Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam Week in Preview: Potomac Primary

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.


This week marks the Potomac Primary, which includes elections in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) comes into these contests with momentum, the result of five wins over the weekend in Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, Washington and the Virgin Islands.

His campaign put out a memo to that effect late Sunday, simultaneously making the argument that Obama has dominated the early contests AND that Clinton is the frontrunner.

"Barack Obama has won nearly twice as many states as Hillary Clinton," writes campaign manager David Plouffe. "He won a Red State, Purple State, and Blue States this weekend -- showing he has broad national appeal and can win in every corner of this country."

In the next breath (actually, one paragraph later) Plouffe is casting his candidate as the underdog.

"While Obama's victories demonstrate his broad national appeal, he still faces an uphill battle in every upcoming contest because the Clintons are far better known and have a political machine that's been honed over two decades," Plouffe writes.

While Obama's campaign was celebrating their victories, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) was going through a staff shuffle, with longtime campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle stepping down on Sunday and being replaced by Maggie Williams.

Clinton's campaign insists it need not win any of the states voting tomorrow or a week from tomorrow (Wisconsin and Hawaii) and, from a pure delegate standpoint, they are probably right. But, parts of this race are still a momentum game and if Clinton hopes to sweep the two big states on March 4 -- Ohio and Texas -- a win sometime before then would be a big help.

The District of Columbia is a non-starter. It has a nearly 60 percent black population and Mayor Adrian Fenty is behind Obama. The only question in the D.C. primary is just how big a margin Obama can rack up.

Maryland will be equally tough. Roughly three in ten residents of the state are black and the Washington suburbs are filled with the highly educated, affluent voters that Obama has dominated in the primaries and caucuses to date.

That leaves Virginia, which won't be easy pickings at all for the New York Senator, according to an independent poll out Sunday that shows Obama with a 53 percent to 37 percent edge in the Commonwealth's primary.

While the road won't be easy in Virginia for Clinton, a path to victory does exist. Clinton has done far better than Obama among lower middle class white voters -- a major voting bloc in southwest Virginia.

It's hard to paint any state before the goliaths of Ohio and Texas in early March as "must wins" for either candidate but what Clinton can't do is be blown out in the Commonwealth on Tuesday night. Maine's caucuses were expected to be a close contest between Obama and Clinton but the Illinois Senator won convincingly. If that scenario is repeated in Virginia, Clinton will have lost seven straight contests and questions about whether the campaign is off track will begin to be asked in earnest.

We'll be monitoring the results of the Potomac Primary all tomorrow night so keep it locked on The Fix. In the meantime, don't forget to vote in the poll below. A verdict must be rendered on the Fix Primary/Caucus Beard.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 11, 2008; 10:44 AM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Campaign Manager Steps Aside
Next: Endorsement Hierarchy: The Obligatory Endorsement

Comments

It's about time you shaved that dirt squirrel!

;-)

-Chuck
http://politicalbyline.blogspot.com

Posted by: hardline | February 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

once again, the deranged liar brooks offers no links to support his assertions:

"60 million jobs lost"

"19 percent of support payments"

notice the specificity of the numbers, yet there is nothing to back them up. brooks is just a liar and a bad one at that. this freak calls me lazy but he won't back up his idiotic assertions. of course, that's because he can't.

by the way, incontinent old man, how do you know who is a lawyer on here?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2, you are a truly frightening individual. The idea of someone like you in control of this country ought to send shivers up the spine of anyone.
As for what I have written, why don't you ask the lawyers here? We all knw you are too lazy to look anything up, but we have several attoney's on these forums who can tell you that everything I have written is completely factual. Let's just take the one situation, where men, not the father of children, are forced to pay support. Ask mark_from_austin or blarg. Of course, it is the case. Will you apologize or merelt shut up when you are uncovered as wrong. No. That is the problem with fanatics, especially hysterical ones. Discourse, thought, civilized behavior, all go bybthe wayside. You and your ilk are WORSE than any Fundimentalist.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

schizophrenic brooks: "Now, I don't want to argue the rights and wrongs of any of this. I have long stated that I am moderately pro-choice and pro-gay rights."

Sure you have, sicko. Too bad your posts prove you are completely anti-choice and anti-gay rights.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

liar brooks: "If a man is a "longtime partner" or husband of a woman and she becomes pregnant by a completel different man, the husband or longtome partner is still obligated to pay the support. This isn't some rare event, it actually accounts for 19% of support payments in this country. Ask any lawyer on this forum."

Surprise, surprise, another complete crock of s**t from the lying liar. No one is forced to pay a penny for support of a child fathered by another man. Never heard of paternity tests?

Where do you get this crap from? This is right up there with your "60 million jobs" lost from outsourcing.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

brooks: I shudder to think how much time you wasted on your latest screed. You are a sick, sick individual.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

What Clintonite's like Spectator2 would have us believe is that women have a right to choose and that ends the argument. Of course it doesn't. Men do not have a right to choose. If a woman becomes pregnant, the father has no right. If she has the child, the father, or even the husband, is forced to support her and the child for 18 to 24 years. I differentiate fathers from husbands because laws govcerning support have been "femininized". If a man is a "longtime partner" or husband of a woman and she becomes pregnant by a completel different man, the husband or longtome partner is still obligated to pay the support. This isn't some rare event, it actually accounts for 19% of support payments in this country. Ask any lawyer on this forum. By anyone's definition, this amount to nothing more than a form of modern day slavery, justified becasue men are somehow inherently evil.

Moreover, the new gay right laws are being used to prosecute Fundimentalist pastors for preaching that homosexuality is an "abomination" using the hate speech claus of those laws. Activists are actively seeking out chruches that oppose homosexuality and applying for nonprotected jobs, such as editor of the chruch newsdpaper, and suing under descrinmination provisions. They are using church membership roles to persecute members of those churches by actively seeking landlords and insisting on renting apartments as "gay couples".

ALl of this is part of the cultural wars. What Hillary Clinton and her partisan warriors are up to is remaking society in their imagine. They will not tolerate opposing viewpoints, especially conservative or Fundimentalist lifestyles.

Now, I don't want to argue the rights and wrongs of any of this. I have long stated that I am moderately pro-choice and pro-gay rights. But, we are embarking on a very dangerous course in this country where any means is justified if it results in your shoving your viewpoint down everyone else's throat. And, I want it noted, that the more hysterical, the more ruthless of the partisans are coming from the Clinton camp, not from the Huckabee's of the world.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

From the ground in Virginia:
No letters in the local paper supporting Clinton, except for one from a Republican who's decided she's the one easier to be and McCain already has it in the bag (it's an open primary). One letter supporting Huckabee and a couple of strong Obama supporting letters.

Huckabee is campaigning HARD here. Everyone--especially Independents--are getting tons of robocalls. As a Democrat I've had one from Bill Clinton (not Hillary yet) and Barack Obama. Also a call from Obama supporters (Live!).

Haven't seen one yard sign (because Obama's headquarters seems to have run out, according to the web site?). I think Hillary Clinton will do better than what's shown in the polls--I've seen a couple of Hillary bumper stickers, and the Clintons campaigned like crazy here. I'm voting for Obama, and I think there will be more of us, but I don't want another New Hampshire, so I'm trying to dampen my expectations.

Posted by: Vaughan1 | February 11, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

dave, nope, we already have laws stating murder is wrong without going anywhere near religion. To clarify. If you want to advocate it's right, go for it but don't try to put that arguement in the mouths of 'liberals.'

On the other hand, fundamentalism argues murder, such as suicide bombing, is justified by religion (no need for the impossible hypothetical you keep trying to base your arguments on)

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

malis - "The Fundimentalist brothern [sic] are trying to impose their beliefs based on their RELIGION, violating the Establishment clause. The leftists (and rightists and centrists) are trying to advocate for their principles, without reference to religion. One is unconstitutional, one is not."

If I read this correctly, it appears that what you are saying is that, for instance, when a liberal argues that murder is wrong, that is ok and constitutional because the liberal just believes it as a matter of principle. When a fundementalist argues that murder is wrong because it violates one of God's commandments, it's unconstitutional.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

OK, Brooks, you've just departed from serious argument (that is, if you ever intended to be serious) in your statement: "I would maintain that, in the current American culture, there is no difference between traditional religion and political belief."

Just in case you would really like some information, try this (court test of whether something is a religion):

1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence.
2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory.
3. A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions.

If you are serious in learning more, here's a good place to start:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

new strings out there...if you want to keep going, please post on latest.

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

By the way, those same fundamentalists would prevent those "angry young men," those "domestic abusers," from using contraception.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"ANd, esmerelda123, the Fundimentalist would answer your hypothetical with: and if the woman chose to have the child, the father would be obligated to pay as much as half of his earnings for up to 24 years. Such a father, furthermore, has no say in whether that child is born or not. In some states, he doesn't even have a say in whether such a child is placed up for adoption or not. The father has been reduced to, essentially, playing the dual roles of piggy bank and sperm donner.

And you wonder why so many young men are angry and why the incidence of domestic abuse is increasing?"

Right, dipwad, all because women can have legal abortions now.

More brilliance from the "Democrat."

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"Chris, that wasn't a beard. This is a beard:
http://visi.com/~bsimon/hiking/at99/images/at_garfield_portrait.jpg"

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 11:00 AM


Funny, I thought it was a German Shepherd.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Ah, malis, we come to the crux of the matter. I would maintain that, in the current American culture, there is no difference between traditional religion and political belief. It is fairly easy to come to this conclusion, based on posts here. Every segment seems to have some undying fanatical grip on their core beliefs. For the Fundimentalists, it is the sacredness of "life", including apparently only potential life, prayer in school, the belief that homosexuality is a sin, stc. For the left, the newly liberal p[olitical religious, but especially feminists, it is absolute choice over whether to have a child or not ("choice"), their belief that homosexuality is an ingrained characteristic and not a choice, the "right" of homosexuals to marry, etc.

ANd, esmerelda123, the Fundimentalist would answer your hypothetical with: and if the woman chose to have the child, the father would be obligated to pay as much as half of his earnings for up to 24 years. Such a father, furthermore, has no say in whether that child is born or not. In some states, he doesn't even have a say in whether such a child is placed up for adoption or not. The father has been reduced to, essentially, playing the dual roles of piggy bank and sperm donner.

And you wonder why so many young men are angry and why the incidence of domestic abuse is increasing?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

GOOD POSTS GENTLEMEN.

I agree. The system only works if all sides are equal as the founders intended. Unlike the slant now, Ie " If your agaisnt the war your a terrorist", or leftists get silenced and rush hannity fox do have free speech.

SO I would take it one step farther. all sides must be heard, and the people make the decision. Not a party. Not a "wing". But the american people.

The other issues is justice. Justice must also be applied to all sides. Not scooter libby gop justice. Both issues must be resolved moving forward.

