Monday, February 11, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

Update: We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.


We've opened a new Open Thread here


«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1040   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

This site is an invaluable, unique resource. You really should purge the Superdelegate thread of the rantings and ravings. Be ruthless!

Kevin M said...

According to this article:

Obama has a better chance of beating McCain.

It makes sense to me, as I will likely vote for McCain if HRC is nominated.

This isn't sour grapes. This is actual preference. I believe that what McCain and Obama have in common is a genuine desire to make this country better. I just think Obama's approach is better than McCain's. On the other hand, I believe HRC is a political opportunist, who's more interested in personal power than in doing what's right for this country. I'd rather have a President in office who is sincere, but wrong, than one who is completely self-serving.

Anonymous said...

I think it is ridiculous to say that HRC is a opportunist. You need to do your research and see what she has done for so many people. Obama would have to work his whole life to even come close to achieving what HRC has done. And then there is McCain who is Bush in a different body.

daniel said...

I really hope that Obama will win. I feel he has the best chance against McCain. Despite Hillarys experience I think its more likely that she will bring out the anti-Hillary vote en masse as opposed to Obama who will bring out the independent vote.

Anonymous said...

I think Obama has an outside chance to reach 2024 before the convention. The best Clinton can do is hope for a small lead going into the convention. I think the most likely scenario is that she gets disappointing numbers on March 4th. Fighter that she is, I expect she'll battle on to the Pennsylvania primary before she concedes. But, the pressure from her peers may bring it about sooner. If Clinton gets the numbers she needs in OH, TX, PA, she will begin the fight for FL and MI delegates causing much turmoil and a possible loss to the Republicans in the General. I think she's run a terrible campaign and have some significant concerns with her leadership, but I do still admire Senator Clinton and hope she'll do what's right for the country.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Kevin M for saying that.

I am getting very dishartened that Hilary herself, and on these blogs trying to shrink Obamas support and what Obama has done.

If Mccain is your second choice. Why does this make you a tratior or a Hilary Hater? Maybe People just agree with BHO first and Mccain second. Why is it hard to belive that people may vote on more then just party lines, or not on charecter but on issues.

Hilary has more of the hardcore democratic supporters. (this come with being an instutional candiate.) However because of this appeal to many hardcore democratic support, is the same reason that turns off many Independents, who do more then just vote party lines.

Anonymous said...

Also this agruement that Hilary is better then Mccain because Mccains to close to Bush.

This may not be so true. Lets no forget that BILL CLINTON and BUSH SR paraded around together for months, for the tsunami viticm fund. Lets not forget Clintons have both been on the same side of this Iraq from from early 90s. Lets not foget that Hilary recently voted to turn the Iran army into a "terriost" orginzation

And most of all lets no forget that Bush SR. Said Bill is like a son to me.

Bush and Clintons Policys are really closer then her supporters would like to admit.

Obama is really a vote for change. A vote to end a 2 family regime that has lasted science Regan. The 2 family regime that has been on the same side in alot of sitatuions.

Bob/Paul said...

HRC is an opportunist, but then so is McCain. All one has to do is look at HRC's health plan when she was 1st lady--the one she withdrew after receiving millions from the health care lobbyists--and compare it to her current plan to simply make it illegal for someone to not have health care. Can we say written by the insurance industry??

McCain is similar. He used to be hell bent against the neocon crowd, now he is one. HRC is only slightly more palatable to me than McCain. I agree with many of the platforms she supports--aside from her corrupt health care plan--but I'm not sure I trust her to actually do them. I expect her to be a slave to her lobbyists.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to say that I think this site is fantastic. It beats all the major news sites hands down. Thanks so much for the time and effort you put into it.

Old City Jim said...

A friend sent me this and asked for more suggestions. I post it here for that purpose. Have fun!

Hilary Clinton is Vienna waltz
Barack Obama is Ellington jazz

Hilary is American Gothic
Barack is Jackson Pollock

Hilary is pot roast
Barack is seafood gumbo

Hilary is Martha Stewart
Barack is Jimmy Stewart

Hilary is Cats
Barack is Rent

Hilary is Rosemary Clooney
Barack is George Clooney

Hilary is The Waltons
Barack is The Wire

Hilary is Old Spice
Barack is Lily of the Valley

Hilary is the Book of Job
Barack is the Book of Psalms

Carrie said...

Howdy - comments/requests for a few different people:

Matt - Sorry. I was beginning to feel bad for usurping the site for the benefit of my education...

I think a few of us were, or were at least trying to, turn the thread into a more honest discussion. Could I propose we have two open threads, one thread specific to electability and the virtues of experience over passion/passion over experience, and a second thread for questions/debate over specific issues? For me, this site has been a valuable source for results, but also for connecting with really smart and cool people I sometimes disagree with.

