Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam Week in Preview: Super Tuesday Edition

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

In less than 24 hours, the closest thing we've ever had to a national primary will get underway. Voters in more than 20 states will cast votes -- from Connecticut, New Jersey and New York in the east to California, New Mexico and Arizona out west.

Because of the number of states and the number of different time zones, determining winners and losers will be harder than ever before. Add to that the mathematical intricacies of delegate apportionment (don't even get us started) and tomorrow night has all the makings of a very tough contest to analyze.

For Republicans, the race seems to be Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) for the taking. MSNBC and McClatchy conducted surveys in four potential battlegrounds -- California, New Jersey, Georgia and Missouri -- and they found that the Arizona senator is ahead in each. His narrowest lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is in Georgia, where the two are separated by just six points; McCain's widest margin -- 15 points -- comes in New Jersey.

Barring some sort of last minute cataclysm, McCain seems likely to emerge from tomorrow's votes with a large delegate lead over Romney, making it more difficult for Romney to go on. This election cycle, however, has taught us never to say never, and with Romney spending heavily on television in California and a handful of other Feb. 5 states he might pull a surprise.

On the Democratic side, it is state by state, hand-to-hand combat with neither Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Barack Obama (Ill.) optimistic that tomorrow's vote will decide much of anything. Both candidates have a big state or two he or she is sure to win (New York for Clinton, Illinois for Obama), but they are still fighting for a handful of other key states that could tip the margin one way or the other when the winners are being sorted out.

Here's a quick look at five of the biggest battlegrounds:

* Arizona: Symbolic of the rapid gains of Democrats in the southwest, Arizona is the biggest prize in the region tomorrow. Obama has the endorsement of Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) as well as Rep. Raul Grijalva (D), an influential voice in the Hispanic community. Clinton made a stop is Tuscon on Saturday (where she participated in the MTV/MySpace candidate forum). A MSNBC/McClatchy poll shows the race in a dead heat, with Clinton taking 33 percent of the vote to Obama's 31 percent. One fascinating finding from that survey: NBC political director Chuck Todd notes that unlike in other states where Clinton is winning Hispanic voters by a 4-1 margin, it is Obama who is actually winning among that key voting bloc in Arizona.

* California: By virtue of being the biggest state -- with the most delegates -- voting tomorrow, the Golden State is sure to gets lots of attention. Remember: Democrats give out delegates by congressional district, so no matter whether Clinton or Obama wins the popular vote in the state, both are likely to pick up a considerable number of delegates. An MSNBC/McClatchy survey in California put Clinton in the lead 45 percent to 36 percent; a Field Poll had the margin far closer, with Clinton at 36 percent to Obama's 34 percent.

* Georgia: The crown jewel of the southern states voting tomorrow seems to favor Obama. He has a slight lead in the MSNBC/McClatchy poll in the Peach State (the only state where he currently leads the New York senator) and Georgia's significant black population -- nearly 30 percent of the state's residents -- makes it prime territory for Obama.

* Missouri: The Show Me State always seems to find itself in the mix in any competitive presidential election. In the last 100 years, Missouri has voted for the eventual president in every election but one -- 1956. It's expected to be a battleground yet again in November, and both Clinton and Obama want to show that he or she is the Democratic candidate who can win Middle America back for the party. MSNBC/McClatchy has Clinton up 47 percent to 41 percent over Obama, but this race will go down to the wire and could well depend on how African American cast their votes.

* New Jersey: What once looked like a Clinton stronghold has become more competitive. The latest survey in the Garden State put Clinton ahead of Obama by seven points, but the way the delegates are awarded in the state -- not by congressional district but by specially designated delegate districts (don't ask but if you want to know more, it's all right here -- could aid Obama, his allies believe. Any sort of weak showing in what is arguably Clinton's backyard could have symbolic importance well beyond the raw delegate apportionment.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 4, 2008; 9:42 AM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: MTV/MySpace Presidential Super Dialogue
Next: The Efficacy of Electability?


rfpiktor: I have been looking at several polls today and most do not agree with what I have. The way I figure she has the nomination sewed up, but we will have to go on for some months yet. There is a lot of money involved for the remaining states. Look for somewhat of a surprise in Illinois.

Posted by: lylepink | February 4, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

lylepink | February 4, 2008 01:15 PM

Lyle, you have been right about the Hillary juggernaut.

I've been watching the numbers and the thrust of Obama's momentum and it doesn't look pretty for Clinton.

The Obama phenomenon was unexpected by everyone and his $32 millon collected in January tells me Clinton won't have it easy at all and might lose.

Obama is ahead in Mass. now, also.

It just might be a split delegate result for tomorrow. That is really bad news for Hill. She should have locked up the thing by tomorrow night and it won't happen.