The right must work with the left and vice versa. No more elementary school bully "take your ball and go home" politics. In the same veign the laws must apply to all. All must have free speech or not. All must have to obey the rules of bribery and treason amoung others.

No one would agree both sides have equal voice. Neither side would argue that. The right/rush/fox would say we don't deserve equal rights based on newspeak and doublethink. I disagree. Many lawyers will too when it comes down to it I think.

The founders did not leave seperate of church and state, justice ofr all, equality for all to interpretation. this is why the gop must lie spin and discredit. Without it they cannot win. If you lay it all on the table the choices are clear. We can get this country back, if we have the courage.

Many people have been scared to take the reigns. Both of our country and their future. I'm glad to see millions are not scared. and those are the patriotic americans that are going to work together to build a glorious nation. one that fufills our destiny. Anyone, gop sell-out moderate or leftist, that stands in the way will face the price. the left always pays. The time will come one day when the street runs both ways.

Failure to hold your own to account, and lies lies lies (credibility) destroyed the gop. If the dem's play the same games, it will destroy them to. If the moderate sell-out dems (now moderate republcains) had their way they would follow the gop down the rabbit hole. this is what's up with obama/edwards/paul's support. To try and hold this country together.

Make no mistake people here. This is not a game. this is not fun and games. Think of the children. If the gop (clinton included) and the moderates dem's will not stop the sabotage and back down they have a good chance to win, based on numbers.

good for them and the gop in the short term. What happens over the long term? Both parties are gone. Your scared of small change gop? You should tremble over new independant parties taking over. But it will happen. If we don't save our country. It will be very very bad, for all of us. Nobody wants that believe me. These old stubborn folk think the end of times is near. They have been reading to many or those left behind books.

" a new order of things".

Not the destruction of the world and death to all humans.

"a new order of things."

To sabotage the future is to risk eliminating it. Beware of the gop's self-fufilling prophecies. What are they willing to do if they lose all power? Who are the terrorists, really?

Jesus is not coming back to save you. This world is our house. We made this horrible mess of things. Jesus will not come back until our house is clean. You don't do that by war, or persucution, or laws. You do it though love and understanding. The strength of christianity is not the sword. The strength is to love your enemy. That is true christianity. Are teh "religous" right chirstians based on abortion and gay issues? Not if you break down what a "christian" is. Not by the example of the Lord our savior.

But to each his/her own. As long as your fist doesn't hit my nose. :) Then you must face the consequences of yoru freedom infringing on mine (metaphorically speaking)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Dave - "Some women are born unable to have children. Is it wrong for the govt to give tax breaks to those with kids? No, because the govt giving out those breaks is a priviledge."

No, it is a recognition that raising children is more costly than living single. Women who are unable to have children are LIVING that benefit. They do not need money to compensate for any increased expenditures related to birth.

For you to compare rights and privileges in such a ridiculous fashion illustrates how desperate you are to justify your homophobia. Whether you call it a right or a privilege is irrelevant. The point is that the government is giving standardized, official tax breaks to people for getting married and unless they encourage fraudulent marriage, homosexuals must be included as well. People who dislike homosexuals base their choice strictly on their opinion of homosexual relationships. It would be no different than giving white people tax breaks for getting married but not giving these same tax breaks to black marriages or interracial marriages. Homosexuality is not a choice but something people are born with and for the government to discriminate based on natural sexual orientation is contrary to everything that the United States Constitution stands for.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 11, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I have a hard time, milbrooks et al, with the comparison of Huckabee's desire to bring the Constitution more in line with God's word to those who want to preserve rights like a woman's choice to have an abortion or homosexuals to marry. For example, if Huckabee had his way, he would be forcing different behaviors on people unlike him -- I would not able to have an abortion if I needed one, and my girlfriend would not be able to marry her girlfriend. But, preserving those rights forces NO behavior on anyone who doesn't agree. Having the ability to choose in no way forces someone to have an abortion. Allowing gays to marry in no way forces one to marry a member of the same sex. If these "liberals," then, had their way, all it would mean is that certain people would have to co-exist with others unlike themselves or with others who make difference choices than they would for whatever reason, without any impact on themselves whatsoever. That is NOT the result in Huckabee's world, which is (one reason) why I find it so reprehensible.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 11, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

...and oh yes, you may certainly try to repeal the Establishment clause (nothing unconstitutional about trying to amend the Constitution), thereby allowing anything from voluntary, government-led prayer in schools, to full Sharia. I don't think that's a particularly good idea.

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Brooks: "They are EXACTLY the same. Huckabee and his Fundimentalist brothern want to impose their beluifs and the leftists here want to impose their beliefs."

...sighhhh... One more time. You want to impose your rules so society will be better. I want to impose my rules so society will be better. Conservatives...Liberals...we all think society would be improved if we could set up some of the rules. We all have the right and the ability (and the responsibility!) to advocate for our positions and try to elect those who agree with us. The Constitution sets up the environment that lets us all to that.

The Constitution also, however, wisely says those rules cannot be set up in such a way that they are "...respecting the establishment of religion."

Your quote again: "Huckabee and his Fundimentalist brothern want to impose their beluifs and the leftists here want to impose their beliefs."

The Fundimentalist brothern [sic] are trying to impose their beliefs based on their RELIGION, violating the Establishment clause. The leftists (and rightists and centrists) are trying to advocate for their principles, without reference to religion. One is unconstitutional, one is not.

Is that clear enough?

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

prabir-

Because superdelegates are insiders who might be able to override legitimate electoral results reflecting the will of the party voters. The fact that the system give power to the machine doesn't mean that a machine override should be accepted. If the supers tilt the competition against the candidate with more delegates derived from legitimate contests it is easy to say that the rules allowed outright theft of the nomination. I could care less about some congressperson giving a superdelegate vote to Hillary in return for Bill appearing at one of said congresspersons campain rallies.

Posted by: cmsore | February 11, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

It looks like both sides like to try to ammend the constitution for their various beliefs (even Ron Paul!):

2005
Several constitutional amendments simultaneously proposed by Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. on March 2, 2005, including, but not limited to, amendments concerning:
- The right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality.
- The right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality.
- The right to vote.
- The right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment.
- The right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing.
- Equality of rights and reproductive rights. This amendment is essentially a modified version of the Equal Rights Amendment which would bolster Roe v. Wade.
- The right to full employment and balanced growth.
- Taxing the people of the United States progressively.

- Twenty-second Amendment: Repeal proposed February 2005 by Maryland congressman Steny Hoyer. The current amendment limits the president to two elected terms in office, and up to two years succeeding a President in office.
- Abolishment of personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibition of the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens, proposed by Ron Paul on January 26, 2005.

2004
- Every Vote Counts Amendment -- proposed by Congressman Gene Green on September 14, 2004. It would abolish the electoral college.
- Continuity of Government Amendment -- proposed in 2004 by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. It would ensure the continuity of operations of the United States Congress in the case of emergencies in which a large number of senators or representatives are incapacitated. Such an amendment would allow Congress itself to make emergency appointments to fill vacancies, rather than going through the usual by-election process.
- Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment -- proposed also by Senator Hatch. It would allow naturalized citizens with at least twenty years' citizenship to become president.
- Seventeenth Amendment repeal -- proposed in 2004 by Georgia Senator Zell Miller. It would reinstate the appointment of Senators by state legislatures as originally required by Article One, Section Three, Clauses One and Three.
- Federal Marriage Amendment -- proposed in the spring of 2004 by multiple members of Congress (with support from President George W. Bush). It would define marriage and prohibit same-sex marriage.

2003 and earlier
- Removal of citizenship from children of illegal immigrants, proposed by Mark Foley on March 31, 2003.
- Balanced Budget Amendment, in which Congress and the President are forced to balance the budget every year.
- School Prayer Amendment proposed on 9 April 2003, to establish that "The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools."
- Protecting the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto, proposed on 27 February 2003 by Oklahoma Congressman Lucas.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Dave: Fair enough. I didn't realize that there was a push to restart the Equal Rights Amendment, which hasn't been mentioned in 25 years and hasn't been a real issue in 35. MikeB is still wrong, however, when he says that liberals want amendments to legalize abortion and gay marriage.

MikeB: I guess you're right. Liberal groups and conservative groups are the same, because both have agendas which they want passed into law somehow. As long as you consider all political agendas to be equal, and all methods of passing those agendas (executive orders, Constitutional amendments, lobbying Congress, etc.) to be equal, the groups are the same. That is a completely true statement, albeit a completely pointless one. Too bad that's not what you said originally.

Posted by: Blarg | February 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 03:14 PM: ...Do you too find it funny that brooks continues to call himself a Democrat?

Yes, I do. Were he an elected official, his designation might be:
. MiBrooks, D-Disingenuous.

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 (and dave),

It gets a little tiresome to continually hear the rambling about "...activists twit judges...essentially creatung new law" when you're talking about rulings you simply don't agree with. Again, that's the way the process works...we've agreed to let judges interpret law. Do you also condemn the 9-0 Supreme court "Brown v Board of Education" that certainly overturned what had been settled law?

By "50 years," you may be referring to the first real Establishment case, generally identified as "Everson v Board of Education" in 1947 (60 years ago). Everson ending up concluding on a 5-4 vote, that govt reimbursement of parents for transportation of children to parochial schools did *not* violate the establishment clause, while making the important new point that direct reimbursement of the parochial schools themselves probably would have. Several other (mostly public education) cases fine tuned that, over time, mostly going against any government payment for anything with the primary purpose of supporting religious education.

On the other hand, Engle-Vitale in 1962 (45 years ago) was the first important 'prayer-in-school' case...it further refined prohibitions on government 'respect' of religion (to use the establishment clause term). Yes, I think that this trend has generally been positive to the US as a society.

I agree the Establishment clause doesn't mean any of us has a right to be free of any aspect of religion within society. What it does mean is we do have the right to be free of any government-enforced religious mandate (again, religion belongs in the public square but not the government square). Huckabee and his ilk would like to reverse the last 60 years of progress in that area. You may agree; I disagree...the beauty of it is we both get to vote our convictions (something that's endangered wherever the fundamentalists take over).

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

dave writes
"Some women are born unable to have children. Is it wrong for the govt to give tax breaks to those with kids? No, because the govt giving out those breaks is a priviledge."

Its not a privilege, its a benefit. Some would call it social engineering, whereby the gov't incents people to have kids by paying them for the effort. Also, your analogy is flawed. The gov't pays all people who have kids, not just people who have born their children. i.e. adoptive parents collect the benefits as well as biological parents.

Also, I'm not sure that the equal protection clause distinguishes between rights and privileges. It merely says that everyone has to be treated the same. That implies to me that if the gov't has defined a legal shortcut for a certain set of people (i.e. opposite sex couples who marry), they have to offer the same legal shortcut to everyone. So far as I know, there is nothing granted by marriage that is unattainable by other means - but the act of marriage is a shortcut to achieving those legal relationships.