Safia - I'm feeling a bit blue about our most recent exchange. I hope if you came straight here and missed it that you'll go back to the weekend tracker and read my response to your message. I hope it helps. If it doesn't, please don't blame it on Clinton or her supporters in general. I think very highly of you.

Protactinium - I hope that you'll do the same. I'm so, so sorry I wasn't clear that I value your opinion and respect your judgement. I've felt so good about how our conversations, I thought, transcended the generalizations.

I guess that's all. SRS, I could really use that virtual hug right about now. :(


Anonymous said...

Ok, since everyone here seems to be bickering back and forth about who is the better candidate, who will win, etc, I figure prehaps we should look at who can legally serve as president.

While Hillary and Bill speak about how the press has seemingly given Obama a pass, they forget to mention that they too have been given a huge pass, and quite frankly, one that matters much more.

The 22nd amendment, ratified 27 February, 1951 states in pertinent part "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President..." Now, the most interestng part of that opening statement is the last phrase "or acted as president". For those of use old enough to remember, when William Jefferson Clinton ran for president in 1992, both he and Hillary said the American people would "get two for the price of one." This indicates that they would BOTH function and president.

Their actions while in the white house even further the notion that she acted as president. Remember the health care debacle? She was not appointed, nor held any post in the executive branch. Yet she engaged in activities which the president himself would have otherwise done. Their words and their actions not only support the notion that she was "acting as president", but that prove this fact.

The 22nd amendment does not require that a person be elected, sworn in, or come to power by succession of powers. The only pertinent requirement is that they "act as president". What the Clintons are attempting to do by Hillary's bid for the Whitehouse is an end-run around the constitution.

We currently have a president who, along with his minions, have staged numerous end-runs around the US Constitution. It is a shame that the media has not figured this out, let alone reported on it. Furthermore, it is emberassing that the American people do not know more about their own constitution to recognize the Clintons' unamerican and undemocratic behavior. It should now become apparent to everyone why Bill sealed those documents which contain he and Hillary's conversations while they were in the White House: They hold the proff that Hillary served as President for 8 years already, and would prove that they have engaged in a conspiracy to violate the term limits set forth by the US COnstitution.

If Hillary were to eventually become the president, we will have a constituional crisis on our hands.

Kevin M said...

I think HRC is Bush in a skirt... or more precisely, Dick Cheney in a skirt. She's backed by the same power-brokers. She's the establishment's choice.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me something Obama has accomplished as a Senator?

Obama campaigns on the message of change and the coalition of Dems, Inds, and Reps. However during his time in the Senate he has:

#1 - Collected over $160K a year in salary
#2 - Wrote and Sold a Book to earn even more money.
#3 - Campaigned for President
#4 - Skip important votes including the Iran vote

Obama has not changed the life of any American (besides his family) as a Senator.

Obama's delegate numbers are inflated based on three simple facts:

#1 - Obama has won the caucuses which prevent workers from voting unless they are off for that entire timeframe. Primaries allow everyone to vote.
#2 - Loser Delegates. Clinton has won more delegates in states she won that Obama has won in states he won. On the other hand, Obama has won more delegates in states he lost than Clinton has won in states she lost. If it was winner take all, Clinton would be winning big.
#3 - Black Primaries. After today, Obama has very few more black primaries left.

Any polling that shows Obama doing better than Clinton versus McCain is based on two simple facts:

#1 - Clinton has been attacked by the Republicans for 16 years
#2 - Obama ran unopposed in 2004 and has never faced a Republican in a general election.

Imagine what happens to Obama's poll numbers once the Republican attack machine revs up. With Clinton, there is nothing new to attack her with.

I am a Republican but voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

If it is Clinton v McCain, I will vote for Clinton.

If it is Obama v McCain, I will vote for McCain.

Carrie said...

Arrgh! Protact! What have I done! Have I single-handedly driven you back to McCain? :( , :( , and more :(

Please reconsider...On Bush Sr., he actually came out against the war - deriding his son. He also didn't campaign for his son. He was conspicously absent, a fact W recently referenced. I don't really blame HW Bush for looking at B Clinton like a son - a son he could actually be proud of.

I've never been a big fan of HW Bush, but it never occurred to me that the devious former head of the CIA was somehow acting out an evil plot in working w/Clinton & Carter on positive causes. Call me a starry eyed optimist (especially if it'll make you feel better and forgive me, please), but I'd like to maintain my sincere belief that there's good and bad in everyone.

Yours in passion,

Anonymous said...

Hello Folks

I see the venom is ripe and festering as usual.

I read through yesterday’s notes and thank you for sharing your thoughts on reconciliation.

I see that many in the Obama camp don’t see the need or want to consider the need to start reconciling.

How sad.

If Mr Obama does win, your going to need Mrs Clinton’s Supporters in the General Election to win the White House. Or, have you forgotten this.

Maybe you should begin to cease your attacks against Mrs Clinton and her supporters. You might note that most of her supporters have become more conciliatory in their approach to issues being raised.