I hope Novamatt is right about a tidal movement happening for more than a week and Obama comes on top in California. Why? Change, man, we need change.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

ending a four-month drop in casualties, and most of the deaths occurred outside Baghdad or the once-restive Anbar province, according to military statistics.

In all, 38 American service members had been reported killed in January by Thursday evening, compared with 23 in December. Of those, 33 died from hostile action, but only nine of them in Baghdad or Anbar.

A total of 3,942 American service members have been killed in Iraq as of Thursday, according to, an independent Web site that tracks the statistics.

Posted by: drindl | February 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Kingofzouk: you're back! Haven't seen you post since Guiliani pulled out of the race. Now that you are posting again, can you please answer the question I keep putting to you: why, if - as you asserted - Guiliani was the best choice to keep America safe, did your fellow GOP members reject him so soundly even in Florida? What do you think their careful reasoning was?

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

The problem is, no matter how many truths I tell you people, you are still slaves. Not matter how many times I'm right, and you are wrong, you will never admit yoru wrong. Zero accountability. That is why the gop is done. Credibility and accounability personified.

You'll just cahnge you post names and act like you've been obama supporterws from the get go. Like your party. They are never wrong, their ideals are not wrong. It's just a man or women. throw them out, like you would do to your bogus zero credibility post names, and start a new. NEver admit defeat, never admit a mistake.

The american people showed you what time it is gop. Now will you acknowledge reality or fight it? Time will tell.

Everything I have said here has come to pass. I know no other way to achieve credibility. And I know no other way to marginalize and point out liars and propogandists and showing them a mirror.

Were else in the world do the peopel who are always right have to submit to those who are never right? Not in my america. not on this blog.

I am rufus. HEre me roar. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I like some of your other ones, optimyst, as well. I am not so sure they can be achieved, skeptical as I am. An example of one of your listed items that will NOT occur is "diversion" of "savings" from the Iraq pullback to the Gulf Coast. We can talk about that one elsewhere.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I think obama will win califias and new york. If that happens, clinton is done. AND I WILL GLOAT, after all I have taken here and elsewhere. Yes i will gloat. :)

If clinton wins california the races continues to the end. Hopefully we can convicne the latinos that clinton is gop. tiem will tell. I'm not naive to think about has it, still close. A lot closer than some time ago.

But mark and zouk. Are you all going to appologize when you are wrong ? What do we do with you bloggers when all your lies amount to nil?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Hi Optimyst - Your 3,4,6, and 8 are structural, in my view, and therefore possible if either McC or BHO are elected.

Honestly have no clue if HRC or WMR were elected.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Your polls seem really old and crappy. The new ones out today have Obama leading in California. This is Zogby and Ramussenn. He is also leading in CT and in CO? Hello Chris you make it seem like he is close but behind in every place but Georgia and Illinois. This is not the case he will win California and Connecticut and problem more delegates tomorrow.

Posted by: Ramblingman | February 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Last I checked, you were able to vote for Paul if you wanted to.

Are all you Paul supporters nutty?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 01:48 PM

Was that fox I was watching when the gop'ers were near to tears about "un-fair questionsing"? You know, if you can't take questions from cnn, how are you going to handle the terrorists. It's funny the road only runs one way. These cry babies want everything exactly their way, otherwise they will huff and puff and cry like like bohner babies. How did rush and fox help mccain? Not very. On meet the press, carville said the three major ascpects of the gop are now irrelevant, talk radio/fox, the ecominists or ( nutty supply siders) and the church false prophets. Mccain? HAHAHA The gop is done

Paul has been given a raw deal by the gop. I'm sure all the paulites will let you remember that gop. Your rudy/thompson push failed. Your propogandists failed.

Without right-wing propoganda what do you people have? I love to watch the gop's far fall. After the last 8 years of fascism. It's good to see the country turning on them. Really good.

Fox says, "When will the moderate muslims stand up to the terrorists."

I have said, "When will patriotic republcains stand up to the fascists in their party." It happened much to my surpries. It's called reality gop. you should try it something. Get out of rush's/fox's world and join reality for once.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Of all Willard Mitt Romney's serial flip-flops, this may be the worst yet....

Mitt is the born-again supply-sider who today swears he never raised taxes, even though he increased taxes and fees $983 million as Massachusetts governor.

He is 2008's stalwart defender of traditional values and man-woman marriage who, in 2002, distributed a hot-pink flyer among Boston's gay community that read: "Mitt and Kerry Wish You A Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference." (Kerry Healey was the GOP nominee for lieutenant governor.)

Romney is the Second Amendment enthusiast who brags about being a life-member of the National Rifle Association -- "life" beginning in August 2006 -- who said in 1994, "I don't line up with the NRA."

Pick nearly any topic, and you will find the new and old Romneys as far apart as two pugilists in opposite corners of a boxing ring, ready to knock each other's lights out.

