-hilton-strips-down-for-pussycat-dolls/

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

There has been tremendous pressure on Black super delegates to support Sen. Obama. The Obama camp has threatened them with possible voter retaliation, especially in districts that Obama carried. They have been told by Jessie Jackson Jr. that their vote could deny the first Black man the Presidency.

I have received requests from several Black and Progressive groups supporting Sen. Obama to sign petitions, and contact super delegates to pressure them to support him regardless of their views.

A candidate using these tactics can be expected to use NAFTA, a perceived weakness of Sen. Clinton, disingenuously for political gain. He counted on this resonating in a state hard hit by out sizing. Sen. Obama said that she called it a "boon" even though that misrepresentation had been debunked.

Sen. Clinton has always said that the intended regulations associated in NAFTA were never utilized by the Bush Administration. Bush, as always, was free trade on steroids to the detriment of this country.

I am not surprised that the same man used the Republican images of a couple at the table with a stack of papers befuddled over the Clinton Medical Plan morphed to show "bills" and a couple befuddled by being "forced" to pay another bill "Hillary-Care." No mention that the "Hillary-Care" was designed to be "Affordable" and help reduce their burden.

How is he above the fray?

Posted by: LadyDayOne | February 28, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"sure beats blogging all day to hide a failed writing career or venting aggression at the political process that won't succomb to your wacky demands."

_____________

As only you would know.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"that simpleton Paris Hilton made over $700K last year just showing up at clubs. not to mention the millions in products, movies, books, etc."

We're talking about good shows, idiot. Can you at least try to refrain from the nonsensical nonsequiturs?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

that simpleton Paris Hilton made over $700K last year just showing up at clubs. not to mention the millions in products, movies, books, etc.

Of course, none of that is acceptable to Libs because she won't come out against Bush like all well-behaved celebrities do. success is so evil in Lib circles.

sure beats blogging all day to hide a failed writing career or venting aggression at the political process that won't succomb to your wacky demands.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"a movement is afoot .. that even a politician as powerful and savvy as Clinton cannot stop."

I wonder how powerful & savvy a politician Clinton really is.

Posted by: bsimon | February 28, 2008 12:44 PM
-------------------------------------
Regardless of her showing I'd say if she bows out gracefully next week she will retain her seat and perhaps get the leadership after the elections, since Reid is so incompetant.

As for Bill, he and Hillary have done some damage but make no mistake, they are going to do a lot of campaigning after the convention is over in the fall.

-------------------------------------------
wpost: Can you believe this blithering idiot? He must think American Idol is a "good" show.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 03:00 PM
-------------------------------------------LOL

Don't forget Fox's other hit, The Simple Life with that simpleton Paris Hilton.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 28, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

blarg you have effectively silenced Loud and dumb. what is he supposed to do now? if he can't cut and paste my stuff, his life has little meaning.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

New Texas poll shows Hillary up by 4% points in Texas and surging. That along with the Feb $35 million in fundraising and the Cleveland debate, indicates that Momentum is now shifting to Hillary. Campaign is now moving forward towards Pa.

Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

You might want to take one more superdelegate (Tom Lantos) away from Ms. Experience.

Posted by: HillaryisLoathsomeandUnelectible | February 28, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Texas does matter to the Dems for "Spin or Talking Points" in the primary, no matter the outcome. but from the support Obama has from The Media, it is hard to imagine anything other than the continued "Spin" in his favor. The GE in Texas is considered a loss for the Dems, and won't be contested to any degree, so in the overall picture, I think this will hurt the journalism profession more than anything else.

Posted by: lylepink | February 28, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Obama gets away with double speak during the debate with Hillary."
==================

Double speak. Hm. Would that be like promising to release your tax returns "before" the nomination and then the next day say "after" the nomination?

Or would you just call that a plain old fib?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"Obama - I promise whatever you want to hear if elected

Actual result - exactly the opposite of what you expected - a ruined economy, a loss in a war, skyrocketing taxes, misery index through the roof."
We got all that now and more to come no matter who sits on the hot seat .Obama can do no worse

Posted by: mrjhew | February 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

This never-ending exchange of insults is extremely annoying. We all know that Zouk won't stop, because that's all he's capable of. But it would be nice if other people could resist the impulse to respond. Quoting 3 paragraphs of Zouk to add an insult at the end is stupid on many levels. Stop replying to him, stop drawing attention to his posts, and stop polluting the forum with your juvenile name-calling.