Reading the comments from certain Members of this Blog which has become like a family to me in the late afternoon and early evenings, I find it is like sitting around the kitchen table, with one side of the family on one side and another on the other.

The only thing I don’t see is the knives and forks and plates being thrown at each other, and good heavens can you just imagine a full on food fight.

I think then it might turn into a chocolate cake and vanilla cream pie fight.

If this blog is any example of what we are going to expect from Mr Obama’s supporters when the General Election comes about and this arrogant attitude which is prevailing in this and other parts of this blog which have now been closed then you can kiss goodbye Mr Obama’s win at the General Election.

You his supporters are presenting yourselves like nothing more than a bunch of Chicago gangsters (wise guys). I am sure Mr Obama would frown upon you all for your venomous attacks on Mrs Clinton’s character and vis a versa.

The way your presenting your arguments is solely based on venomous comments, which are based on liableous, slanderous and scandalous statements.

If this is what you really are like in real life I would hate to have anything to do with you.

Did your parents not teach you about respect?

I have learned a great deal about the behaviour of people in these blogs and if this is what our younger generation is turning into, a bunch of wise girls and guys, whose only way of getting change is through liableous, slanderous and scandalous statements about another candidate, then I think the Democratic Party would be better not to have you.

If you feel that older people have made the wrong choices over the years, then why don’t you go out and form your own party called the Young Peoples Know It All Party. There are enough of you to win many Senate Seats and Congressional Seats throughout the country. You might even win the Presidency.

From what I have read, older people have no idea of what they are doing and they should be put into retirement homes. From what I read only the younger people can’t stuff up the country. I am sure of one thing, when we (oldies) die I can guess who will be the first into our homes and belongings to see what they can sell. Respect for others, where is it.

No wonder people are reporting negatively about the venom coming from Mr Obama’s supporters.
The way Mr Obama’s supporters use venom in this forum only goes to support my decision to vote for anyone other than Mr Obama in the General Election. I will still vote Democrat in the Senate and Congressional elections, but you have lost me absolutely.

Remember younger folk, there are a lot of older people out in Election Land and while they are alive they can show their dislike of your vulgar behaviour.

You need to be a lot more conciliatory in your approach if you are going to want to bring change. Force only breeds contempt and like a snakebite, it leaves a lasting scare.

Remember Respect if you want to be respected yourselves.

Nana Karry

Carrie said...

Hi Karry - nice to see you again. I echo your sentiments about the family sitting down to chat. When I told my dad at 16 that I thought I was a democrat, he turned red in the face, stood up and walked out of the room. He didn't speak to me for a day. He's a dear man and I've gleaned from his actions that he has a lot of socially liberal views. We just don't talk about it. Still. Almost 20 years later.

It seems I've alienated a couple of this crew I've come to appreciate so much. I hope I didn't overstep with you, too.

Thanks Nana!

Anonymous said...

This site is great for tracking the regular delegate count:

Anonymous said...

hello carrie,

thank you for your sincere thoughts. No you have not upset me, not in the slightest, I sit back and think about what each and everyone has to say. Some I try to ignore for obivious reasons, others have valid points and I talk to my friends about your comments. I have a friend with me now who has been reading the comments of others.

everyone has a right to their opinion, but to attack someone either based on color, race, gender is silly, childish and a range of other terms.

I just hope Howard Dean gets off his fat backside and sorts this mess out in MI and FL and they start to work to heal this party.

I had a son, who has passed on now and he was a republican, my brother is an independant, but more republican than democrat and I find this forum great for debates with him. LOL

Kevin if your out there, remember to vote for Hills today in Virginia, lol. I am sure he will be a McCain boy.

You had a great article yesterday, must have been very Cathartic for you? Looked like it to me. Sometimes you need to do that and get it all off your chest and then sit back for a while.

I find it works wonders.

Hi Safia, sorry I would rather not say where I live, it is the internet. Sorry, but I am down south if that is of any help to you.

SRS, nice to see you are a Greenie, we need more of you to help save the planet. People like you are making such a big difference in this country and around the world. Who ever is nominated, I am pleased to hear you have a direction you can follow in helping conserve and educate those around you on the importance of greening our browning planet. Do you live a very green lifestyle? If so what is it like. Washington is such a lovely state, lots of green there to keep you motivated.

Talk a little later, have some business to attend to.

Nana Karry

dwit said...


1980? Wow! That is ancient history. Nobody said it was the Clinton's fault. It is, however, a system developed by a few wealthy MALE oligarchs. I'd say that's not close to the demographic of the party today. If you are interested in preserving antiquated ideas on democracy, I suggest you vote Republican this year. Oddly enough, they are way ahead of Dems on this issue today!?

(n) conservative, conservativist (a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas)


Are you encouraging people not to get involved in civic affairs? Isn't this antithetical to the concept of DEMOCRACY?