But nothing prepared me for Romney's most amazing flip flop of all. Somehow, I missed it, despite months of researching his bipolar record.

During CNN's January 30 debate from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Romney said, "one of the two great regrets I have in life is I didn't serve in the military. I'd love to have." This echoes what he told the Boston Globe last June 24. "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

Now, as works with almost any subject, search Google or Nexis for "Romney" and "Vietnam" and any date before 2004, when he got serious about pursuing the 2008 GOP nomination.

Voila! There it is, from May 2, 1994. "I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam," Romney told the Boston Herald.

This flip flop is much more revealing and far more disturbing than the rest.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

What would you want from your Federal Government then? Are you able to see this election as other than a laundry list of grievances and wishes? Just curious.

1) A cautious pull back of troops in Iraq, restoring reasonable troop rotations with adequate equipment to perform the mission
2) A buildup of troops in Afghanistan and a refocusing of effort against bin Laden and al Qaeda
3) A bi-partisan cabinet made up of leaders who will enforce laws and regulations on the books against the excesses of business
4) A rebuilding of agencies such as Treasury, Justice, EPA, Interior, FEMA, etc. that were dismantled or subverted by the Bush Admin.
5) the naming of federal judges in the mold of Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter who actually believe that the constitution has context as a living, breathing document of the 21st century.
6) Elimination of imprisonment of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo, a pledge to uphold the Geneva Conventions and an end of the practice of rendition and torture.
7) An urgent round of tours of foreign governments and leaders to begin the rebuilding of America's standing in the world including a discussion of a true coalition against terrorism.
8)A reversal of Bush executive orders and signing statements that have subverted the checks and balances between Congress and the Executive branch, especially regarding secrecy.
9) Holding weekly press conferences as used to be somewhat customary before the 1980's. Americans should be consulted by their leaders to build consensus for policies and programs.
10) Continued focus on the Palestinian issue by a high level envoy such as Bill Clinton or Colin Powell.
11) A diversion of some of the savings from the Iraq pullback to the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast.
12) Incremental tax policy changes to encourage green technologies.
13) Further increase in vehicle CAFE standards and implementation of federal fleet upgrades to plug hybrid technologies.

These are all either likely to be done at the executive level by a democratic administration or are incremental enough that they can be enacted by a democratic congress.

Yes, there are plenty of "big dreams" that may take longer than 4 years, but so much can be improved in the dismal state of our currently dysfunctional government.

Posted by: optimyst | February 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

rpy1 - You win the Mark_in_Austin Prize.

Every four years since I was five we have been promised some variation of the list I proposed by either the Rs or Ds, depending on which parts of the list they subscribed to.

I totally agree with your notion that structures of government have been neglected or abused. So transparency, balance of power, effective non-partisan enforcement of the law at DOJ - those are the sorts of modest structural corrections I had in mind, for the next Prez and the next Congress.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Not once in the last 16 years has Hillary had a favorable rating of more than 50%. She is not electable. We must remember that it was the Clinton Impeachment and the subsequent lies that gave us 8horrible years of George W. Bush. You can ask Al Gore about that. Also, when John Kerry had an opportunity to defeat Bush. The Clinton's sat on their hands and offered only token help and lip service. They wanted him to lose so that she would not have to wait another 8 years to run. Not to mention the selling of the Lincoln bedroom and their pardons for sleazy followers on their way out of office. We cannot afford to go backwards and nominate a polarizer and triangulater.The future is now. VOTE OBAMA.

Posted by: tgl88 | February 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama has erased Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead among Democrats nationally, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll out Monday. The two are in a virtual tie, with Obama at 49 percent and Clinton at 46 percent.

The survey represents a dramatic turnaround in the race from a few months ago when Clinton had a significant edge over Obama.

With 1681 delegates up for grab, what Candidate do you believe will accumulate the most delegates on Super Tuesday?


Posted by: PollM | February 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Gun control? how many v tech massacures must happen before we get gun control? how many nebraska mall shootings? The gop is done. Their issues are divide and conquer. Ignore them. Their 23 % deserves voice only if they get with the program. If they are going to sabotage the coutnry to acehieve their goals, we must all not allow them to achieve their goals. This is not an elementary schoolyard sandbox.

The gop tried and redender the left irrelevant. Why can the left not "try" and recipracte? When the left does the right whines and cries about fairness.