Posted by: Blarg | February 28, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama gets away with double speak during the debate with Hillary. When Obama said that he would send troops back to Iraq if Al Queda becomes a threat again, is a stark change from his long held belief that this war was a mistake from the start. Now, he is willing to make the same mistake with American lives and nobody in the press is questioning this change in policy. If he is a true liberal, than he would have never made that statement and sending in troops would not be an option. Let Iraq take care of themselves. Maybe Obama and the press are pulling the wool over our eyes. We need to listen closely and maybe everyone will decide that Hillary is the true choice.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | February 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"

Hey - al gore, if you start wearing browns and greens, everyone will forget what a tongue tied fool you are and reconsider you to be an alpha male. shame about that global warming thing not working out for ya, what with all this freezing cold weather and all. who would have thought that junk science would fall apart so quickly?

Hey - ignorant coward, or is is loud and dumb, if you change your screen name to Spectaturd2, everyone will forget what a complete idiot you are. that is until you start posting again.

A good idea would be to post the same thing over and over, so you don't make any errors, try to use the DJIA example to explain everything. then go for the Pavlov reference in every post. then simply stick to pointing out when and where zouk is, you know, tha same as you used to do as the phantom "ignorant coward", before the entire blog called for your removal on grounds of utter stupidity."

Insult plus nonsequitur. Classic zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Congressman Lewis did not "defect." He did not wake up one day and after staunchly supporting Hillary Clinton all this time, decide that he thought Obama was the better candidate. He was pushed. His decision to endorse Sen. Obama was a forced march."

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

Doubtful. A man with his history doesn't succumb to that kind of pressure. But Hillary is desperate to spin it so.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I see there are two stooges in residence today. where's drindl to complete the triumverate?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey - al gore, if you start wearing browns and greens, everyone will forget what a tongue tied fool you are and reconsider you to be an alpha male. shame about that global warming thing not working out for ya, what with all this freezing cold weather and all. who would have thought that junk science would fall apart so quickly?

Hey - ignorant coward, or is is loud and dumb, if you change your screen name to Spectaturd2, everyone will forget what a complete idiot you are. that is until you start posting again.

A good idea would be to post the same thing over and over, so you don't make any errors, try to use the DJIA example to explain everything. then go for the Pavlov reference in every post. then simply stick to pointing out when and where zouk is, you know, tha same as you used to do as the phantom "ignorant coward", before the entire blog called for your removal on grounds of utter stupidity.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally Congressman Lewis has switched his support numerous times and there is nothing that says he just might not switch again 2 or 3 times before Denver. He is one of 2,025 needed delegates. Lets not overdo this even though the Obama News Networks believe it will help their ratings.

Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

wpost: Can you believe this blithering idiot? He must think American Idol is a "good" show.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"Loud and dumb, what's with the new name? did you forget your old password? spectaturd is so passive; loud and dumb is really much more descriptive and accurate. I suggest you go back, numbnuts.

I must say I am impressed with your ability to break out of the two line insult using clever cut and paste to emerge......at the three line insult using cut and paste."

Straight insult. Classic zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC and CBSRadio just confirmed that the Clinton campaign raised $35 million dollars in the month of February.
I recall all of the Obama supporters coming here yesterday screaming that the Clinton campaign was broke. Wishful thinking. Might not want to trust every word that comes out of their mouths.

Posted by: leichtman | February 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Since when do TV ratings indicate intelligence?

Umm- since that is the metric that is applied to a "good" TV show."

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

LOL. Um. That's really inly something a child would say, so I pray you're under 20 years old.

"Good" TV shows never last. They demand too much thinking. One of the longest-lasting popular shows is "Wheel of Fortune." There's your O'Reilly crowd.

Television is the "circuses" of the modern day. $600 checks from the gov't are the bread.

"Good" TV. Lordy, that's a good one!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Loud and dumb, what's with the new name? did you forget your old password? spectaturd is so passive; loud and dumb is really much more descriptive and accurate. I suggest you go back, numbnuts.

I must say I am impressed with your ability to break out of the two line insult using clever cut and paste to emerge......at the three line insult using cut and paste.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

C --

It's "crack" NBC political unit.