That kind of request is absolutely elitist! But, then again, I forgot this is a Clinton blog.

I'm sure she hopes real progressives will stay home on election day, but that won't happen this time.

KEEP CALLING YOUR SUPER DELEGATES! Make sure they know you won't forget how they vote this time!

Anonymous said...

To address the 'opportunist' comments. Hillary Clinton has been serving her country for over 20 years. She served on special committees as First Lady of Arkansas, has been elected to Senate on top of the vital work she did as a First Lady of the U.S. The Freshman Senator who has no proven track record of accomplishments, he has few alliance in Congress, minimal Foreign Policy experience and his health care plan is weak at best. Hillary has already done the research for health care, has met with advisers to pull out of Irag and has more plans to save this country than either candidates will ever conceive. Hillary is ready to continue working for us the people. She will wake up early the morning after her inaguration ready to take on every task. She is not an opportunist. She is the only one who will work for this country. John McCain acts as if he deserves to be President, and Obama preaches about change. Hillary has a proven record of change and humbly wants to prove that she is the best candidate for the President.

dwit said...


Unfortunately, Hillary has way too much in common with McCain. Both advocate amnesty for illegal aliens and both voted for the war in Iraq.

Obama is the only candidate that will stand out to the general election voter. And it has been clearly demonstrated that Americans are ready for CHANGE after nearly 20 years of Bush/Clinton rule.

Yes, I lump the Clinton's in with the "Conservatives". It was Bill, after all, that ushered in NAFTA. Nuff said.

Time to take our country back from the insiders. CONTACT YOUR SUPER DELEGATES!

Kevin M said...

Karry said: "then I think the Democratic Party would be better not to have you"

I'm not much interested in the Democratic Party. Personally, I'm more of a cross between a Green and a Libertarian. I'm tired of having no voice because of the 2-party system in this country. Among all the candidates that threw their hat into this race, I believe Obama best represents me, and is the best hope for the future of this country.

I will not apologize for my distaste for HRC. I will not alter my opinion that she is a self-serving powermonger, and not a whole lot better than GWB. I am completely and utterly convinced that she is in the pocket of corporate powers, and even more diabolical powers that have been ruling our world from behind the scenes. I believe she has no real integrity.

Therefore, no, I will in no way support her for president.

I will be sad if she wins the nomination, because I see that, once again, America will be forced to choose between a lesser of two evils.

I believe that John McCain at least has a little integrity, and would be the lesser evil.

I'm sorry if this offends Clinton supporters. All I can ask is that you try to break out of "tribal think" mode - of supporting "your team" come hell or high-water. Please, try not to drink the Kool-Aid.


Anonymous said...

hello kevin,

I respect your decision to vote for Mr Obama, that is your right and it is a free country.

Also repect the right of others for whom they shall vote for.

I have my personal opinions of what I think about both candidates and that is my opinion.

However I am not calling Mr Obama's supporters -

1. tribal think" mode that is racist now isn't my dear?

2. I am completely and utterly convinced that she is in the pocket of corporate powers, and even more diabolical powers that have been ruling our world from behind the scenes. Hmmmm

What a conspiracy theory this is. I am sure you have yourself barraded behind barb wire fences and land mines and 400 years of rasions at hand.

3. I'm not much interested in the Democratic Party. Personally, I'm more of a cross between a Green and a Libertarian.

Well may I suggest Kevin if you are a GREEN!! sorry (ben there I go again) LOL.... then you go and vote for the Green or Libertarian candidate and leave the voting of a democrat to democrat voters. Seems to me that you have your own agenda and not an agenda which is good for the Democratic Party.

Thank you for sharing your interesting view points. Whilst I have made it clear who I will vote for in the General Election if Mr Obama wins, at least I am voting democrat in the Primary, and if Mrs Clinton wins the Nomination well my vote will then better serve the party.

See everyone, Kevin's position makes it very clear where independants stand, they fence sit and when it comes time to vote in the real election they can jump camp quicker than a charge bear comin after your candy bar. See who gets to eat it first....

Nana Karry

Anonymous said...

Carrie, I would like you to have a think about who you will vote for in the General Election. You have voted as I have.

We both support Mrs C. ask yourself with all the comments you have made about Mr O. would you still vote for him, simply out of party loyality, or would you vote for whom you think will run the country and provide you with the experience you desire?

when you go behind the curtin, your going to have a couple of minutes to decide. Do you really want to have inexperience simply out of loyality or do you want to have experience, which you can be assured will give you some protection. Its only 4 years, not 8, McCain will be to old by then to handle the rigours of time, and by then the people will change no matter what to a democrat president. I can handle 4 more years of a republican president if it meant that I had experience in a commander in chief.

btw, fox has now just about written Mrs C. off as the nominee and are running the obama vs mccain tag line now. I think this is going to be theme now that mrs c. is out even if she gets across the line in tx and oh.

maybe it is not a good day for women who are wanting change for a women president, but it is starting to become clear how the press want the nomination to follow.

any updates from the old folks camp I will let you know.

dwit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Old City Jim-

Really liked your post -
Yes, Martha Stewart vs. Jimmy Stewart! Capable vs. affable-
Affable is wonderful in a movie star - but we need to get things done. Nice to see some humor here.

dwit said...