I say we elect a president and congress, and the will of the power are done. Whether that is democratic socialism or fascism or blah ism. The will of the american people MUST be done for this to be a nation of and by the people. Beware those that suppress votes or go to courts to steal elections. Beware of those who do not want the will of the people do be done. They're called republcains. And some "moderate" sellout dem's.

to fear the future is to risk eliminating it. To not fear the traitors. To justify their treason is to ok it. Stop allowing the fascists to sell-out the country. Make the laws and rules apply to all. Nto just the "left". this is america ,after all. Where the rule of law is above all. Beware of those who have hatered for our laws, and our freedoms. They are not americans. They are fascists living in america.

do not fear the fascists. If you are not one of them, treat them as they treat you and yoru opinions. Render them irrelevant, like they tried to do to every non-clone borg. Do not pity the fascists. To pity them is to keep them around. We don't need them. All they do is sabotage. Imagine the growth this coutnry could make without those holding us down do to fear of change. the lwas are not theirs. They apply to us all, not just none gop robots.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked, you were able to vote for Paul if you wanted to.

Are all you Paul supporters nutty?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I would like to state I will vote for Obama. But The exclusion of Ron Paul from the electoral process by the Major Media, is Treasonous and Criminal. ---------------- It reminds me of the News service the Soviets once had. ----------- It was called Pravda. ------- They only told the citizens of the Soviet Union what they wanted them to know, nothing more-------- I will warn both Dems and Repubs, if we allow the exclusion of Ron Paul from our electoral process, whether we agree with him or not, is criminal on our part. ------------------ If this exclusion is allowed to continue then what is next? ------------------ Wake up and look around what is happening to our country --------------------- We are being lied to and controlled by the media at the exclusion our right to know. ------ Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: acsht | February 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

So tough. You old internet tough guys are so hard. how can I be tuff like you simon and mark?

Keep talking to the paenut gallery. While you do that I and those like me will effect change. While the bsimons of the world are waitign for propoganda to see how they should think. keeping up with the jones.

I know you hate us who think for themseleves, whatever side we may be on. You clowns are irrleevant now. Hae me all you want gop and moderate sell-out d's. you made your own beds mark zouk and simon. now sleep. Enjoy the irrelevance you've earned due to lack of accountaiblity or in the moderates case, fear.

you lost the grip on this great nation. Real patriots took the reigns. But don't blame us. blame yourselves. The gop for failing to hold their own to account. And the moderate d's for being cowards when their coutnry was being destroyed by traitors. You made your bed old people. Now sleep

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the Republican candidates have a variety of positions on important issues.

Immigration: Should the wall be 50 feet high or 100 feet high?

Tax policy: Eliminate all taxes, or just the ones on the rich?

Health care: What's the most effective way to get rid of it?

Free speech: You've got me there. Democrats agree that free speech should exist. Republicans are debating it.

Gun control: Ha!

Abortion: Should we lock up the abortion doctors, or just execute them?

Economic concerns: Should we be concerned about the economy? (General consensus: No.)

War policy: Stay in Iraq for 100 years or 200? Double Guantanamo or triple it?

Posted by: Blarg | February 4, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

C'mon, lylepink. It's A FACT that Clinton will win California by double digits, and every state but Illinois will go for her too. Don't be getting squishy on us now.

Posted by: novamatt | February 4, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Does anybody else know what Rufus means?"

I don't think even rufus knows what he means.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

R issues under debate:
tax policy
health care
free speech
gun control
economic concerns
war policy

D issues under debate
black or female
take your money directly from your paycheck or send you a bill?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Hey, Nevadasandy,

Yes, the Super Bowl is representative of what will happen on Tuesday. HRC was backing the Giants an BO was backing the Patriots. Look who won.

Cute metaphor; try again.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 01:14 PM


OOOHHHH. Obama loses his superbowl perdiction. OOOHH AAWWWW. HAHAHHAHA

Ok. See you clowns on wendsday. What a waste of time this site is. I'm just glad you are finally realizing reality. Only took half a year. But I and those like me did not change. You did. Alright mark.

I never changed here. You did. Zouk did. You gop clowns are powerless, here and in the real world. The only power you have is the power WE give you, due to fear. We don't fear you anymore. now stand doen and let majority rule. Otherwise you are a traitor. I do not pity treason. others do not either. The youth will not allow you fascist pigs to spend our's and our childrens money, so you can line your pockets. The future is today. FEar doesn't exist.

For the last time gop, stop sabotaging your country and get with the program.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark - not me. But I am interested in what you're thinking of as an answer for your question -- my first few thoughts (transparency in gov't processes, increased power in Congress vs Executive, less politicization in the DOJ) seem like candidates for a laundry list.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: Nope, I am predicting Hillary by 7% in Ca. Obama should win about seven states out of the 20 something Tomorrow. Watch out for the sevens.

Posted by: lylepink | February 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Forget the jones effect mark. You don't need authorization. Talk to me buddy? Don't go after teh jones. Think for yourself.

If no, then no. Who's approval must you seek? Dittoheads these days. Break the chain mark. Speak your mind. You are a free man. Even if you resent your own freedom. Don't be scared.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Nevadasandy,

Yes, the Super Bowl is representative of what will happen on Tuesday. HRC was backing the Giants an BO was backing the Patriots. Look who won.