Posted by: jac13 | February 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Lewis's defection does little to help Obama or the Dems. He could have exercised more power and leverage by staying with HRC like Tubbs-Jones has, keeping his credibility and using it to persuade her to withdraw if she 'loses' [wonder what the definition of 'loses' will be?] Texas or Ohio. There must be another, yet to be covered, agenda. He didn't even notify HRC before making the announcement. A normally classy guy who risked his life for civil rights, Lewis did a very unclassy thing in how he handled this. I'm not sure I'd trust Lewis for his word on anything unless, as I said, there is something unreported that's operating here. SDs were set up with that purpose in mind and switching on the basis of who has the momentum at the current time seems to undermine that.

Posted by: BillfromLA | February 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

""market - what's a market. doesn't barack set the prices for everything?"
- Loud and dumb"

Nonsequitur plus insult. Classic zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"market - what's a market. doesn't barack set the prices for everything?"
- Loud and dumb

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Pretty funny...latest news on Hillary...her campaign raised 35 million in February...but she is putting down Obama for spending lol. Oh also...wonder where and of course if...this money came from. Considering this is a good tact right now to convince voters people still want her lol. I find it kind of wierd that her husband will be on the chopping block with the senate shortly for illegal campaign funds given to him during his re-election. Hmm...makes one wonder where Miss Hillary got hers doesnt it.

Posted by: Webster51 | February 28, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"Umm- since that is the metric that is applied to a "good" TV show."

Umm -- more proof that calling you a Pavlov puppy is an insult to Pavlov's puppies. Ratings have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of a tv show; all they do is measure how many people watch.

Another topic zouk proves completely ignorant on. The complete list can be found at www.zoukisablitheringidiot.com.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

When all is said and done, the superdelegates will do as the DNC designed them to do: pick the best candidate for president. I agree with the earlier post that those folks who go contrary to what the voters, even those in their respective jursidictions, decided are risking their political lives.

Posted by: mac8081 | February 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

vaidyatk, you actually brought up an interesting point somewhere in the depths of your monolithic paragraph.

I wonder if there has been more outcry from the move-on, anti-war crowd regarding Obama's claim that he would go back in to Iraq if necessary. This is actually a very tough question, damned-if you do and damned if you don't. On one hand, running as the anti-war candidate you have to be very careful not to appear like G.W. Bush. But on the other hand, as the potential commander-in-chief, you have to appear strong and that you will protect America. I think Obama answered truthfully here, but it was in fact just a hypothetical question and let's hope that situation never arises.

As a reality check and comparison, what happened to Vietnam when we left? The hawks didn't seem to have a problem turning their back on what happened after that loss and according to McCain's strategy, we would still have forces there for another 70 years.

As for your other point, "what could we expect Clinton and the other Senators to do with their vote, stop Bush?" Ummm, yes, exactly that. That is the role of Congress, as a check on power. The Republicans followed the President like a puppy-dog into this war (and have paid the price, who controls Congress now?) and the Democrats cowered to the patriotic, reactionary crowd and worried more about approval ratings then doing what was right. Yes, I expected them to say, "wait a minute, what are the facts and lets calmly discuss this," and not succomb to this vote. The media let us down during this time (and have since largely admitted it) and so did Congress. Riding a wave of sympathy after 9/11, Bush did the right thing by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan (the world supported this) and then tried to sneak in his personal war against Iraq.

The public in general was let down by this turn of events and I absolutely think it is FAIR AND JUST to hold all Senators who voted for this war accountable.

Posted by: hillmannic | February 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Since when do TV ratings indicate intelligence?

Umm- since that is the metric that is applied to a "good" TV show. I know you Libs love your air america and Krazy Keith but it would help to occasionally tune in and watch them so they don't get cancelled. would it kill you to buy Kruggman's book - seems it would.

On the war of ideas, the Libs are definately working from a severe disadvantage and the voters/viewers/consumers know it and are voting with their feet/eyes/wallets.

so sad to have to face the light of day, when hope and envy can't get you through.

Of course, you could try Loud-and-dumb's approach - insults, bad taste, lowbrow humor and stubborn idiocy, but you must see how well that has worked for the clintons.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I didn't think there was enough room left in her back for another knife.How wrong I was,and yes I do believe the media piled on and on and on..