Lizabel said:
"Hillary has a proven record of change and humbly wants to prove that she is the best candidate for the President."

Really? She has consistently said she is for amnesty for illegal aliens. That is merely a continuation of a Reagan era policy (also supported by Bush).

She has also said she firmly stands behind her decision to support Bush's war in Iraq. Change?

She continues to support Bush's desire for sanctions against Iran yet no consequences for Israel. Change?

The only change I can see she has made is to give insurance companies more say in how we deliver health care.

Not the kind of change most of us had in mind.

Anonymous said...

Ill reply in order.

Carrie - NO you have not driven me back to Mccain. I am undecided. You still pushed me off my anti-Hillary postion. I really want to see who Mccains VP is. (theres a good chance he will die in office. or only be a 4 term president)

I agree with you we do not want another Bush. However Hilary really is still apart of the same regime of government. They agree on a lot of policies.

So if you really want this to regime to end. You should vote for Obama.

Karry- Claiming someone is venomous then do so many personal attacks makes you look like a hippocrite. Attack Obama on issues.

Also to tell someone not to vote in the Democratic party, because he is not a hardcore Democrat. Is wrong, people should vote there conscious. Its really a sign of desperation.

Dave said...

I'm glad to have found this thread...I wish I had time to read all 30 comments right now, but I don't.

I thought I'd share a little table I put together. It shows each state, color-coded as red, blue or one of two shades of purple. I've highlighted in yellow the "purple" states in which one candidate won the primary/caucus by a significant margin...the thought being that this might be an indication of the candidate's ability to carry these important purple states.

The table is sorted by margin of victory. It's interesting to note that Obama has won 15 contests by more than 15 percentage points while Hillary has won only four.

I'd love (I think) to hear what people think of the table...

Click Here

Anonymous said...


unfortunately I have little or no respect for any of your comments. i have found you to be one of the most spiteful contributors in this forum, hence I have reframed from commenting to your rants.

one thing age does give you and that is to view a range of issues.

nothing you say to me would want me to change my mind.

your position only reinforces my own.

DaxDiamond said...

After viewing exit polls, I est Obama takes tonight's 175 delegates by a margin of 43.

This race is effectively over. SDs will ultimately go along with the elected delegate winner. To do otherwise wold be suicidal.

However, this will not become obvious until March 4, when OH and TX are fairly evenly split. There are no primaries between Mar 11 and Apr 22. Party leaders will be asking Clinton to get out before then, so MI and Ill can be amicably resolved.

Anonymous said...

You state that Hillary is a political opportunist while McCain and Obama have a genuine desire to make the country better.

If Obama is not, in fact, a political opportunist, why is he even running for the presidency at this point- before establishing any sort of record in the Senate?

At least McCain has served in the military and in the Senate. Between McCain and Obama, McCain certainly is less the opportunist.
In fact I see Obama's campaign as
opportunism in its purest form. He was dubbed the "One" by the media and decided to strike while the iron was hot.

Protactinium said...

Obama won big tonight.

Intreasting thing. Obama did good with alot of demographic including, white women, white men and Latinos.

Latinos where voting for Hilary because of name recognition. Obamas early campign blunder is that his campign did not pay much attention to them. He start closing in in Az (very slight), and has been grabing more of that vote science then. He even grabbed a bit of republicans.(I know your all going to say its a republican conspircy)

Hopefully this will slow down some of this racist talk.

Also I do apolgize for the rants. I have cut down on them, and try to actually target the issues more.

Carrie also made me relieze that I should vote for a canidite because of the issues, not because of there looney supporters.

The 1:30 extra time is postive for Obama, polls show mostly Obama supporters.

The voters will decide in the end.

Carrie said...

Kevin M - I know I can't speak for everyone, but the Kool Aid and cult memes are why I can't stomach DU.

Others, let me know if you're out of line, but please don't bring that here. It's counter-productive to engendering unity and change.

Spew your vitriole about Clinton. It's falling light as snow on my deaf ears today, after a very cathartic late night rant.

You seem completely unreasonable and have made it clear you don't intend to reconsider, so I won't try to change your mind. I'd just ask that you drop the "Kool Aid" rhetoric. This doesn't come from a place of sensitivity. I could really care less if that kind of comment is thrown my way. I just find it really, really annoying.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Hillary needs to point out that Obama is winning among upper class and higher income voters more so than she is and that SHE is the agent for change for the average and lower income American--the ones who need it most and are less likely or able financially to take advantage of the system.

Those voting for Obama are the ones who least need change like universal health care and the other things Hillary stands for.