Cute metaphor; try again.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

And? Bill clinton is gop. What will you do when Clinton is out.

all the moderate democrats sell-outs (clinton, reid, di fi, rockafeller) will be gop soon. Finally the democratic party can build without gop sabotage.

Look at the votes. The gop votes as the borg. Teh democratic party has the idealist group (the left) and the moderate sell-outs sacred of what the gop will do or say. That is a conservative estimate. Most times they are bought and paid for, and side with the gop, or those doing the "buying".

Once the sell-outs are out of the democtaric party, and over where they belong, with the other sell-outs and sabotages, it will be very easy to marginalize. You dittoheads have gotten a little to comfortable. you really think this coutnry is yours. this country is no body's. No one "owns" it.

MAjority rule. If you can't take being the minority. Go elsewhere. Stop sabotaging yoru country. Majority rule. That is america. If you hate that concept you are not an american. Your just living here.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Rufus wrote:

"Scared now mark? Your soundling like zouk now."

What are you talking about? What do you mean?

Does anybody else know what Rufus means?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the GOP circular firing squad is moving into position around Sen. McCain. Every soundbite about the old boy is being carefully catalogued for use in the general election.

Not that Willard Mittens Romney won't stop trying, but this empty suit could spend $500 million and not be elected president of the US.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 4, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

The once and future president:

Consider the case of Kazakhstan. The U.S. State Department has described the election of its current president as one that was filled with anti-Democratic procedures that prevented opposition parties and candidates from participating in the election. All power in the government is concentrated in the president and there is widespread corruption. There is one opposition member in the Parliament. Human rights violations are rampant. Freedom of the press does not exist.

Yet, in late 2006, as his wife was laying the ground work for a presidential race and serving in the U.S. Senate, Bill Clinton flew on a lavish private plane to the former Soviet State and met with its President, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, known best for eliminating all opposition in his country. In the short time that he was there, Clinton promoted Nazarbayev for chairman of a U.N. committee - a position that the United States government, and his own wife, had opposed. That made no difference to Clinton. Of course, he never mentioned anything at all about the rampant human rights violations.

Clinton was there as the guest of Frank Giustra, a Canadian billionaire who wanted to buy the country's uranium rights. Although he had no experience in this area of the world, he was suddenly awarded the contract which the New York Times termed a "monster deal.... [that] suddenly transformed the company into the world's largest uranium producers."

Clinton made sure that the Kazahstan President understood that Giustra and Clinton were an item.

After the deal was closed, Clinton's foundation received a $31 million contribution from Giustra and a pledge of another $100 million.

What's wrong with that? Well, aside from deliberately and publicly undermining the articulated policy of the United States government, Bill Clinton traded his power and his prestige in exchange for an unprecedented contribution to his foundation, which refuses to release the names of its donors. Clinton has considerable latitude in how the foundation funds are spent and the foundation board is filled with his cronies.

But there's something else: Bill Clinton's conduct raises a serious question about whether any other promises were made that might relate to favors that could be done by a future Clinton administration. Whether there were any promises or not, it just doesn't look g ood. It's an inappropriate role for an ex-president. Did Kazakhstan make a contribution to the library, too?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Scared now mark?

Your soundling like zouk now. What changed? you or the small world around you.

Scared yet? The gop fascist state is done. We are free. Don't hate the freedom this country was founded on. if you hate yoru country and it's freedoms, gop, move to another country. The year is 2008.


Remember that. Please leave it gop'ers. Let us build this great nation without your sabotage for personal profit. Some call it treason

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I can only think there are enough people with at least a little bit of common sense, to not fall for what has been spoon fed to them by The Media. A recession is going on now, and it will be awfully hard to avoid a real depression. We need leadership in the Oval Office.

Posted by: lylepink | February 4, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse


Which is more important to you? America or Iraq? Or should I say the republcain ideal? Or bush legacy? Which is more important to you? The republcain party or yoru country?

You show your face daily. Just a mirror. You peopel are invested in the defeat of america, for all your talk of the dem's being invested in defeat in iraq. I'll take america and our freedoms over iraq and theirs. Altogh we never should have been there.

Your fascist pig party will not be able to balme the dem's on iraq, like you do with everything else. May work with your brainwashed cult. But the non-dittoheads ant eh rest of the world places the blame fo iraq squarly where it belongs. With the gop.