Posted by: rmorin2 | February 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Congressman Lewis did not "defect." He did not wake up one day and after staunchly supporting Hillary Clinton all this time, decide that he thought Obama was the better candidate. He was pushed. His decision to endorse Sen. Obama was a forced march. Here is an honest, decent, heroic man, threatened by the constituency he has served tirelessly to either get on board with their world view or risk losing his seat in the House. He said as much. But no one listened. All anybody heard was "Lewis endorses Obama over Clinton." The "why" is apparently irrelevant. Anything less than absolute support for Obama is not being tolerated in this country. Gee, where have we heard this before?
Cillizza, the media, and all those who are breathlessly supporting Sen. Obama, missed the story, again.

Posted by: simsink | February 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"this from the resident expert on simple - Loud and dumb. finally a topic you can talk on with authority."

More brilliance from our resident Pavlov puppy, Denny Dummy.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the real superdelegate story is those handfull that are changing their votes. Its really the tons of them who haven't come out for either candidate yet.

Honestly, Lewis and other African American SDs never expected Obama to perform as well as he did. They were slow to get on the bandwagon, but the pressure from their constituents and his momentum has made their support of Clinton untenable. Don't forget that he still admires and likes the Clintons and said so.

The real story is what is going on in the minds of all the uncommitted SDs right now. If they had signed on to the "inevitablity" argument Clinton made at the start of the season, they would already be in her camp. My guess is that they will swing with the popular vote candidate and would be very sensitive to not change the "voice of the people" here. I mean, this is the democratic party after all, they can't be seen to handpick Clinton after she has underperformed. Not smart politically or in a PR sense.

Posted by: hillmannic | February 28, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

simple pleasures for simple minds, wpost.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 02:16 PM

this from the resident expert on simple - Loud and dumb. finally a topic you can talk on with authority.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Lewis's decision to switch sides to Obama -- and the words he used to describe why he did so -- signal that a movement is afoot in the black community and the country that even a politician as powerful and savvy as Clinton cannot stop."

And of course, Lewis drawing Rev. Markel Hutchins as a primary challenger had *nothing to do* with his decision to support Obama.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/15813837.html

Looks like I might be able to finally sell that bridge in Arizona after all.

Posted by: cab91 | February 28, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I still can't figure out how mathematically challenged Libs are? how is it that a difference of about 100 votes out of 2000 is a runaway stampede? the projected outcome is that this relative margin of about 100 will remain in place for some time. I do not think this is sufficient motivation for the clintons to give up their dream of world domination and a return to unparalled corruption.

the pardon money is gone and the interns have stopped calling.

I understand the desire to rid the world of the clinton menace once and for all but you are forgetting your monster movies.

Just as you near the end, and you think the ghoul has been dispatched, they emerge from behind the star and sink in their teeth one last time.
Old moves had the star somehow win out in the end, but modern movies made the vampire into the star for the sequel.

I don't think that vamp has been properly staked yet.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"But hey, if it makes you feel validated, it's all yours."

simple pleasures for simple minds, wpost.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

With Repub and The Media support, it is not at all suprising that Obama is doing so well. I still think there is something wrong with this guy, but I can't figure out what it is, and the way The Media is supporting him, it is doubtful we will find out anything wrong. These SDs will do what is in THEIR interest.

Posted by: lylepink | February 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Mar. 5th will see Senator Clinton do the honourable thing and suspend her campaign. She was a very good opponent but, the voters have made thier choice.

I know she doesn't like the position she is in and will not continue after next Tuesday. Texas and Ohio will go to Barack.

It's a NEW day America and I love it.

EPLURIBUS UNUM!

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 28, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"fox still reigns supreme with O"reilly at number one for years."

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

Since when do TV ratings indicate intelligence? A pretty pathetic argument for anything except advertising revenue. But hey, if it makes you feel validated, it's all yours.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know what is going on in the heads of you few remaining Hillary Clinton supporters. "
==============

LOL> I am an Obama supporter.
Calm thyself.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I agree it's not a stampede. How about "stream?"

And, BTW, of course black leaders are putting pressure on Hillary's AA supers. I fully expect that prominent women supporting Hillary are putting similar pressure on women supers: "you don't want to stand in the way of the first woman/black POTUS, do you?"

Can you say "politics?"