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Why is the Obama campaign and people like Donna Brazile so uptight about superdeligates. The rules were created much before people knew that we are going to be in this mess. Rules are rules even if they sometimes do not help Obama or Donna Brazile.

Posted by: prabir1960 | February 11, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2 - One of the reasons I am doing it is to expose you and people like you as the unthinking rapid dogs you are. You cannot see past you leftist agenda and will willingly shove it down everyone elses throat becasue you apparently know better. You, and your ilk, are no different than, are as fanatical and destructive as, Pat Robertson or Jerry Faldwell or any of the other morally superior bunpkins this nation has suffered under. We've had 7 years of this with Bush and 12 years of it before him with Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The fact clinton and her people still talk about florida and michagan show her fear. It was what it was. She was running against uncommited in michagan. ANd your going to give her the delegates.

Damn clinton supporters. You really don't give hoot about yoru country OR your party do you. What does clinton give you that is so worth that? I don't get it. They have to be republcain sabotuers don't they? What else makes any sense? Why won't she drop out? Why is she trying to minamize and drown obama? She is a republcain. I'm sticking to it.

Where has she been while bush was destroying the gov? Backing him that's where. Sabotuers

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

from the wa po dave? A gop newspaper says it and it makes it so. To much rush. You can no longer burn the candle at both ends. The american people see you know

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I think bill maer is a tool, but he said something funny on cnn's larry king.

for all the gop's reagan cult love. for all of rush and hannity claiming to be what they are.

If reagan ran now he would be attacked as not being conserative enough. It's that funny. Even reagan is not reagan enough for these crazy twisted nazi's.

hysterical to me after the last 8 yers to see the gop rip tehmselves apart. The democrats will galvanize with obama. What will the right do? What is their next move? It's irrelevant. Think about the future. The old cow folk and dittohead cannot lie and mislead forever without recourse. EVentually it's going to catch up to them. If it already hasn't. I give fox hanntiy rush savage until after the election. Then they are closing up shop.

WHOA

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Theory: Florida and Michigan matter only if Obama leads with less than 100 pledged delegates after all primaries are done. If Clinton leads in pledged delegates, it's over. If Obama leads with more than 100, the net gain of Florida and Michigan for Clinton cannot really compensate.

Posted by: newland.archer | February 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - "No liberal group wants to do anything even approaching that. Liberal groups focus on the fact that the Constitution, as written and interpreted by the Supreme Court, allows rights such as abortion. Conservatives are the ones trying to change the Constitution, not liberals."

The Equal Rights Amendment? Or are these the new liberals?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702357_pf.html?reload=true

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

uh ..."Bible verses" not "Bible versus"
What a great Freudian typo!

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

WELCOME TO MY WORLD GoHuskies2004. :)

Propoganda. Rise about it. Encourage others to do so. But remember. Remember when journalists and news ancors spent their lives trying to obtain credibility? It was tehir life-blood.

What will the propogandists do if clinton is not the nominee. for all they have done for her. What if she loses and lose all that credibility?

I feel you rfrustration, bu tthe media is part of the problem. They are slaves to the gop and money and power. If clinton wins they get a bush like scandel news. That is worth millions maybe billions to news outlets in advertising and viewers. So they carry clinton's water. Much like fox and rush and hannity carried bush's.

To elect clinton would be what john edwards called" TRading the gop insiders for democratic insiders."

This is the choice barack represents. Change. Not just washington. Change. how is what the msm is doing for clinton any differant than what fox and tehir machine did for bush? Differant people? NAH.

The funny thing is it's the same people. Clinton is a republcain. Not by my words but by actions. If the gop forces the nomination of the opposition not only are we no longer america, but we continue in this state for another 4 years. Whatever you call that state. I call it a fascist police state.

We can change it, and fix this nation. To those that want to continue to sabotage this nation. Divide and conquer for profit. you know what to tell them when they say we can't and this is their country. No it's not, and YES WE CAN :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, They are EXACTLY the same. Huckabee and his Fundimentalist brothern want to impose their beluifs and the leftists here want to impose their beliefs. I live in Oregon. About two years back, the governor signed an exuctive order permitting gay marriage. The religious sort here collected signitures and got a ballot measure that receinded that and also prevented the legislature or governor fgrom doing it again. A couple of weeks ago, they did it again! So, we now have gay marriage even though the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to it. Can you explain to me how that is any different than Bush's ignoring Congress or the wish of the voters? It isn't. When you boil it down, it amounts to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, thinking they are above the law, that they know what is best. It isn't civil, it isn't democracy, and it is ultimately destructive. The partisan's of the left and right in this country is suicidal lemmings.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

To get out of the circular arguments on religious seperation I'd like to ask a question:

Although Obama has won the white vote in a number of northern and western states has he won the white vote in any of the southern dixie states? Are we seeing in part a divergence on where southern white democrats are on race from the rest of the parties voters? Could DC, MD and Va reverse this trend.

Posted by: cmsore | February 11, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: Do you too find it funny that brooks continues to call himself a Democrat?

His continued posting of these alleged Democratic/liberal initiatives is laughable.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Why did you shave your beard? You said you were going keep until we know the exact candidates on both sides, and we certainly don't on the democratic side. Why are you breaking this trust with your readers?!
Mostly just kidding. But I am curious why you shaved.

Posted by: thescuspeaks | February 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

malis - "Please note how most of the court rulings on religious expression in a government setting (i.e., opening a session with a chaplain's prayer) say it's permissible if it has a civic ceremonial goal, but not a religious goal."

Those rulings came after the founders. Now I don't know for sure what the founders were thinking about when they did it, but many of them were quite religious and I have a hard time thinking it constituted something other than a religious meaning for them, despite the fact that they were a lot closer to religious intolerance than people are today. The point is that the founders arguably did not feel as absolutist on the issue as many do today. That said, there are very few people that want a theocracy or would stand for one (you'd have to get in line behind me on that). Not all fundamentalists are as one dimensional as you all seem to give them credit for. Why would Gary Bauer be endorsing McCain over Huck?

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

dave,
I would certainly agree with you once more [too much agreeing for me--it upsets my small-c constitution]that "sometimes we focus on words much too much and not enough on actions." I am the first to blame politicians for always "talking the talk" but rarely "walking the walk," especially the line of them recently from Reagan through Clinton-Clinton to Bush-Cheney. Ron Paul is an interesting example supporting your point.

The Republicans and Fox News have done everything they possible can to trivialize Ron Paul and to demonize him and to ostracize him from anything Republican. Yet he has walked the walk [as much as any one person can] for getting big government off our backs, reducing taxation, protecting states rights, promoting solid family values [by living a solid family life], and on and on--all those things the Reaganites onward have shot their mouths off ceaselessly about as being what they stand for, but which they have DONE little to nothing to (at times) the opposite about. [Reagan's "fiscal conservatism" by 1985 had made the USA the greatest debtor nation in the history of the world.]

However, the LAW is language, and in that regard we must pay careful attention to words. Clinton-Clinton and Bush-Cheney lie and prevaricate and mislead and, in short, so abuse and pervert language and law that it shows starkly how utterly despicable they are.

If one has eyes to see, and ears to hear, and a brain to think, we do not need Bible versus to show us that truth about them. Huckabee now seems ready to join that group. He's in many ways a likable person [makes a good interview on the Daily Show], but to me America comes first--and second, and third. There is not even room for a political party, much less a charming favorite, in my list. The Constitution's vaguenesses are really its sources of strength, and not a weakness as many would have it.

And Democracy is messy, but it needs blogs like this, where people can rant and rave [each within their own limited ability of rationality]. But I am from Texas, and my time is now better spent speaking out and blogging around this silly state, at least for a couple more weeks.

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

MikeB: No, it's not the same. Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to include his personal religious beliefs. No liberal group wants to do anything even approaching that. Liberal groups focus on the fact that the Constitution, as written and interpreted by the Supreme Court, allows rights such as abortion. Conservatives are the ones trying to change the Constitution, not liberals.

Posted by: Blarg | February 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I would really appreciate if the MSM and blogs toned down the constant examination of a state's black population when determining whether or not Obama will win the state. I understand it's part of the analysis, but it seems to be the ONLY analysis when a state has a larger than average black population. On the other hand, when the state has absolutely no black population (ME, NE, WA, KS, MN, etc.) and Barack cruises to victory, there seems to be no mention of the fact that he is easily winning predominately white states.

Go BARACK!

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

If they were really christians.

1. Who marries who wouldn't matter. It would be private between with a Preist presiding. The issue comes in when you talk about the belifets and tax breaks married couples get. It's all about money. The issue should be why the religous right equat marriage with tax breaks and finacail rewards. That in itself seems to be unconstitutional, does it not?

2. If they were really christians they could worship under a tree. They would not need to force others to be liek them. Ever hear of larry craig? Everyone is free to worship how they choose. THAT IS ENOUGH. To force your religon on others and in the public spheare is to far.

In both cases the gop shows it's face. They are free to worship. But are others free not to worship? Or worship something else (flying spagetti monster)That is teh question.

FReedom. That is what america is about. The gop cannot force their brand of christianity on a free people any more than they can force democracy at the point of the gun. YEt they try. Why? Money and power? How do you hurt people who hate freedoma nhd care about nothing but money and power? Take it away from them. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

good point malis . Not even counting the laws prohibiting an IRAN LIKE religous state in america. The gop shows it's face

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"The bottom line is that it's the policy that matters, not the motivation behind it. Just because somebody uses the "G" word when talking about public policies does not mean we are turning into a theorcracy or violating the Establishment clause. Depending on your leanings, you can make an argument that any of the remaining candidates are not getting the scrutiny they deserve.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 02:35 PM

"

By that rationale, we must look at the terrorists attacking us not afganistan and iraq and iran and muslims? Fricking hypocrite gop. You will say anything. Right-wing propogandists. Credibility? Do you gop'ers care anything about credibility with non-dittoheads? Man.

What then is an "islamofascist"? What is a dittohead?

You people are funny. Good thing noone's buying the lies anymore.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Before you all go jumping all over me, I am merely driving the point home that a lot of the people here, advocating for "liberal" legislation, are no different than people on the right advocating "conservative" legislation. Now, I happen to agree that abortion ought to be legal and safe, but it took some pretty twisted logic for an activist Supreme Court to read into the "right to privacy" a right to legal abortion. Liewise, throughout our nations history, right up until the last 50 years, every school day began with the Lords Prayer....just as every session of Congress. Then, some activists twit judges tossed it out, essentially creatung new law. Some people have come to accept that, but it is by no means settled law. It is new legislation, enacted from the bench. Likewise, "gay marriage" was never ever envisioned by anyone writing laws permtting marriage and it has taken some pretty extreme twisting of reasoning to allow for it. Again, Huckabee has proposed nothing that hasn't been done by liberal activists since the 1960's.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis - " it is a non-negotiable point that they deserve the same rights and privileges as the rest of us."