That is why we still are in iraq. They had nothign to do iwth 9/11. It's all about gop legacy. for theg op you fascist pig are destroying yoru country. Is it still treason supporting another country over your own? time will tell.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

how do Dems win elections? easy - more votes than voters - look at broward county D-0001

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that your pet projects:

universal health insurance, peace and freedom in Iraq,energy independence, stabilization of global climate, no estate tax, no capital gains tax, no taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the middle class,
a balanced budget, Arabs and Jews happy together, no Chinese trade imbalance, free trade, fair trade, gold standard,
IAs go home, Pakistan has free and fair elections, Catching Bin Laden,
Afghanistan is stabilized, crime rates drop, Roe v. Wade is overturned,
prayers are ok'd in the classrooms,
teachers get a big raise, vets get treated right, national voluntary service is implemented, a swimming pool is dug for every man woman and child;
whatever -
will not or cannot happen in 4 years.
What would you want from your Federal Government then? Are you able to see this election as other than a laundry list of grievances and wishes? Just curious.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

British scientists are ready to turn female bone marrow into sperm, cutting men out of the process of creating life.

Men are hereby obsolete. Bring on the Feminazis. vote hillary.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

novamatt | February 4, 2008 12:13 PM


Lyle is going to tell us he was "expecting" the California debacle.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

We're Winning: Iraq Attacks Down to Two-Year Low
Attacks have dropped in Baghdad to levels seen in 2005, a senior commander in Iraq said today. Coalition forces also are finding and clearing more bombs than they have in the past four years

drindl and fellow moonbats desperate for falling sky issues to invigorate party.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

We're Winning: Iraq Attacks Down to Two-Year Low
Attacks have dropped in Baghdad to levels seen in 2005, a senior commander in Iraq said today. Coalition forces also are finding and clearing more bombs than they have in the past four years

drindl and fellow moonbats desperate for falling sky issues to invigorate party.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"That was one of the more revealing steps ever taken by Bush's DOJ under Gonzales: the administration violated multiple federal laws for years in spying on Americans, blocked all efforts to investigate what they did or subject it to the rule of law, but then decided that the only real criminals were those who alerted the nation to their lawbreaking -- whistleblowers and journalists alike. Even Gonzales' public musing about criminal prosecutions could have had a devastating effect -- if you're a whistleblower or journalist who uncovers secret government lawbreaking, you're obviously going to think twice (at least) before bringing it to light, given the public threats by the Attorney General to criminally prosecute those who do. "


But yet scooter libby and russert skate. Frickin hypocrite gop. Don't hate yoru country and the dem's. You made your fascist beds. Now sleep for a generation.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse


"Saturday February 2, 2008 07:30 EST
Is Michael Mukasey prioritizing the harassment and imprisonment of journalists?
(updated below)

Ever since the President's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program was revealed by the New York Times' Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau back in December, 2005, there has been a faction of neoconservatives and other extremists on the Right calling for the NYT reporters and editors to be criminally prosecuted -- led by the likes of Bill Kristol (now of the NYT), Bill Bennett (of CNN), Commentary Magazine and many others. In May, 2006, Alberto Gonzales went on ABC News and revealed that the DOJ had commenced a criminal investigation into the leak, and then "raised the possibility [] that New York Times journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information."


aLRIGHT!. Who's next? bill O'Reilly savage rush Murdoch? the street must run both ways. The gop is digging their own graves. Please continue gop. Enjoy the irrelevance you've earned come 09. don't mcveigh to many people, you fascist gop pigs you

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"America never was all that conservative"

Yeah right, that's why Dukakis, McGovern, Peanut2, Gore, Kerry, won so easily.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

In the California debate, when asked about her experience as a first lady, Clinton said she had been given many responsibilities as a first lady and mentioned that she had negotiated contracts one of which was with Macedonia. I find it odd that a first lady would be have been given the authority to negotiate contracts on behalf of the United States of America.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | February 4, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

claudialong: America never was all that conservative, some people just wanted us to think we were so were would go along with what we were "sposta" think.

Now Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove are screaming in the wilderness trying to tell us who and what we like. Well, they're wrong.

The real spectacle of this race isn't McCain; he's a fool, always has been, the same fool who pronounced Baghdad as a safe place for a stroll.

No, the spectacle here is Romney, trying to get votes by ridiculing global warming, wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts, and denying that he ever had a view on Iraq remotely congruent with the wishes of 70% of the American people.

Remember Clinton vs. Dole? Here we go again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 4, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Creative accounting - clinton style

WASHINGTON -- To hear Hillary Clinton talk, she's spent her entire career putting her Yale Law School degree to work for the common good.

She routinely tells voters that she's "been working to bring positive change to people's lives for 35 years." She told a voter in New Hampshire: "I've spent so much of my life in the nonprofit sector." Speaking in South Carolina, Bill Clinton said his wife "could have taken a job with a firm ... Instead she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund."

The overall portrait is of a lifelong, selfless do-gooder. The whole story is more complicated -- and less flattering.

Clinton worked at the Children's Defense Fund for less than a year, and that's the only full-time job in the nonprofit sector she's ever had. She also worked briefly as a law professor.