Posted by: jac13 | February 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Market check:

Cable news:

fox still reigns supreme with O"reilly at number one for years. Krazy Keith nad the warped out MSNBC falls to 26th. are there 26 news cable channels?

NYtimes bestseller list:

Liberal Fascism - #1

when will you moonbats learn that your stale old 60s shop-worn notions are not even popular with anyone but the flat-earth 15% pelosi extemists.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112,

No, Clinton will never get to Pennsylvania if, as you suggest, TX and OH are split. Obama is DOMINATING Texas and has rapidly built the largest and most effective political organization that any Democrat has managed in that state's history.

Even if Clinton managed to eke out a win in Ohio, she's finished. The party's leadership has been making it clear that they will push for this thing to be over on March 5th if Clinton doesn't win big in Texas and Ohio. Howard Dean can move around an enormous number of super delegates and he's made it clear that he wants a nominee following March 4th. Clinton will be forced to formally leave the race, or else become America's laughing stock. Her choice.

Obama is closing the super delegate gap so rapidly that even that pie-in-the-sky option of Hillary winning a brokered convention is becoming impossible.

I don't know what is going on in the heads of you few remaining Hillary Clinton supporters. Look at video clips of her sparsely attended events. She struggles to fill venues that only hold a few thousand people while Barack Obama routinely packs football stadiums with tens of thousands of supporters, the lines to get in often stretching as far as the eye can see. His local campaign offices are hives of activity that often have so many volunteers that they have to turn some away. This while Clinton's local campaign offices often cannot even maintain normal hours for lack of manpower.

You lost. Big time. Obama won. In every single day of voting, Super Tuesday included, Barack Obama won as many or more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. Nevada and New Hampshire included. He has crushed her in 11 straight landslides in a row. Not just wins - landslides. And he dominates her in fundraising as well.

Yet you talk about a contest in Pennsylvania? It just sounds like a joke. HILLARY CLINTON LOST THE ELECTION. Barack Obama is the nominee. Whistling 'Dixie' won't change that.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 28, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

vaidyatk and zouk,

Speaking only for myself, I certainly do have the stomach for informed, well-reasoned differing opinions. What I don't have the stomach for are your tiresome, repetitious, uninformed, knee-jerk, cut-and-paste posts.

In case you haven't figured it out, even occasional visitors like me have learned to scroll down to see the signature and then skip yours.

How about (i) thinking for yourself and (ii) limiting your posts to the actual subject in the blog we're discussing?

Posted by: jac13 | February 28, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Is this really a stampede? Who else besides Rep. Lewis of GA switched from Clinton to Obama?

What's more insightful is WHEN superdelegates endorsed Clinton or Obama. How many did each of them pick up since the Iowa caucuses?

Posted by: ericp331 | February 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

If you think the Clintons are spreading lies about pressuring the superdelegates, Google it. The sexist/racist Obama National Campaign Chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr. has been threatening all of the African American SDs. Google it. I dare you.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 28, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Who won between clinton (hope candidate) and dole (ol war hero) in 1992?

Posted by: J_thinks | February 28, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Vaidyatk,

Paragraph breaks. Please use them, as your comment is an impenetrable rant.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is spreading lies about the Superdelegates having been pressured by the Obama campaign. Actually they had originally been pressured by personal telephone calls from Bill Clinton. But if they now switch to Obama, it is simply because they would like to be re-elected. An elected official who now goes against his own constituents, has no chance in the next election.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 28, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Much better to simply nominate his hopefulness and worry about the consequences later."
======================

Exactly. Sounds good to me.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I see zouk thinks old, doddering McCain is running against Carter -- or is it McGovern?

Which is it, Denny Dummy?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Bush- Recession
McCain- More of the same.

Posted by: TennGurl | February 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I can see the Libs on this site have no stomach for Obambi's actual positions, votes and ideas. Much better to simply nominate his hopefulness and worry about the consequences later. you remember, the same thing they did with gore, Kerry, dukakis, Mcgovern, mondale.

expect a similar outcome.

surprised drindl and loud-and-dumb reply - "this time it will be different". they forget how popular the Pelosi/reid congress is. can a Lib count that low?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to the subject at hand:

Lewis has flipped back and forth already, so I think he loses some luster.

Is this a reflection of his inability to commit or the Clintons' inability to inspire loyalty?