I plan on negotiating! They deserve and have the same RIGHTS as everyone. Priviledges are a different matter. Much like everyone does not and should not have the priviledge of a drivers license, the fact that the government gives you something does not make it a right. Through taxes, the government treats you differently if you have legal dependents, if you are wealthy enough to own a house, and a gazillion other legally based areas. Some women are born unable to have children. Is it wrong for the govt to give tax breaks to those with kids? No, because the govt giving out those breaks is a priviledge.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The more important aspect of the church-state argument is the overarching motives of the two factions.

By allowing religion into the public sphere any more than it already is (which it is, to a great degree) only furthers the agenda of the radical right which has frequently made public comments about why religion and government NEED to be intertwined. Until the passion of theocratic zealots is put to rest, there should be no leeway given in the church-state argument. This is a give-an-inch-take-a-mile situation we've got here.

There are forces on the extreme right that will not stop pushing until religion and government are interchangeable. More accurately, Christianity and government. Most people don't recognize that it is not only atheists who believe in the separation of church and state - no, it is ALL other religions, alongside the atheists. Jewish Americans hate the increasing role of Christianity in government because they moved here from oppressive Europe to get AWAY from religion in government. Muslims are terrified as it is, justifiably, and other social factions that are affected by right-wing Christian opinions, such as homosexuals and heterosexuals in domestic partnerships, also despise the increasing prevalence of Christianity in government.

The kinds of things Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have said in the past six months are terrifyingly un-American and are truly horrific in terms of what they could lead to in the future if enacted.

But then again, it's also why Romney and Huckabee are performing terribly in general polls and why neither of them will ever be president. The vast majority of Americans believe church and state are both more prosperous when they are conducted in separate spheres. It is only the racist, homophobic minority of right-wing psychos who push these kinds of un-American attitudes and ideas, which desperately need to be put to rest - permanently.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Just because somebody uses the "G" word when talking about public policies does not mean we are turning into a theorcracy or violating the Establishment clause. Depending on your leanings, you can make an argument that any of the remaining candidates are not getting the scrutiny they deserve.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 02:35 PM

"

Yes is does dave. As a christian man, I am deeply offened by the "religous right" in politics. It is nothing more than using A religon for political reasons. False prophets.

I saw "There will be blood' this weekend. Great moive I suggest all you "FALSE PROPHET" gop'ers watch it.

Your political platform and religon are polar opposites and not compatible. That is what got me involved in this fight. The twisting of my religon to start wars. Misleading teh flock and turning the cbn into a gop propoganda outfit.

But I have a solution gop. KEEP GOD OUT OF POLITICS and vice versa. Do not point to God as justification for YOUR policies. You people do not speak for God. And when you hit the pearly gates many years from now, God will not speak for you. The "religous" right will not be able to say they didn't know that day. They can claim willful ignorance now, on this world, but not at that time.

You used christianity for money and power. nothing more. To call the right "religous" is to assume to much. They are fascist right-wing politicians. Nothing more. Politicains use the tools at their disposal. Somewhere along the line religon became one of those "tools". God will be their judges not me. I just want to vote them out. Not judge them. :)

Follow Jesus if you are a christian. Not the politicains who make a living off his name and sacrafice.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

dave, I'll grant the the more detailed statement would be "the Constitution has been judged, by the process we, as a country, have agreed to use, to permit abortion as a specific right." Typically (since I value brevity of expression as a goal), I leave generally acknowledged statements of fact to stand for themselves but please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify.

Second, in the Constitution--the Supreme law of the land--removal of religious influence was seen as important enough that the Founders weren't neutral, they didn't just not mention it, they specifically created the prohibition on "...law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Personal practices are allowed, even in governmental settings, if they have a public but not a governmental purpose (there is not, nor should there be, any government effort to remove religion from the *public* square). Please note how most of the court rulings on religious expression in a government setting (i.e., opening a session with a chaplain's prayer) say it's permissible if it has a civic ceremonial goal, but not a religious goal.

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Radicalpatriot,
I think sometimes we focus on words much too much and not enough on actions. For instance, is supporting helping out teenage mothers a proper thing to do? Many might agree that it is but for vastly different reasons. A liberal pol might say it is a good public policy because it helps with the argument that we want abortions rare and its just the right thing to do. A fiscal conservative might say its good policy because it saves money if you look at it long term. A fundamentalist conservative might say that it's good public policy because it's God's policy of choosing life. The bottom line is that it's the policy that matters, not the motivation behind it. Just because somebody uses the "G" word when talking about public policies does not mean we are turning into a theorcracy or violating the Establishment clause. Depending on your leanings, you can make an argument that any of the remaining candidates are not getting the scrutiny they deserve.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton-Obama contest is good for the Democratic Party and for the nation until or unless it becames a brawl over the phantom delegates from Florida and Michigan and/or the role of Super Delegates in picking the nominee.

In that case, all the primary results go out the window, and the Party finds a new way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/02/democratic-trainwreck-scenario.html

Posted by: connectdots | February 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"How will they continue with their places to consolidate their lies and spin. With rush and fox the gop has zero chance."

without, that is

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Dave, by including atheists in your list, you are making a HUGE jump.

Nonbelievers are massively overlooked in government. In fact, we aren't even acknowledge most of the time. Even though as much as 20% of the population doesn't believe (no more than 12-15% admits it, but then there are the "closet" nonbelievers who are justifiably terrified of oppression if they admit they don't believe) it is the most underrepresented minority in the country.

As for your "points," you are correct on abortion, as it was more or less decided that abortion was included in privacy, which is in the Constitution from a myriad of angles.

However, the Constitution was not "interpreted" to allow gay marriage. It's pretty clear. The federal government provides benefits for those people who get married and it is not tied to having children or anything else you might do in life. Simply for getting married you get official, legal privileges from the federal government.

Now, homosexuals have almost no instances in which they are included in this (only a few states allow equal treatment in this case). They are excluded, via their sexual orientation, from the legal privileges of being an American citizen. This falls under the "equal protection" clause, in that homosexuals need to be protected from over taxation, just as heterosexuals are.

Without making dramatic efforts to stretch reasoning and logic, it is impossible to leave homosexuals out of the protections of government. Ask any taxpayer - over taxation is a burden that must be protected against. And in that sense, how can the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law not apply to homosexuals? Whether or not you call it "marriage" doesn't matter - it is a non-negotiable point that they deserve the same rights and privileges as the rest of us.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuals choose their lifestyle, you're a lost cause. This opinion has been reserved to the extreme ignorant factions of our society - for anyone who has ever talked to a homosexual for five minutes can figure it out that they'd never choose to be homosexual. Would you choose to be black in the middle of the civil rights movement? Put yourself at risk to be murdered or lynched for "attention" as so many people suggest? It's ludicrous, and so is thinking that homosexuality is a choice.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is bi-racial, not black, but he must appear black enough for many blacks and whites to call him black, and black enough for whites and blacks not to call him, or T.Woods for that matter, bi-racial. Is bi-racial a dirty word? If I was the product of black and white parents, would I correct those who called me black, if I looked black, and not correct them if I appeared to be white?

Posted by: alcamoz | February 11, 2008 02:05 PM
"

To white racists. Anyone not 100
% "white" is not white. As said many places before, nobody is 100%. It's all bogus. Us vs them, mentality. What makes no sense to me is, the gop has plenty of peopel they hate. Everybody not exactly line for line like them on all issues.

So gop you have plenty to hate without bringing race in. You hate him due to his policies don't you? Why does it have to get racial? Edwards was a girly man to the gop. Obama is black. Clinton is "the bi*tch", so they say. They can't touch the facts. If you get into the facts the gop loses every single time. They must lie spin and discredit. What else do they got? Low taxes? What's low, and to whom? Only works with sheep dittoeheads who have been conditioned over decades to their garbage propoganda.

Which is why I say, "What will the gop do with their propogating meat puppets for profit"? How will they continue with their places to consolidate their lies and spin. With rush and fox the gop has zero chance. They would be forced to start a moveon like site to do it. It would be obviously partisan like drudge. No more "fair and balanced". No more pretending to be news. The old folks are free of their slave masters. That is my goal. Who's with me? :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
- Vizinni

Posted by: youcrew | February 11, 2008 01:31 PM
"

:)


HAHAHAHHA.

I never voted before this cycle. I though it was imposslbe for bush to win. Altough I had no love at all for kerry. He like clinton is a republcain in the new democratic party. the gop burns both ends that time.

Also I have never been represented in my lifetime. If your not represented don't vote. It's hysterical for me to watch the gop whine and complain now they don't have a candidate. It's funny to watch them with the shoe in the other foot. You had your several decades of control gop, and all the candidates. What about the other 70% of americans? You had yoru shot gop. you wasted on on obtaining power and money. Greed. now let real patriots take over. The government will be in much better hands with people that care about this great nation and it's inhabitants. Rather than divide and conquer and how you people treated the other side. We won;t recipracate. But a propogandist should get the ccredibility he is due. Not running the country. (rush hannity o'reilly fox)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

alcamoz, all interesting questions. As a white guy, I don't have the first clue about what its like to be black in America. There's a Henry Louis Gates series on PBS right now on African Americans' history. This is version 2, he did one last year as well. Its fascinating stuff. Last week's episode included a brief conversation on 'passing'. As in, if you're a light-skinned black, do you try to pass as white? I suspect this week's episode will touch on that subject again; here in MN its broadcast on Wed night.

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

dave--I certainly agree that, even as POTUS, Huckabee would be unable to institute his brand of Sharia [was that too inflammatory a word choice? I hope so! ;)]. I just wish someone would challenge him more directly on just what he means by his own statements. But that kind of vetting, alas, is what all candidates should be getting--be specific! tell me what you really mean! Well, we all know the sort of penetrating questions they actually get. [Did you really see a UFO, Mike?]

You see, as Hillary always says, "It's personal." [That is, it's all about ME!] I would vote for Obama against McCain, but for McCain versus Clinton. But if McCain had Huckabee as the running mate, then I could not vote for him [and certainly not for her], even if I held my nose while vomiting in the voting booth. We the People have gotten rid of that strutting preencox Giu911liani911, at least.
Two more to go!

Posted by: radicalpatriot | February 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

malis,
Second point - "The Constitution already allows for abortion and gay marriage." Should probably read "The Constitution has been interpreted to allow for abortion and gay marriage."

First point - "The goal of the Founders was to keep the influence of any particular religion out of the *government* square." Interesting that they themselves would have introduced the concept of praying to a Christian god into the government square. How does that square?

I can't officially speak for Mibrooks but I feel safe in saying that neither one of us are fundamental Christians. I think that his point was that everyone tries to get the government to bend to their beliefs, be they religious, conservative, liberal, athiest. That would be why there is always such a big fight over supreme court justices.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama is bi-racial, not black, but he must appear black enough for many blacks and whites to call him black, and black enough for whites and blacks not to call him, or T.Woods for that matter, bi-racial. Is bi-racial a dirty word? If I was the product of black and white parents, would I correct those who called me black, if I looked black, and not correct them if I appeared to be white?