He is the corporate upper class candidate and she is the candidate for the average and unemployed or underemployed American by far---the real agent for change for the REAL American middle and lower class!

And, Obama does NOT have a better chance of beating McCain because those who are voting for him now are mostly democrats. When you factor in independents and cross over republicans, he may actually stand less of a chance due to their prejudices and other concerns unfortunately.

A Clinton/Obama ticket, however would almost assure a democratic win!

Anonymous said...

Clinton needs to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. If she wins all 3, she is the nominee.

All she has to do is ask Obama, "In 3+ years as a Senator, what change have you brought about that has directly affected the lives of Americans?"

When he rambles on about ethics in the Senate and making lobbyists eat standing up with Congressmen, it proves he is all talk and no action.

Artemis said...

dear Matt, While I respect your decision this morning to move some conversation to a new thread, I do not see why you would delete my blog which was written in response to a Obama person attacking her. I have checked the thread as well, and my blog is deleted from that as well. It seems fair that if you want to cut excess, you will cut the other side as well. Please put my deleted blogs back on the thread. thank you in advance.

Carrie said...

Protactinium, my brother - There are many points I've read tonight from others that I don't understand, can't stand, or nearly lose my eyeballs over from rolling so them so hard. However there's one comment I can't let go unaddressed:

I'm shaking with tears over the statement that Clinton's strong support among people who have the greatest need is due strictly to ignorance following name recognition. It begs the question: Who's elitist?

I taught in an impoverished district during the '04 election. The families I worked with did not have advanced degrees. They'd have been hard pressed to make it to a caucus with the 2 hour window requirement. They might have misread a ballot because their reading skills weren't adequate. There were two things these people did that earned my utter and total respect: love their children and know their politics.

I'm just heartbroken.

Kevin M said...

"for the good of the Democratic Party"

You make my point. This is the tribalism I am talking about. The Democratic "tribe" vs. the Republican "tribe" vs. the damn fence-sitting independent "tribe".

I'm a Californian "Decline to State" voter, who voted in the Democratic Primary. Love us or hate us, we have a voice in your party's forum.

I'm sorry that I decline to drink the Kool-Aid with some of you.


Carrie said...

I'd like to think that, with several large states and millions of voters to go, and 1000 delegates to pull in before victory is called for either candidate, that it's not over. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll shake my head and say good bye to a future I've held dear. I'll have to mourne the loss of the idealistic hopes and dreams I've held onto for over 15 years, just waiting to cast my vote for Clinton in a presidential election.

I started to write a post about the problems I have with some of Obama's most effective campaign strategies. But, for better or for worse, I want to save my money to donate to the Clinton Campaign, so I don't have any nickels to spare for SMS, Karry and Ben.

My little family here had a lousy day. I think I'll go to bed early this evening.

I think I've taken about as much as I can of the cruel jabs from people who have no interest in seeing both sides - I'm not singling out Obama supporters, so please don't jump on me. I can handle stupid Kool Aid comments, but when it comes to the dustruction of a human being who's played such a positive and pivotal role in my life. Well, after a day like this I just don't think I can take weather the attack. I'm not Hillary Clinton, afterall.

Carrie said...

Karry - want to come over for hawaiian punch, cake and ice cream?

Sorry, I don't have any Kool Aid, just cool and clear-headed thinking. I've never been much of a cult gal.

I doubt you're disappointed. We can throw cake at the meanies. I could use a good laugh.

Anonymous said...

I respect you deleting blogs that you do not see fit, but you lose credibility when it is one sided. At issue is not deleting the blogs, but rather the selective process of not deleting pro Obama, and deleting some of pro Clinton, including my blogs. Just FYI!

Tokar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

carrie, I will be happy to take the hawaiian punch and ice cream :o)

yes i have waited many years for the opportunity to vote for a women, but I am darn sure it is not going to happen during my life time.

At least you have hope that a women will rise to the position at some point in the future who has the abilities that will get her across the line.

so we may have a black man as president, big deal, doesn't mean he is going to be a good president, just means he is going to be black.

if people are voting for him because he is black, well as I said before, that is their choice.

unfortunately there are many who do not want to acknowledge MI and FL vote. I am sure the voters of FL will show their displeasure at the Mr Obama. Don't worry Carrie dear, life has a way of balancing things out.

For those that have a problem with color hes going to have to pick a vp candidate and that looks like it will be a white man.

for those that are living on hope and hope alone, well now you will be full of hope. As I said I had always hoped to vote for a women President, but see hope has a way of going south when you least expect it.

I see like you carrie all the followers of hope on TV, and think to myself, well that is a lot of hope, but what happens when he fails to deliver when he is President?

Young lady, pass me a kool aid any day, I don't need the hard stuff to make my day. :o)

Remember there will be a fine women president of these united states of ours one day, and I am sure it will be during your life time, if not during your childs lifetime.