Clinton spent the bulk of her career -- 15 of those 35 years -- at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.

Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail. Her campaign Web site biography devotes six paragraphs to her pro bono legal work for the poor but sums up the bulk of her experience in one sentence: "She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm."

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

the legacy of the left, abortions and state run health care.

"Botched abortions mean that scores of babies are being born alive and left to die, an official report has revealed. A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone, it emerged. Rather than dying at birth as was intended, they were able to breathe unaided. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours. The figures are the first to give a national picture of the number of babies who survive abortion but are left to die. Experts previously believed the phenomenon was limited to a handful of cases a year."

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Which candidate will actually protect us from terrorists?

'WASHINGTON -- Islamic insurgents are expanding their numbers and reach in Afghanistan and Pakistan, spreading violence and disarray over a vast cross-border zone where al Qaida has rebuilt the sanctuary it lost when the United States invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

There is little in the short term that the Bush administration or its allies can do to halt the bloodshed, which is spreading toward Pakistan's heartland and threatening to destabilize the U.S.-backed governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO forces are facing "a classic growing insurgency," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday.

But the U.S. military, stretched thin by the war in Iraq, is hard-pressed to send more than the 3,200 additional Marines the Bush administration is dispatching to Afghanistan.'

Posted by: drindl | February 4, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

If yesterday's Superbowl is any indication of what will happen in this year's Democratic race for the nomination, then Obama will win!!!!

At the start of the season, the Patriots were heavily favored to win the Superbowl. At the start of the season they looked strong and unbeatable (much like Clinton. They were able to surround and protect Tom Brady, giving him time to complete his passes. As the season progressed, teams found a way to contain Brady (much like what Obama has done to Clinton). In the end the underdog won and in the end Obama will win!!!

Posted by: Nevadaandy | February 4, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Comebacks from the underdogs? I'm shocked at the polls showing Obama and Romney surging. This won't play out tomorrow - will it?

Posted by: parkerfl | February 4, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"cult-like" ???????

Is this the new slur of the day from the Clinton camp?

Don't like what Oprah says so it's cult-like?

Don't like Stevie Wonder's enthusiasm, so it's cult-like?

Don't like an energetic audience with "Hope" and "Change" signs, so it's cult-like?

Don't like the Obama momentum in the polls so it's cult-like?

Way to go, Trisha. We can't have hope in this country, now can we? We're too programmed with Rovian fear to actually work for a better future for our children. That's it, it's a children cult, a hope cult, a change for the future cult that threatens the darkness of your fears. We're sorry for shining the light of hope into your cave. Eventually your eyes will adjust. C'mon out into the sunshine when you are ready. We'll be waiting for you.

Posted by: optimyst | February 4, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Truth_Hunter, apparently the pollsters are asking respondents who they intend to vote for or have already voted for. Which means that in a state like California which has had both significant early voting and a significant uptick for Obama, something tidal has been going on in the last week.

Posted by: novamatt | February 4, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"a woman whose last name is the only politcal clout she carries."

Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: Blarg | February 4, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

On California.... Zogby has Obama over Hillary 45 to 41 percent.

What may hurt Obama are many early voters in CA, before Obama got some mo. Those who support him now may not have voted that way earlier. It'll be a tight race and as hard to call as NH.

With the many winner-take-all states for the GOP, McCain looks hard to stop. Will the far right relent and support him, as his mother says "holding their noses"?

Might feel better about McCain if he didn't drag Lieberman around with him and had a message other than the war-drum "be very afraid."

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | February 4, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse


Let's step back for a moment. Who are his main voices right now? The wife of a Republican governor, a talkshow host, and a woman whose last name is the only politcal clout she carries.

Wake up, kids. This is more than a social event, this is about people's lives. This is too important to nominate a green as grass candidate who cannot hold his own on stage with Hillary Clinton, let alone on the international stage or, God forbid, against John McCain.

McCain inspires me more than Barack's cult-like message and appeal.

Hillary is going to pull out the majority of wins tomorrow.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Correct me if I am wrong but the fix stated that the only way Mr. Obama can win the democratic nomination is if his candidacy becomes a MOVEMENT.

Based on the media and polls it the PERCEPTION is that there appears to be growing movement.

Can someone please explain to me what Mr. Obama has done in practice to demonstrate that he can lead a movement. What is his track record. Are we going to simply trust and not verify (I think Reagen once said to the Russians: we will trust but will verify). What is the long list of tough "right decisions" that Mr. Obama has made that justifies us to trust he can lead us through dificult times?

Posted by: moliv2 | February 4, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Great article in the CSM about the potential defection of evangelicals from the GOP:

I've been following this closely and sounding out evangelical friends and relatives for the last couple of years, and I really think that the coming conservative crackup is going to push a significant number of under-50 evangelicals into the ambivalent arms of the Democratic Party.