Posted by: alcamoz | February 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Brooks and other fundies -

Huckabee wouldn't propose AMENDING the Constitution if it included the homophobia and anti-privacy laws he's looking to establish. That's what an amendment is all about - adding to or permanently changing the official Constitution. Amendments should not be taken lightly and they should NOT be inspired, IN ANY WAY, by religious ideals.

I'm shocked and disgusted with Americans who have lost sight of the reasons for why religion cannot take part in government. It is terrifyingly scary to see our country even begin down this path. The path of religious tyranny, the path of theocracy and the path of disenlightenment.

It is of critical importance to the future of our country to keep the sanctity of religion unpolluted by politics and the fair doctrines of the country to go uninfluenced by subjective, and especially oppressive, religious beliefs. The most important thing in a religion is to have a cherished, personal relationship with your deity. Smearing your beliefs by injecting into the public sector is toxic to religion and politics alike.

I can't possibly stress this enough.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27, I rarely call people out for even their most outlandish statements, if I think they're sincere. You, however sir, are being disingenuous (either that or you're pathetically uninformed, and I don't believe that's the case).

You said "Huckabee advocates changing the Constitution to allow for things like prayer in schools. Feminists call for changing the Constiution to allow for abortion. Homosexuals call for changing the Constiution to allow for gay marriage. ... I fail to see any difference."

Second point first. The Constitution already allows for abortion and gay marriage. You and the fundamentalists are the ones trying to amend it to eliminate those rights.

First point. The goal of the Founders was to keep the influence of any particular religion out of the *government* square. They wisely foresaw the only way to do this was to, as far as possible, establish a government free of *any* religious control.

That's why the Establishment clause says "...no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ("free exercise' is usually regarded as a complementary separate clause). Many seem to think this says "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" but 'respecting' is the important word here.

Something like Sharia will have a chance in America only if current efforts to subvert the Constitution are successful. I'll do everything I can to prevent that, whether the sponsorship come from the fundamentalism of Islam or the fundamentalism of Christianity.

Posted by: malis | February 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

radicalpatriot,
I'll have to say that I will start to be worried when a president Huckabee does an end-around past the checks and balances and reinvents the constitution to fit his "apparent" version of Christian "Sharia-like" laws over a Democratic congress, centrist Supreme court, an anti-religious media and about half an electorate that would have voted against him. I just don't see how realistically he could fundamentally alter it to his minority view. That said, I agree with you that many issues should revert back to the states.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

brooks: your strawmen Democratic proposals are tiresome. There is no chance of any constitutional amendments liberalizing abortion rights or gay rights, and neither Obama nor Clinton would propose such. Trying to create moral equivalence between such nonsense and Huckabee's platform is silly.

Why do you keep calling yourself a Democrat?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Feminists call for changing the Constiution to allow for abortion. Homosexuals call for changing the Constiution to allow for gay marriage."

Actually, you're completely wrong. Feminists believe that banning abortion is illegal under the Constitution. That view has been repeatedly affirmed by the US Supreme Court. Feminists aren't trying to change the Constitution. Pro-life "conservatives" are trying to change it by adding a "human life amendment" which would ban abortion.

Same with gay rights. Several state Supreme Courts have found that their state Constitution does not ban gay marriage. So opponents of gay marriage are trying to change those Constitutions. There's been an effort to amend the federal Constitution to ban gay marriage also. I've never heard of any gay rights group seeking a Constitutional amendment, just anti-gay groups.

Posted by: Blarg | February 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

youcrew - LOL - classic. Love that movie.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

new poll results hot off the presses:

Obama with a narrow lead over McCain
Clinton-McCain pretty much even

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 and dave: actually, just "dave" [the other is not worth a reply]:

Yes, you are obviously correct in that the Constitution is expected to be amended [by, uh, amendments, right?]. It is not that Huckabee has proposed to make changes (in a constitutional manner) to the Constitution, it is that he has proposed to fundamentally alter it in accord with his religious principles.

"but if you go about it in the way the founders intended . . .", as you say, yes indeed, we all agree--but that is not the Huckabee--or fundamentalists--way. The Founders all wanted to carefully avoid the "religious test of office," which had indeed been in some states before independence. The Fundaments want it only their way--even Mormonism is a cult to them. And God forbid! [pardon the pun] if an intelligent atheist ever were in office. God would rain fire and brimstone down on America with worse results than even when the Good Shepherd watched over us on 9-11.

It's the perversion of the law that is really the bottom line here. In that regard, President Bush-Cheney and Clinton-Clinton have all been gross violators of the spirit of the law, and often of the letter of the law.

In any event, for examples you mention, Ron Paul was the only one who had it correct--matters like abortion legality and gay marriage are STATES RIGHTS issues, and not a matter for five old unelected-for-life farts to tell us what is or is not what a state can do.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | February 11, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Never go in against a Sicilian when *death* is on the line!

Posted by: rpy1 | February 11, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
- Vizinni

Posted by: youcrew | February 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

kshe7,

That is a good point. But the R voters that theoretically would be turning out to vote are the commited ones, the same ones that I would think are most upset by McCain. You are correct about the "significant numbers" part. But I started out saying that the Dem race would be closer in VA than polls suggest, not that HRC would win. I still think it will be fascinating to watch.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

FRICKIN ACTIVIST GOP JUDGES :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2 - Don't count on that. There are a lot of Fundimentalists in this country. They voted in a block and came very close to electing Bush President (the remaining Supreme Court fiddling put Bush over the top). Like it or not, there are millions of Fundimentalists and Evagelicals in this country, and plenty of the more "liberal" policy proposals of Clinton and the Democratic activists are downright offensive to them. Also, therre is nothing in the Constitution about "feminist equal rights", " gay marriage", and a lot of other things that certain activists hold near and dear. I just want you to realize that everything Huckabee is proposing in no different whatsoever than laws and constiutional amendments and executive orders you advocate legitimzing gay marriage and "choice", etc. It all depends upon whose ox is being gored.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

rpy1 - "See, if they say that, then we will think that Obama won *despite* their support of HRC, and will have Obama as a nominee on the D side. And that's the real plan... becuase of the fact that Obama can't win in the general.

Devious, isn't it?"

Actually, you just think that we are thinking that when in fact, we already know you are thinking that and have adjusted our strategy accordingly which goes into what we are now really thinking. That way, it keeps everyone in the dark on our devious strategy, including us!

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Do disrepect republicans. Without the spin. We all no mccain or huck has zero shot agaisnt obama( or would have agaisnt edwards).

The gop's only chance if hillary as the d nominee. They admit as much. Teh democrats admit as such. Yet she still runs. You are fooling nobody gop. I watch what you watch, remember? Your people are and have been pushing clinton, on the sly. Sales technics. All clinton all the time. Would fox waste their time if she's not the nominee? If 50% of fox's line-up is bashing clinton and she doesn't win. what then? Might as well be paris hilton or britney spears.

clinton is their only chance. Everyone agree. So why keep them in the game? Is it worth it? Clinton cannot win. Even if she get's the nom. She can't win. This is well established. So can any clinton supporter tell me what she has to gain by running. Other than sabotaging the democratic party and her countires electorian process.

She has the deck stacked compleatly for her. It's not enough is it? She needs the gop also? We are not a democracy. our freedom has been stolen from us due to fear and willful ignorance. We can be a democracy again. Put fear where it belongs. Fear is a warning sensor. Like spiderman's spider sense. Not something to run yoru live on. to run your life on fear is to live in hell

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I find it hard to believe that Republicans would turn out in significant numbers to support HRC to help McCain's chances in November. The idea makes some sense to me, but in practice I doubt that the R voters--a relatively unenthusiastic group so far this year--will come out in large numbers, especially for such an abstract cause.

Posted by: kshe7 | February 11, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I think McCain will be able to navigate the minefield between the radical right and the moderates and Is....he's not been willing in the past to say stuff he doesn't mean, or make promises he doesn't intend to keep. His ability to run a successful center R campaign in the primary speaks volumes about his unwillingness to pander.

The big tent is alive and well, even if certain elements are not very enthusiastic now. I would suggest, however, that our party will be much more happy in the fall than the Dems when it comes down to an ugly convention fight and squabbling over MI and FL.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

no mibrooks: I would vote for Chuckles because he would make a very weak opponent for whoever is the Dem nominee.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

radicalpatriot - "Huckabee has said publicly and on the record on several occasions that the Constitution must be changed to fit the prescripts of the Bible [rather like Islamic Sharia law]...it is TREASON, is it not?"

Not. How is it treason to propose to change the constitution? Treason is [a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." He might be misguided or even wrong, but if you go about it in the way the founders intended, it might be describe as very American.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

radicalpatriot - Please answer a basic question, then. Huckabee advocates changing the Constitution to allow for things like prayer in schools. Feminists call for changing the Constiution to allow for abortion. Homosexuals call for changing the Constiution to allow for gay marriage. People like you blather on and on about "pandering to the Fundimentalists". But, those same FUndimentalists talk about (rightly so) "activitists" like Cltinon pandering to the feminists, the gay rights crowd, etc. I fail to see any difference. That you cannot, or choose to ignore it, is troublesome.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

what's pink. Speak. What say you, sir?

what is the clinton supporter mindset today?

Super delegates? Texas?

Where do you go from here?

More gop and media support in the democratic primary season? What?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

rpy1: You are exactly correct.

Posted by: lylepink | February 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Super delegates are never "committed". They can change their minds up to the day of the convention. If Obama wins every primary from now on and has the earned delegate number he needs, no super delegate is going to give the nomination to HC. They're there to do what's best for the party and the country. They'll be asked to choose: a Party of the Future or a Party of the Past.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 11, 2008 12:37 PM

I agree, especially if the polls continue to show Obama doing better in the head to head polling versus McCain.

Also, should either candidate come within shouting distance of a majority of delegates, the supers will jump on board - the famed bandwagon effect. I think the candidate most likely to do that is Obama.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

'After very kind words and character references from the President, and an endorsement from Brit Hume on FNS '

for those who thought McCain was a 'maverick' or a 'moderate' well, maybe he WAS, but if he keeps all the promises he's been making to the radical right, that's in the past tense.

have to agree with you about the beard though, proud, much sexier when it's really short..'

I also wonder what it gets you to have bush endorse you...

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain will win both MD and VA, but it will be interesting to see the R turnout as well as the margins...

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 12:31 PM

Dave, (or is it Dave!?) be careful about interpreting the turnout as a bellweather for excitement about McCain. I'm a conservative (libertarian?) in Virginia, and I am having a hard time to come up with a reason to take the time to go vote for him tommorrow. He's up by 30% and Virginia is winner-take-all, and in any case the GOP race is pretty much over.