As I said carrie, I will vote for experience and one thing you learn about when you get older, you do what is right for the country and what you believe is right.

i love cheese cake by the way and a good strong black, kinda evens things up.

Remember carrie, we have not lost anything, hillary has given us a great victory, she has shown us that we still have a way to go before men can overcome there fears of putting the country in the hands of a women, but that time is approaching.

have a good sleep and don't fret to much. Have a talk to dad. I am sure he knows where you are coming from, and he will be there to console you. I have my friend and my little dog MeOkie.

Tokar said...

Just want to post some numbers based on the 2000 Census.

At the end of tonight (2/12/08) there will only be two states remaining that have an appreciable amount of african american voters:
Mississippi - 36.3% of pop. (number 2 overall in terms of %)
North Carolina - 21.6% (number 9 overall)

Whats interesting is that so far Barack Obama has won 8 of the top 10 states/areas in terms of african american population:
1 - WashingtonDC - 60.0%
3 - Louisiana - 32.5%
4 - South Carolina - 29.5%
5 - Georgia - 28.7%
6 - Maryland - 27.9%
7 - Alabama - 26.0%
9 - Virginia - 19.6%
10 - Delaware - 19.2%

Sans Illinois, coming in at #14 with 15.1%, since it is his home state, the next state down that he has won is #20, Missouri, but only by a slight margin.

11 - Tennessee - 16.4%
12 - New York - 15.9%
13 - Arkansas - 15.7%
15 - Florida - 14.6%
16 - Michigan 14.2%
17 - New Jersey - 13.6%
all gone in Hillary's favor. True, NY is her home state and Michigan lacked Barack Obama on the ticket, but it is interesting to note that the next set of states in line to vote in March are (in order):

30 - Wisconsin - 5.7%
42 - Hawaii - 1.8%
18 - Ohio - 11.5%
19 - Texas - 11.5%
32 - Rhode Island - 4.5%
50 - Vermont - 0.5%
45 - Wyoming - 0.8%
2 - Mississippi - 36.3%

And of these next primaries, Hawaii and Wyoming are caucuses. I note this because Obama has done well among caucus states low in african american population.

27 - Nevada - 6.8%
29 - Kansas - 5.7%
33 - Nebraska - 4.0%
34 - Colorado - 3.8%
35 - Minnesota - 3.5%
36 - Arkansas - 3.5%
37 - Washington - 3.2%
40 - Iowa - 2.1%
47 - North Dakota - 0.6%
49 - Maine - 0.5%
51 - Idaho - 0.4%

While there is indication that the safe havens for Obama are certainly behind him (caucus states and primaries with high black population), it is not exceptionally all that good looking for Hillary on the hispanic side of things:

Ignoring the Hawaii and Wyoming caucuses, since it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that Obama will win both):

31 - Wisconsin - 3.6% (hispanic population)
4 - Texas - 32.0%
14 - Rhode Island - 8.7%
43 - Ohio - 1.9%
50 - Vermont - 0.9%
47 - Mississippi - 1.4%

Looking further down the road to PA, my home state:

PA has 3.2% hispanic (#35), 10.0% afican american (#21).

And looking even further down into May/June:

Afican American population (in order of occurance):
23 - Indiana - 8.4%
8 - North Carolina - 21.6%
38 - W.Virginia - 5.7%
26 - Kentucky - 7.3%
43 - Oregon - 1.6%
52 - Montana - 0.3%
48 - South Dakota - 0.6%

Hispanic Population
32 - Indiana - 3.5%
27 - North Carolina - 4.7%
52 - W.Virginia - 0.7%
46 - Kentucky - 1.5%
15 - Oregon - 8.0%
42 - Montana - 2.0%
48 - South Dakota - 1.4%

I'm going to look for some numbers regarding the income breakdown in these states, since this seems to be another big demographic, with Hillary garnering the vote from low income families and Barack from high income.

Anonymous said...

I was an Obama supporter up until about a month ago.

I think he is fantastic and inspiring and an incredible speaker. But i noticed he clearly lacked policy and experience and in debates he does tend to talk around questions.

Don't get me wrong I think he is wicked. But I also think for a democrat to take the whitehouse in november we need to pick a solid well experienced, realistic and astute candidate. Therefore I have swung to Hillary.

Her wins of the big states shows she has strong support from these places and will most likely carry those in the general election against a republican.

Furthermore I think Hillary as the presidential nominee and Obama as the Vice Presidential nominee would form a pairing of paramount force, I would consider that pairing to be one of the most powerful political pairings in the last five decades.SOmething that the republicans will not be able to match.

Good Luck to Obama, but Hillary is the one.

She could perhaps pave the way for an older and more experienced Obama in the future.

DaxDiamond said...

The only drama left in this race is whether Clinton will withdraw while still leading the NYT delegate count.