Seems less than full-hearted support although certainly it has a definite practical effect in Superdelegate votes.

Will he hang tough if Obama ultimately fails to deliver?

Texas/Ohio split seems likely.

Heading to another Gettysburg in PA.

But whose Gettysburg?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

hillary - "I promise 200,000 new jobs if elected"

Actual result - 30,000 job loss.

Obama - I promise whatever you want to hear if elected

Actual result - exactly the opposite of what you expected - a ruined economy, a loss in a war, skyrocketing taxes, misery index through the roof. you know - the carter thing.

Loud and dumb, overwhelmed by fact, retorts in the usual fashion. classic two line nothingness.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Let's be honest.... John McCain is very old physically and mentally. There becomes a certain time in your life when you need or should retire and let the next generation be responsible. The key here is Mr. McCain as well as Mrs. Clinton are great resources for future leaders such as Mr. Obama. Let's build a future folks!

Posted by: ezdebut | February 28, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"the reality is so tawdry."
=====================

You're so good with words! (swoon.)

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Way to go, Pavlov puppy. Nice combination of a cut and paste job plus an insult. Classic zouk post.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 28, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I think there is a huge disconnect between the media adoration of Obama and the real Obama. "

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

That you, Rumpelstiltskin?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade.


He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple the benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LawrenceKudlow/2008/02/28/obamas_big-government_vision

stop with the votes and the proposals. Libs prefer hope and fanciful empty promises. the reality is so tawdry.


Posted by: kingofzouk | February 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Clinton doesn't just have to win the four states on Tuesday; she has to dominate. How could she continue after losing 12 or 13 of the last 15 contests and netting only a handful of delegates in these states?

How tiresome are these "Never count a Clinton out" references? She's behind, and she has no way to the nomination except through the superdelegates overturning the will of the voters, thereby splitting the party. Come on - it's time to count this Clinton out, unless lightning strikes four times next Tuesday. If she doesn't win big, she'll be about as welcome as the last party guest at 1 AM, who doesn't know it's time to leave.

Posted by: wesfromGA | February 28, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I think there is a huge disconnect between the media adoration of Obama and the real Obama. The media can't see the errors of judgments that Obama makes, because it does not want to scrutinize Obama. Look, Obama made a huge blunder during Tuesday's debate. He showed his macho instincts by saying that he will send the troops back to Iraq if Al Queda becomes a threat there. He has always been saying that we are spending billions and billions of dollars in the Iraq war, and it is time for our troops to return so we can invest the money to solve the problems right here at home. Al Queda is fighting the American troops there right now. It seems to me that he has his one foot in Iraq to protect, while his other foot is withdrawing. This is the worst possible policy. It is now readily apparent that he can't defend his anti-war stand without a macho posture to fight Al Queda. In other words his policy is reactive, rather than proactive. If he is willing to defend American interests in Iraq by sending the troops back after a withdrawal, his policy is not very much different from that of George Bush and McCain, except that Bush and McCain are proactive. So Obama does not promise us that he will withdraw from Iraq if Al Queda starts ascending in Iraq. He also proposes a surge of American troops in Afghanistan. If he withdraws from Iraq, and reinforces our troops in Afghanistan, Al Queda will simply move over to Iraq. Then he will send the troops back to Iraq. And, he might even send our troops to Pakistan in pursuit of terrorists, as he says repeatedly. If the Pakistan's army returns the fire, where will we be? It seems to me that Obama may create a bigger mess than George Bush did if he follows through on what he said during the debates. If anybody had any illusion about a steadfast Obama against war, he has completely dispelled it. Hillary has a real opening here because of the mess he is proposing as his Iraq and its neighbourhood strategy. It is clear to me that he can't take the heat on his Iraq troop withdrawal plan without a promise to send them back if Al Queda becomes a threat there. So Hillary's point about Obama's weak credentials on the national security front is already finding resonance in his highly reactive and controversial strategies to solve the Iraq problem. I think that this issue needs a more serious debate, and Obama will come apart defending his posture.After criticizing Hillary all these weeks on her bad judgment on Iraq, I am realizing for the first time that Obama may create a bigger mess because he has shown no judgment at all. I know that no one knows the solution to the Iraq mess because the troops were sent there without a proper debate and careful analysis of outcomes. Remember even George bush's own secretary of state Powell told the President that he will own Iraq if he sends the ground troops there, but Bush never listened to any one. To suggest that the senate vote was an an authorization of war is the biggest fallacy. George Bush had already told some people way before the attack that he had already decided to throw out Sadam Hussein. To blame Hillary on the Iraq vote is to say that she (or even the congress) could have stopped Bush from what he intended to do. So people like John Kerry and Hillary voted for the resolution to help Bush take a tough position to force Sadam Hussein to surrender to the demmands on the non-existent nuclear and biological weapons. They hoped that that vote would prevent the war on Iraq by eliminationg the reason for the war. For Obama, John Kerry's vote was fine in 2004, but in 2008, he says that Hillary committed a sin by her vote. How far can you go in your hypocrisy? Ofcourse we now we have a mess, and Obama's positions on this mess are dangerous delusions. And, the media gives him a pass on this and every other crucial issue. Like his claim that he passed a law protecticting consumers against the radioactive leak. The NYT reported once (mind you, only once!) that he lied about this in Iowa because the bill never passed and worse still, he purposely diluted the bill to help the company that was actually responsible for the leak. Reason? The company was his strong sponsor and supporter for fund raising over the years. So it is easy to know why a candidate can keep winning because the media keeps him afloat by constantly showing him as a messiah just because young people have a cult-like attachment to him (and we know Putin of Russia is getting the votes doing the same thing by controlling the media!). We, as parents, also get carried away by our children because we want to promote their participation. That is what Mao did in china during the cultural revolution. He used young kids to make him a larger-than- life figure by letting them loose on a frenzy. And by promoting a cult-like environment in this election, the media has all but abandoned its role as a balancing influence or to create a fair environment for a true democratic verdict by the people. By any stretch of imagination, they have failed to act as impartial journalists. This may eventually create skepticism even among the young because they also know that the people who ought to know are not execrising their judgment in a critical analysis.