So lots of guys like me might instead vote on the Dem side, either put HRC in there because McCain will do to her what she did to bubba after L'affaire Lewinsky, or Obama because then it's kind of a 'glass-half-full win-win' deal.

Posted by: JD | February 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"I find it interesting that people are making such a big fuss over black loyalty to Obama, though they wholly ignored the insane Mormon loyalty to Romney. Romney won Mormons by greater than 95% in every state. How is voting by religion not as important as voting by race?"

Obama is winning. That is the differance. If the candidate is losing they don't care. The gop (clinton included)needs somthing. Like on this site. They can't win with the facts. All they have is lie spin and discredit. Tehy can't touch our facts.

Personally, that's why I misspell words. I have to give them something. What would they say if I didn't mispell or if they couldn't spin the race issue? They woudl have nothing. Like on this site.

Pity the gop. Do not fear them. All of the "the gop will say this, the gop will say that." So. Screw them .What non-dittohead is buying it. Let the gop show their face. They are irrelevant for a generation. for fear of teh gop to allow you clinton supporters to pick your candidate. You allow the gop to pick the opposition ticket based on fear of their propoganda. Give their propoganda the respect it is due. Us weekly. National enquirer. They should not be interviewing president's. Tehy should be stalking brintney spears. Do not fear the fascists. The only power is the power your fear of repraisal gives them

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Guys like us look good with or without beards. Have no fear Chris!

Posted by: andrewtshepard | February 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - 'So you ascribe to the theory that a mindset like Z's above (12:22) will push voters to support HRC over McCain?',

I could't do it but based on a lot of the conservative talk radio in the area, there will be a number of crossovers. Some are taking what they are calling the "suicide vote" approach and voting for HRC as a disaster waiting to happen looking long term (thinking the R's will lose the general election regardless). Some want McCain to win the gen election and thus want HRC as the Dem nominee figuring that is his best chance. Many will just stay home. I would argue neither of those is a good reason to vote like that (or not vote) but many conservatives were not convinced by McCain's CPAC speech and think they have nowhere else to turn. Huck just might do better than expected in VA and I think that Clinton will too. But then my past predictions have been less than stellar so... I am still having a hard time deciding who to vote for which is very uncharacteristic of me. My wife has decided she is for Huck.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that people are making such a big fuss over black loyalty to Obama, though they wholly ignored the insane Mormon loyalty to Romney. Romney won Mormons by greater than 95% in every state. How is voting by religion not as important as voting by race?

Also, blacks are not voting for Obama *because* he is black. They have elected whites in the most black areas simply because their ideas and potential are of a higher caliber than their competitors. But after seeing Clinton play the race and gender card over, and over, and OVER, I think they are tired of her attempts to manipulate them and so they are going for the alternative, who happens to be a black man. Obama didn't have such a high percentage of the black vote until Clinton started pulling crap in South Carolina, which is where the major race flip occurred.

Clinton lost the black vote because she overtly and covertly played the race card. Overtly in her attempts to pander to the black vote by dumbing down her speeches (this is her reasoning, not mine) and covertly by telling/allowing her aides to consistently bring up his past drug use, which is a cheap way to elicit images of inner-city slums and gang activities.

Obama has rarely mentioned race. Only in passing ways, and almost exclusively around MLK Jr. day, which is perfectly acceptable because that is what MLK Jr. was all about - bringing solvency to the race problems of his time. Never before or since has Obama used race in his campaign in any significant way, but only in policy proposals and mentions of inner-city crime, which naturally pertains in many areas more greatly to the black population.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

AndyR writes "I would bet that since you shaved it, your wife didn't find it so cool. At least that is usually why I have to shave mine."

CC -The trick is to keep the beard REALLY short, more like a 7:00 shadow than a real beard per se. It looks much hotter that way and is softer. It does require lots of upkeep, though, which is why most guys let it grow too long. (FWIW; this is the female perspective.)


dave, Time to get pumped up buddy!! After very kind words and character references from the President, and an endorsement from Brit Hume on FNS over the weekend, it's time to bury the hatchett and get behind our R ticket to keep the WH in R hands.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"dave writes
"R's would vote for HRC as they consider her a better match than Obama against McCain wrt the independent vote."

So you ascribe to the theory that a mindset like Z's above (12:22) will push voters to support HRC over McCain? Lyle, where are you buddy?

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 12:30 PM
"

Now do you believe clinton is a republican? Where's pink today? Hello! pink! :)

The gop has been selecting the "opposition" candidate many times over now. We do not have democracy anymore. But we can get it back. Look at msnbc cnn ny times and all the clinton propogandists shaking in their booties. Who will by their clinton lies now? Without the bush like scandels day after day, how much money do the "news" stations tend to lose? this is why they pull out all the stops for clinton.

But do the math. The propogandists want clinton. The gop wants clinton. The old democratic leadership wants clinton (kennedy not included). The gop. Two sides of the same coin. the same fascist gop coin. Clinton and the gop have made their deals and tried to marginalize the rest of us. Didn't work out that well this far.

But zouk shows his parties face. who supports clinton? Illegals, old ladies, the propoganda "news" outfits, and the gop. Sounds like George bush's fan base minus the supply siders and teh religous right. HAHAHAHHA

Only works with dittoheads. The internet killed the gop (clinton included). Don't hate obama or america gop. Majority rule remember. If you would sabotage that you are not americans. And you deserve whatever teh penalty of treason is. I don't pity you. I hope the new democratic party has teh backbone to be a real opposition party. The right sure would love to throw ever democrat in jail for crimes commited, wouldn't they? Why can the left not recipracate? Is this still america. Is justice still for all?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, you've made the mistake of assuming that the folks who *say* they will vote for HRC because they don't like R's chances against Obama in the general are being honest. No, no! It's much more complicated than that...

See, if they say that, then we will think that Obama won *despite* their support of HRC, and will have Obama as a nominee on the D side. And that's the real plan... becuase of the fact that Obama can't win in the general.

Devious, isn't it?

Posted by: rpy1 | February 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

It's time McCain stopped pandering to the Christian fundaments [sic] and dismiss Huckabee altogether for what he is.

Huckabee has said publicly and on the record on several occasions that the Constitution must be changed to fit the prescripts of the Bible [rather like Islamic Sharia law]. If elected, even as a VP, and he puts his hand on the Bible to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, knowing in his heart he wants to subvert it, that is more than hypocrisy, and more than perjury--it is TREASON, is it not?

Posted by: radicalpatriot | February 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Well, Spectacle2. that would make a lot more sense than voting for Hysterical Clinton. At least Huckabee wants to end outsourcing jobs, place federal limits on consumer loan interest rates, and protect workers from corporations accessing their medical records and those of their families, using them as criteria for laying workers off.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Dave,

The scientific polls don't look too good for me, but then again, NH's poll numbers were pretty impressive for Obama too. Nonetheless, won't be the first time I screw up a prediction.
On the Repub race we are in agreement. It will be intersting. McCain should do extremely well in MD as the state doesn't have many evangelicals or libertarians. VA will be a good test of his acceptance with the party 'base'. As far as Republican political thought goes, its very diverse: moderates in NoVa, evangelicals in the South West, and fiscal conservatives everywhere. If McCain wins big Huckabee might have a tough time making a convincing argument on his viability. If Huckabee pulls the upset it will show McCain's soft support and Huckabee's path to the Confederate nomination (joke!) will be set...

Posted by: seannewengland | February 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

And zouk. your still talking like anyone cares about your opinion. They don't your a waste of skin and your wasting all our times with your gop lies spin and discreditting. Your making a fool of yourself. Hang em up.

you deserve the cave. Now crawl back in it. Stop sabotaging change and growth. You can't live in the 50's-60's forever. Your decades in the past. The year is 2008. Get with the program or get left in the past. I want you people to join america and reality zouk and stop being party loyalist red coats. Will you stop the sabotage? The choice is yours and those like you. Nobody pities you propogandists.

GEt off this site, please. Or switch your style./ Stop the sabotage now. Enough is enough. We now work together. Those that want to continue sabotage, you make your choice. We can't beg you to join reality and to stop hating yoru countries freedoms forever can we. Eventually you must face the conseqeucnes of your treason, don't you?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Super delegates are never "committed". They can change their minds up to the day of the convention. If Obama wins every primary from now on and has the earned delegate number he needs, no super delegate is going to give the nomination to HC. They're there to do what's best for the party and the country. They'll be asked to choose: a Party of the Future or a Party of the Past.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

seannewengland,
I guess we will just have to see if my non-scientific poll of Marylanders is better than your non-scientific one! I just get the feeling from everyone that I talk to that MD is ready to really go for Obama.

I think McCain will win both MD and VA, but it will be interesting to see the R turnout as well as the margins...

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

dave writes
"R's would vote for HRC as they consider her a better match than Obama against McCain wrt the independent vote."

So you ascribe to the theory that a mindset like Z's above (12:22) will push voters to support HRC over McCain? Lyle, where are you buddy?

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,
My folks live in the foothills of NC near the area your talking about and it has been an extremely dry year so the wildfires aren't completely a suprise and as Dave said the wind is probably feeding them.

Also to those who don't think Obama will win MD look at the poll numbers which have him up by around 20 points or so. Same goes for VA.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm thinking about voting for Chuckles Huckabee.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

lET'S PUT IT THIS WAY. If obama wins texas, and it's a growing possibility, clinton is done. This is a fact.

I see her as a republcain sabotuer. The gop's attempt to burn both ends and select the "opposition" candidate. She is the most consevative republican running. :)

the youth are not as dumb as our fathers and grandfathers. Or maybe the internet just makes that much differance.

Either way I don't see clinton dropping out and doing what's best for her coutnry or party anytime soon. If she loved her country she would drop out. There is to much for her real party to lost, she will TRY and take this to the convention where she thinks her bought and paid for sell-out moderates will save her. They will not. I don;t think she'll make it that far. If she does they will not steal the election, for all the reasons reported. If we are a democracy the super delegates will nto steal it from obama. They fear the future and the histroy books way to much to do that.

But clinton will never stop. Ever. Until she is forced it. to much to lose for the gop. They lose all the power of their gop cult if obama wins. All of it. They can sabotage no more without consequence. That is scary for them. And it should be. Theives are scared to get caught. Why? Murderers are scared to get caught. Why?

If the criminals in politics NEVER have to face consequences, well they may be pretty brave. Feel as though they can do anything and get away with it. They are not god's or king. They are men and women who are trusted to serve the nation and it's citizens best interests. It's not our fault(as american citizens) they don't do their jobs. Where else do you get rewarded the worse you do at your job?

The old folk have allowed bribery and treason to be acceptable for far to long. It is so easy to fix if we have the courage. Like switching on a light switch. "WE NOW ENFORCE OUR LAWS". Bribery treason perjury theft and on and on. So easy. If only their were people with backbone to stand up to those who destroyed our country and government. Those people exist now.