A seminal moment in this process might be Obama going to Saddleback Church in December of '06, and how warmly they received him. Change is afoot.

Posted by: novamatt | February 4, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse


CNN/Research Corp. national poll: Obama, 49 percent, Clinton, 46 percent

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Some of the California polls show Romney ahead of McCain....

Posted by: rickjginter | February 4, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

olov.stenlund | February 4, 2008 10:50 AM

You have a point. Obama "wins" if he splits the California vote. His momentum will not stop. Remember in California it is a proportional assignation of delegates, not winner takes all, like the GOP primaries.

Obama needs only to come a close second and he wins.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

As I understand it, half the democratic primary voters in CA vote in advance. So, if Sen Clinton had a comparatively huge lead there when the voting started, and Sen Obama gains enough to squeeze out a victory in the vote cast on the actual day, won't they essentially just spit the difference? And wouldn't that sort of automatically give Hillary a substantial win in the expectations game?

I drank the Obama Kool-Aid a long time ago, but as of writing this I just don't see how he can outperform expectations tomorrow (of course, I didn't in SC either).

Posted by: olov.stenlund | February 4, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I read on the MSNBC site that Hillary has a double-digit lead in the early voting in CA, and that no matter how fast Obama is coming up, he won't be able to overcome this. My question is: how do we know what the split is in early voting? Are the tallies released? Is it polling? What's the deal?

Posted by: jac13 | February 4, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I hope that the Dems will turn out big for Hillary Clinton tomorrow, she's clearly the best candidate in the race, the most experienced, most intelligent, most politically skilled with the best grasp of domestic & international issues of any candidate in the race of any party. Hillary is the Dems best chance for victory in Nov. Sen. Obama would be crucified in a general election. The Obama 24/7 media circus must end. The right wingnuts AND the leftwingnuts are in attack mode against Hillary, while Obama gets a free pass. The Kennedy/Oprahlooza is a circus. STOP! Obama ia an empty suit. When the circus is over the Dems would be left with an inexperienced candidate of little substance, untested and unknown. That's a dangerous place to be.



Posted by: TAH1 | February 4, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse


Maria Shriver endorsed Barack. Why is no one at your paper talking about this. At least, you should be talking about this.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 4, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Lots of Old polls Chris! Obama is moving up in all the states you mentioned. Leading in California, Missouri, Georgia, and tied in New Jersey.

Posted by: sjxylib | February 4, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

interesting piece on the shrinking 'conservative' minority:

'So, we have two countervailing trends:

Conservatives prefer Romney over McCain, hands down
McCain is winning Republican primaries against Romney
This, incidentally, despite Romney having outspent McCain by ridiculous margins in television advertising.

What is one to conclude from this?

Perhaps "conservatives" are now a minority, even among Republican primary voters? If so, given that there are virtually no conservatives remaining in the Democratic Party these days and that voters who aren't aligned with either party are almost by definition non-ideological, that would mean that conservatives are a small minority, indeed, among the American electorate.'

Posted by: drindl | February 4, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I watched the UCLA speeches with an initial skepticism because Barack Obama wasn't there. But they absolutely wowed me. Oprah took the race/gender issue head on and effectively.

And I think Michelle Obama gave the speech of her life, without notes. You'd think she was the candidate! What an incredible First Lady she'll be.

I think Maria Shriver started out weak with her "shout outs." (Must be a California thing.) It was obvious she hadn't prepared a speech, but when she hit upon that line, "If Obama was a state, he'd be California..." she got the crowd amped up.

I can only imagine that these strong women will peel away some of Hillary's female support. I've got my pretzels and popcorn for tomorrow night, too, Chris. This looks way more interesting and competitive than a silly ol' football game!

Posted by: optimyst | February 4, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Could any McCain fans tell me what you think of this WaPo story?

"But others have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

A former colleague says McCain's abrasive nature would, at minimum, make his relations with Republicans on Capitol Hill uneasy if he were to become president. "

Posted by: drindl | February 4, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Stevie Wonder was singing scales, SCALES, yesterday to Obama's name. This is getting sick. Oprah repeating her chant over and over yesterday: "I'm not for him because he's black; I'm for him because he's brilliant, brilliant, BRILLIANT!!" That's a direct quote! Starting to scare me that this is going to turn into another lefty feel good "we lost, but we were right" landslide in the making. I don't know if Obama is aware of what happens when the kumbaya left hijacks your campaign. If he starts to buy into this hype that he's the second coming, sans policy detail, he's finished, and he's started that with his I will get her votes, she won't get mine crap. He better nip this quick or it will be too late. Once the Pink Ladies endorse you, it's over.

Posted by: craighuffman | February 4, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company