Posted by: vaidyatk | February 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

sethsonderling, Any smart person would be able to understand what this article says. The key words are: "we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards." This is what he has said in all of the debates. It really bothers me when misinformation is put out on EITHER candidates. Sen. Obama's campaign was correct in contacting the Canadians. This shows that he is willing to work with leaders of other countries, including our next door neighbor Canada. Get a life!

Posted by: politicaljunk | February 28, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"...according to the cracked NBC political unit..."

Funny,irreverent, but perhaps impolitic, Chris.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 28, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"Wins in the Ohio-Texas Two-Step, however, gives Clinton life and likely preempts any sort of superdelegate stampede."

As kreuz already noted, what defines a 'win' in either of those states for Sen Clinton? I don't see how popular vote wins coupled with a draw in the delegate count will convince undecided superdelegates to move to her side. She has to convince those superdelegates to commit & to do that she probably has to perform well outside her traditional base. Older women, latinos & blue-collar voters will not win the general election. She has to prove to superdelegates that she can draw swing voters & will be competitive in the general, in order to win the nomination.

Posted by: bsimon | February 28, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"a movement is afoot .. that even a politician as powerful and savvy as Clinton cannot stop."

I wonder how powerful & savvy a politician Clinton really is.

Posted by: bsimon | February 28, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Another minor thing - Nancy Larson is listed twice under Minnesota. I believe she is currently uncommitted.

Posted by: lreszetar | February 28, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I like the new superdelegate page...

One minor thing... Joe Andrew is no longer an Indiana superdelegate... he's now a Maryland superdelegate... He is still committed to Clinton.

Posted by: eamon1916 | February 28, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Not only a win in both states, a BIG win. Wins in both may keep up her donations, but the Supers will see the writing on the wall with the pledged delegates and begin to move at that point, especially with Hillary's final firewall, assuming a BIG win Tuesday, in Pennsylvania already down to 6 pts.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Now, enter "obama nafta ctv" in the search box at Google News and you get a whopping 16 stories, all of them from blogs and Canadian news outlets. The U.S. media won't touch this.

Life continues to imitate SNL sketches.

Posted by: sethsonderling | February 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Well, some of her supporters on the message boards already have started sliming Lewis. That didn't take long.

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

How long until the Clinton campaign starts to slander gentlemen like Mr. Lewis? The Truth is still predicting that Hill will give up the ghost before 3/4.

Posted by: TheTruth | February 28, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company