We are obama (edwards paul) supporters. How have we been treated. the last few years and now? We are a cult? is america a cult? if american ideals and striving for freedom a cult. Unbelievalbe. Take it easy gop (clinton supporters inculded). Think about the future. We want compromise now. Take it. think about the future. You do not compromise now, will WE in the future? Why should we?

Shared responsibility. Shared prosperity. And equality and justice for all. For the gop (clinton included) who do not believe in american ideals, show them the door. They are fascists living in america. They aren't americans. They just live here. We take our country back this year. Do not sabotage change and growth gop. Think about the future. Think about the big picture.

If you stubbornly play elementary school games. If you will not compromise. If you will only take all or nothing. Why should the left not recipracate?Remember the golden rule gop? Treat others how you wish to be treated? Rush O'liely hannity savage coulter fox? Do you want that? I don't.

think about the future gop (clinton included). Make the bed you lay in. Compromise or don't. But don't whine cry and complain about the choices you make. Stand by them. If you choose treason and money gop, that is yoru choice. Be proud and strong. Don't whine cry and hide from truth and justice. Take the consequences to your actions like men/women.

Enjoy yourirrelevance gop. Remember who you treated peacful americans when you had power. You had yoru chance. You wasted it. Not our fault. Not get back in the basement where you belong for 30 years. Do not blame anyone but yourselves.

you are either enabling teh fascists or fighting them. Where has clinton been the last decade as our country has been getting destroyed? Was she fighting the fascists, or enabling them? Do not blame obama for this. The gop likes to point the finger and blame others for their actions. Zero accountability or credibility. Clinton is a republican. Not because I say so, but by actions. Allow the gop the irrelevance they've earned. Do not pity them. They choose irrelevance. To not give it to them does them and the country a huge disservice.

Do not fear teh fascists. The only power THEY have is the power WE give them. Don't give them your power america due to fear or ignorance. We deserve the government we get. Do not let them take your power anymore america

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
R's would vote for HRC as they consider her a better match than Obama against McCain wrt the independent vote. That and R's are none too excited by their current choices (sorry Proud). VA is an open primary.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - On VA wildfires, not too typical. My guess is wind, we had a lot of it this weekend. SoVa is still recovering from the drought there but I don't recall it being critically dry. It was, way windy, however with little precip.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

'Who needs to go back to that ugliness and corruption?'

...when we can continue with the ugliness and corruption [and war and deficit and out of control spending] we have now?

but thank god, no matter who's president, we'll have a strong democratic Congress:

'WASHINGTON -- In the last week of January, five members of Congress joined the hottest demographic group on Capitol Hill: Republicans who are heading for the exits.

Reps. Tom Davis of Virginia, Kenny Hulshof of Missouri, Ron Lewis of Kentucky, Dave Weldon of Florida and James Walsh of New York are among 25 Republican members of the House of Representatives who've announced their resignations or retirements. The party is closing in quickly on its record of 27 House retirements, set in 1952.

Hulshof is running for governor; the others are retiring.

"It's become an epidemic," said David Johnson, a Republican consultant and strategist based in Atlanta.'

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I am considering voting for her. It is a game theoretical approach. We need her to be the Dem candidate to win the WH

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Dave,

I disagree that the Baltimore area will go heavily for Obama. The city probably will, but counties around Baltimore are filled with the type of folks who have supported Hillary in the past. A few of my friends in Maryland--who are by no means liberal--are in the Hilary camp (unscientific, I know). I think it will be closer than the Obama people assume... On the Repub side, I can't see how McCain can lose. Evangelicas are almost non-existent and Maryland Repubs are a moderate bunch.

Posted by: seannewengland | February 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

dave writes
"I can see many R's voting for HRC here."

Must be the only place in the country.

Why do you think VA Rs would vote for HRC?

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

why would anyone want the clintons back? He handed the congress to the Repubs after 40 years. He lost many state houses and governors. he lost the senate. He signed welfare reform - a GOP bill. He ignored terrorism and sacked the Army and intelligence. If it weren't for the Internet and cell phone boom, his only success would be getting off (he he) on Monica. He never even got more than 50% of the vote. Who needs to go back to that ugliness and corruption?

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

bsimon - "MD surprise?"
No. Obama will crush in MD. Turnout in Baltimore county/city will be huge - I hear people will be voting 3 or 4 times instead of their normal 2. There is nobody I know from Maryland that is a HRC supporter.

VA, with the open primary, is a different story. I can see many R's voting for HRC here. I also think she has more core support in VA compared to MD (but the numbers still favor Obama).

If Obama is going to govern in the same way Adrian Fenty has governed DC, we will be in for a long 4 years. Fenty got elected as a charismatic, young, bright guy with new ideas and a stated desire to do things different than the established leadership in DC. His claim to fame has been showing up at most of the crime scenes in DC, taking over the school board and trying to implement a controversial plan (since then revising said plan and really ticking off those opposed) and joining the bandwagon of the Washington Nationals baseball team, the one he so feverishly campaigned against.

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

'John Campbell, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Forestry, said about half of Virginia's 95 counties reported "significant" wildfires early Monday, but he had no estimate of the total acreage. The largest, about 400 to 500 acres, was in Bedford County, near Roanoke, where county officials reported at least 10 fires burning.'

VA folks... is this common for you, wildfires in the middle of winter? just curious.

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

I think I'm beginning to resent the assumption "Oh that state has a lot of blacks, so Obama will win." Many black voters choose him as do young people of all colors, because he offers better programs, a better view of what the presidency can be, and a more consistent record. In the beginning some black voters did not think white people would vote for him BECAUSE he is black, and now that so many white voters have, there is a new optimism and that may be increasing the turnout. In any case, the quick assumption that black voters will automatically vote for him, without saying why and when many make up their own minds differently, that seems to me somehow demeaning.

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

Haven't you all seen any monster movies? the minute you think the monster is down and out and the beautiful main character looks safe, the lights go out and the creature emerges with a new bloodlust.

We all know who the vamp is, Obambi is the blond chick in this case. watch your back. a wounded vampire is extremely dangerous.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The point of super delegates is not to provide another chunk of delegates that need to be "wooed" like a state. If that were the case, then they'd have a conference of super delegates and allow the candidates to give speeches and they'd hold an official "caucus" or "primary" for the supers. But that's not the point.

The point is to provide the popular vote and state-by-state frontrunner with a huge surge of delegates, so to make it clear who the nominee is. Right now that person is Obama, with a lead in the popular vote and an overwhelming lead in the quantity of states won. This looks to be furthered on Tuesday, and again on Saturday in Hawaii and Wisconsin. But until March 4 at the soonest, people need to just chill out. Pennsylvania is too long to wait for and if Obama continues a landslide through March 4, they won't need to wait for Pennsylvania. And if Clinton tries to hold out, it's only going to tarnish her reputation further.

The super delegates should not be counted in ANY tallies right now, in my opinion. These are fluid votes and therefore cannot be "measured" at any point prior to their official confirmation. This is why every flipping news organization has a different delegate count, and even WORSE is that the different outlets actually have different people in the lead!! How is this EVEN POSSIBLE?!

MSNBC, (sorry WaPo) is the only company with its head on straight, in that it is not recording super delegates in its count. They are only counting the delegates that are officially won, which again is the only accurate way of measuring this race. Trying to project which endorsements are going to transfer into reliable super delegate votes is stupid, misleading to readers and highly premature.

Obama is going to sweep Tuesday and continue through Hawaii and Wisconsin. And he's going to continue winning with 2:1 margins. If he can pummel Clinton in Virginia by a 20+ point margin and then win in Ohio and Texas (admittedly very difficult, though not impossible with the momentum from 10 wins in a row at that point) then Clinton needs to bow out quietly and quickly, while immediately pledging her full and unbridled support for Obama.

If Clinton wins Ohio and/or Texas, then Pennsylvania will come next. If Clinton wins that, then it could get ugly because the super delegates will essentially be forced to make the choice for the party, which was never the intention.

But I don't think this will be the case. If after Pennsylvania, Obama is falling behind, he'll have the maturity (which Clinton would not) and intelligence to drop his bid and give Clinton plenty of time to raise funds for the general election. But I don't think this will be the case - he's going to sweep through Wisconsin and Hawaii and deliver Clinton a Giuliani-esque defeat in Texas and Ohio.

Just watch.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Blert: hear anything about do-overs in MI and FL? Seems like somebody should be advocating for that. Preserves the penalty for bad behavior while giving them a voice at the same time. Still plenty of time for this.

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

I' confused by Hillary's recent comments in Chicago regarding her staff changes. How is losing a resource and replacing her with a resource that was already a part of the team (a net loss of 1) a sign of adding people??? And as to her other comment, which is a new talking point that I have heard elsewhere recently, can someone explain how this is the longest Presidential campaign in history? Does this relate to when the primaries began? Because I remember Jimmy Carter staring his run a lot earlier then Hillary officially did. Or is she referring ti it being so long because she counts it from when she and Bill started discussing their 16 year plan?

"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, we just don't have enough help," Clinton told a Chicago television news crew. Solis Doyle is a Chicago native.

Solis Doyle announced her departure to the staff Sunday.

"This has already been the longest Presidential campaign in the history of our nation, and one that has required enormous sacrifices from all of us and our families," she wrote.

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

Who would of thunk it? I live in Texas and my primary vote will count. I was staying neutral, hoping just to hunker down and do tax returns and not having to vote. Now I am finding out our primary is determined by state senate districts and yes we have caucuses too that matter. So I will post as find out more on this. I have two questions for Chris. I think it does the Democrats good to protract their race and maybe even take it into the convention (hey I loved the movie based on the Gore Vidal novel the "Best Man"). I think the buzz of the news story will energize the Democratic base. Your thoughts? I think the Democrats will have to give FL and MI a revote and how important will those races be. Funny they went first to decide and now he who goes last decides.

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

blert, good writeup.

If Obama sweeps again tomorrow, will any Dem party leaders start talking about Clinton withdrawing for the good of the party?

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,

At this point, I think the best (only?) strategy for Clinton is to fight to the bitter end in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, relying on the proportional allotment of delegates to give her a few delegates. Meanwhile, Clinton has to secure as many superdelegates as she possibly can. Then, as the caucus and primary season largely wraps up in late-April or early-May, Clinton will need to work like mad to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. Without these, she is lost.

Of course, the problems with seating those delegates are immense. Clinton would look like she is trying to steal the election, which she would be, and given that Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan, no one with any sense of fair play will admit those results into the convention. And if Michigan's delegates aren't seated, then seating only Florida's becomes extremely dicey. At best, Clinton will hope to look like a hero to those states for championing their delegate cause, and then maybe she can broker a deal to have some sort of caucus or other event in those states to select delegates that the DNC will recognize.

By this late date, of course, Clinton's momentum will be nil, but if she can somehow find a way to give Michigan and Florida their delegates back, and especially if she very visibly campaigns for this and claims credit for forging a deal to hold second contests, she will earn favor in those states and might be able to carry them again in second votes.

Without these two states in her favor, however, Clinton is hurting. The only real respite she may have is that there are two weeks of relative silence between Wisconsin/Hawaii and Ohio/Texas, which might give her campaign time to catch its footing. Otherwise, though, the immediate prospects look dim, and Maggie Williams is settling into a job today that more or less demands her to pull off a miracle.

Posted by: blert | February 11, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

more R's bite the dust...my. that's 30 or 31 now.

'WASHINGTON -- In the last week of January, five members of Congress joined the hottest demographic group on Capitol Hill: Republicans who are heading for the exits.

Reps. Tom Davis of Virginia, Kenny Hulshof of Missouri, Ron Lewis of Kentucky, Dave Weldon of Florida and James Walsh of New York are among 25 Republican members of the House of Representatives who've announced their resignations or retirements. The party is closing in quickly on its record of 27 House retirements, set in 1952.

Hulshof is running for governor; the others are retiring.

"It's become an epidemic," said David Johnson, a Republican consultant and strategist based in Atlanta.

While some members, such as Hulshof, are leaving to pursue new political opportunities, most observers say that the mass departures are the result of the loss of Republican control in the 2006 elections, lackluster fundraising and low morale.

Prospects look equally bright for Democrats in the Senate, where five Republican veterans -- John Warner of Virginia, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho and Wayne Allard of Colorado -- are ready to hang it up.'

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

claudialong - "signs from the conservative PAC convention"

I don't know, I thought the 'Chappaquiddick Swim Club' shirt was funny.

Posted by: dave | February 11, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

MD surprise?

Someone posted a question on the Shailaugh Murray chat about MDs closed primary - and having to declare back in Nov in order to participate tomorrow.

Does that change the prediction for tomorrow?

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

chris, have you seen that new blog, http://www.whynotboth.com

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

CC,

I'm still not completly sold on your Maryland analysis. The state is more than the 'burbs of Prince George and Montgomery counties. The Baltimore burbs, the west, and eastern shore all seem like strong Clinton territory (based on her past performance). I think the race will be pretty tight.

Posted by: seannewengland | February 11, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Meant it to be the combined Potomac primary is bigger than any one of the three potentially Clinton saving Megas not that it was bigger than all three combined. Sorry if the language was unclear.

Posted by: cmsore | February 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

'http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2008/2/10/Top-Ten-CPAC-Signs'

signs from the conservative PAC convention. view the total idiocy. this is why we need no more 'movement conservatives' in office again -- ever.

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

fishy stuff in WA--the GOP in a hurry to wrap it up for mccain:

'Fox News has learned that the Huckabee campaign has called for a "full investigation" into the Washington State Caucus results, and are sending campaign lawyers to the state to help in that pursuit. Ed Rollins, Huckabee campaign chairman, directly challenged Washington State GOP Chairman Luke Essers move in anounncing that John McCain had won the tight race with only 87.2 percent of the votes counted.

"The chairman showed very bad judgment in stopping the voting last night when announcing John McCain had won, when there was less that a 200 vote margin between the two candidates," Rollins told Fox in an exclusive interview." You never announce a vote, in my 40 years of politics I have never know anybody to announce a vote count before the vote is counted."

McCain led with 26 percent of the delegates to Huck's 24 percent.

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

AndyR- The Delegates tommorrow might be insignificant? Looking at it tommorrow is the second highest number of delegates available on any single day for the Democrats in the future. Using the posts number of delegates which might not distinguish supers, and not going through the screwy Texas allocation rules and not including territories which aren't included in post numbers:

1st: March 4th 445 delegates (TX 228, OH 162, RI 32, VT 23)

2nd: February 19th 240 delegates (VA 103, MD 99, DC 38)

3rd: May 6th 189 delegates (NC 110, IN 79)

4th: April 22nd 181 delegates (PA 181)

5th: February 19th 121 delegates (WI 92, HI 29)

6th: May 20th 117 delegates (OR 62, KY 55)

7th: Last primary day in June didn't write it down 55 delegates (23 MT, 22 SD)

8th: March 11th 40 delegates (MS 40)

9th: May 13th 37 delegates (WV 37)

10th: March 8th 18 delegates (WY 18)

Just because a state is smaller than the mega states doesn't mean that they don't have significant delegates to make an impact. The potomac primary region has more delegates than all 3 of the big states that are supposed to be Clinton's last chance to save herself. The one that most surprised me was actually May 6th- think that's a good Obama day?

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

JacksonLanders writes
"Hillary Clinton is losing this election and she needs to win something tomorrow in order to have a rational path to the nomination."

Fri or Sat Chris' post asked if HRC could be successful in March, if the only event she won in the interim was Maine. Since she lost that race, the question is whether she can win in March (i.e. OH & TX) if she wins zero events in Feb. Of course, anything can happen, but the odds don't look to be in her favor.

So... What's the best move for the Clinton campaign? Keep the same strategy? Try something new? Go back to the strategy that won in NH?

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

If the questions about Clinton's campaign being off track have not already started in earnest, then there is something deeply, deeply wrong both inside the campaign and in the media. Clinton held the bare minimum ground she could while still maintaining viability, and has lost by increasingly large margins since then. Unless Virginia throws us the biggest single shock of this entire election cycle, Clinton's woes are not going to improve, nor do Hawaii and Wisconsin offer much hope. Hawaii will vote 70% for Obama, and Wisconsin, while it does have a working class base, also is next door to Illinois, has a strong progressive tradition, and heavy support for Obama in the African American parts of Milwaukee and the highly educated and politically active Milwaukee suburbs and Madison area. Everything prior to Ohio and Texas looks set to go strongly Obama's way.

Clinton's campaign, with its shakeup, is obviously running damage control, trying desperately to right itself, but with no overarching vision set forth, no positive news coming out, no money in the bank, and all of the contests going convincingly to Obama, one has to wonder how long it will be before people start to see Clinton as merely tilting at windmills in a futile attempt to remain visible and relevant.

Obama can't turn his attention away from Clinton until after Ohio and Texas at the soonest, but if he can earn marginal wins in those states, or even split the vote more or less 50-50 with Clinton, he should have the nomination fairly firmly in his grasp.

My question is how long it will be before the media start talking about Obama as if he were the nominee. It's still too early to do so yet, beyond merely speculating what a McCain-Obama race would look like, but either before or soon after the early-March contests, I expect to hear commentators speaking about Obama as the nominee-apparent, even if they don't use the label yet.

Posted by: blert | February 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I think this weekend also pointed out who won the Edwards folks over to their side. I think it is obvious that Obama has won more and the argument that this race would come down to a HIllary and an anti-hillary candidate is somewhat coming true. The problem for the Clintons is that the Anti-hillary candidate is also a pretty compelling candidate on his own.

I am taking March 15th as the day that Hillary drops out after she loses Ohio, Texas, and gets wooped by over 50% in Mississippi.
Et tu Barack..

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

'Both candidates insist that they're the underdog, and it's equally inane in both cases.'

they're both simultaneously calling themselves the leader AND the underdog --silly.

oh yeah, muttonchops, those are hot.

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Steven,

Get lost with your stupid 16 year plan nonsense. You are the only person in the world who takes this seriously, and looking at your lame excuse for a website I see that you have no content whatsoever and you personally are the only point of contact. It's not a movement. It's just you doing the internet equivalent of standing on a street corner and shouting at pedestrians.

You are a troll. Posting your repetetive crap here when it has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. If you want to dictate the subject of discussion, go start your own blog instead of trying to hijack Chris Cilliza's readership.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Gore lost, grew a beard, won Nobel Prize.

Richardson lost, grew a beard, angling for a Nobel???

Cillizza grew a beard, shaved it, perhaps giving up all hope of winning Nobel.

Well Chris, there's still the Pulitzer to go for. Maybe a mustache or muttonchops?

Posted by: egc52556 | February 11, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The fact that Clinton doesn't 'need' the delegates between now and TX & OH is sort of irrelevant. Rudy Giuliani didn't 'need' the delegates between Iowa and Florida to win. Going strictly by the math, that is. But practically speaking, if you keep getting your butt kicked in state after state then what that adds up to is in fact a butt kicking and it means that you lose the election.

If Hillary Clinton cannot compete in the very wide range of states represented between last Saturday's contests through the end of the month, that means she just cannot compete. By the time Ohio votes, her early hopes of a win there will have faded just as surely as Giuliani's early lead in Florida was erased by his repeated losses en route. Hillary Clinton is losing this election and she needs to win something tomorrow in order to have a rational path to the nomination.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

steven4, that plan is a bad idea for many, many reasons. First, there's the fact that Howard Dean has absolutely no power to force Hillary and Obama to team up. Second, there's the fact that the two are a terrible ticket; they don't seem to get along, and neither would help the other one bit as VP. Third, there's the fact that being VP does not guarantee nomination or election in 2016. We could have 16 years of Democratic presidents whether or not there's a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2008. This is a bad idea, and it's a waste of a perfectly good domain name.

Posted by: Blarg | February 11, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Does Clinton's popularity among Lower- and Middle- class voters have to do with some policy difference, or is it a spurious relationship? I suspect that, given the policy similarities between Clinton & Obama, the class difference is more reflective of name ID - with wealthier voters more likely to be engaged in the process while middle and lower class voters more likely to be counting on name ID. If I am right, then as the campaign goes on, and more people learn about Obama, his percentage of the lower- and middle- class voting blocks should go up

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

This "underdog" narrative is getting silly. There are two candidates. Both have about an equal number of delegates, lots of money, and backing from a significant portion of the party establishment. Therefore, there is no underdog. Both candidates insist that they're the underdog, and it's equally inane in both cases.

Posted by: Blarg | February 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Chris, that wasn't a beard. This is a beard:
http://visi.com/~bsimon/hiking/at99/images/at_garfield_portrait.jpg

Posted by: bsimon | February 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

CC, you mention government workers possibly going for HRC but aren't many of those government workers also African-American? Anybody got any numbers for/against that assumption?

Also, at what point will BHO develop "The Big Mo' " and start to improve his numbers in close states like OH and TX on the basis of the appearance (however ephemeral) of 'inevitability?' People (well, some people) want to vote for a winner and the uncertainty of Super Tuesday is well behind us now.

Finally, I'm posting this detailed analysis ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361 ) which subdivides the electorate in ways that the MSM (sorry, CC) continually glosses over.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

CC, the beard was awesome. It made you looked distinguished. But I would bet that since you shaved it, your wife didn't find it so cool. At least that is usually why I have to shave mine.

It seems to me that the Clinton Campaign is going to get trounced tomorrow. It might not mean that much in terms of delegates but it will definitly help with Obama's fundraising which will allow him to go after the Ohio markets, AND flood Texas with a pro-Obama message. The question is what happens if Obama wins Ohio and Texas? Does Hillary bow out and try and save the party some face or does she fight until the bitter end.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company