This race is over. Just about everyone that matters will figure that out by March 5, when TX and OH do not provide any bounceback for Clinton. There will be pressure on her to withdraw before Apr 22. 50/50 that she will.

This is very disappointing to me. I was looking forward to a heated battle over what to do with MI and FL. Now Dean knows he can just wait until Clinton withdraws and then let Obama do whatever he wants (they will get delegates).

Superdelegates should enjoy their 15 minutes while it lasts. Clinton will not make it to 300 commitments. Before the end of April, even the NYT will not care which way they are leaning.

Not everyone believes her chances are close to nil. The betting line still gives her a 25% chance.

I am confident of one thing - any scenario that gets her the nomination (like something weird with MI, FL, PR, or the supers) will enrage many Obama supporters and doom her in November.

Unknown said...

Tokar, awesome data. It seems that Clinton will have to step out and really take some of Obama's demographics if she wants to win much more than TX, OH, PN, WV, IN, and VT at best. TX, OH, and IN are her best bests, with OH vunerable to an Obama momentum swing and some good campaigning.

To Karry, my apologies for your disappointment in the apparent direction this contest is going. Again I say that I too am tired of the 'venom' being unleashed here, but I feel that this blog community is in no way reflective of how our party will act. Take for instance a dear professor of mine; she is a grandmother, an avid Clinton supporter, and a woman who, much like yourself, had much hope for this opportunity. She understands that the odds and momentum are now against Hillary, and, despite her great hopes and desires, will fully support Mr. Obama in the fall. If the tables were turned on myself, with Mr. Obama facing a downward slide, I would accept it and move to support the Dem nominee.

Fact check on Anonymous, aisle 4
Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me something Obama has accomplished as a Senator?

Obama campaigns on the message of change and the coalition of Dems, Inds, and Reps. However during his time in the Senate he has:

#1 - Collected over $160K a year in salary
#2 - Wrote a book to make even more money
#3 - Campaigned for President
#4 - Skip important votes including the Iran vote

Obama has not changed the life of any American (besides his family) as a Senator.

All apply to Sen. Clinton, with the exception that she sided with Bush on the Iran vote, and instead of writing an inspirational book to raise her net worth to $1.3m, she already had $30.0m.

. . .Obama's delegate numbers are inflated based on three simple facts:

#1 - Obama has won the caucuses which prevent workers from voting unless they are off for that entire timeframe. Primaries allow everyone to vote.
#2 - Loser Delegates. Clinton has won more delegates in states she won that Obama has won in states he won. On the other hand, Obama has won more delegates in states he lost than Clinton has won in states she lost. If it was winner take all, Clinton would be winning big.
#3 - Black Primaries. After today, Obama has very few more black primaries left.

1) I did not realize that somehow only Sen. Clinton's supporters were unable to commit to a caucus. She would have certainly made up all those 30 point losses otherwise.
2) There is a reason Obama doesn't give up as many delegates as Clinton: he doesn't get wiped out like she does. In any congressional district with an even number of delegates (the majority), the winner needs more than 58% to pick up a delegate. Without the winner getting 58%, the loser will still get many delegates. Obama has allowed Clinton to get 58% of the popular vote in one state, Arkansas. On the other hand, Clinton has allowed Obama to get more than 58% in 11 states, excluding tonight's contests, all 3 of which he got >58%.
3) Non-black contests won by Obama: 13
Non-black contests won by Clinton: 10

. . .Any polling that shows Obama doing better than Clinton versus McCain is based on two simple facts:

#1 - Clinton has been attacked by the Republicans for 16 years
#2 - Obama ran unopposed in 2004 and has never faced a Republican in a general election.

Imagine what happens to Obama's poll numbers once the Republican attack machine revs up. With Clinton, there is nothing new to attack her with.

1) Because the Republicans have attacked Clinton for 16 years, she has had and will have a near 50% unfavorable rating, and after those 16 years you can bet that all those Republicans will not only swallow their pride and vote for McCain rather than staying home, they will be up in arms to campaign against Her.
2) Wrong. Alan Keyes.

. . .
I am a Republican but voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

If it is Clinton v McCain, I will vote for Clinton.

If it is Obama v McCain, I will vote for McCain.
February 12, 2008 2:35 PM

Oh, really? When do you plan to actually vote for your party?

timeforchange said...

Hillary needs to point out that Obama is winning among upper class and higher income voters more so than she is and that SHE is the agent for change for the average and lower income American--the ones who need it most and are less likely or able financially to take advantage of the system.

Those voting for Obama are the ones who least need change like universal health care and the other things Hillary stands for.

He is the corporate upper class candidate and she is the candidate for the average and unemployed or underemployed American by far---the real agent for change for the REAL American middle and lower class!

I didn't know that winning a demographic 60/40 made you their representative. Man, if only those poor people could have gotten past the huge Clinton name recognition when for three weeks John Edward's wouldn't stop talking about how much he was going to help, to fight for the poor. I guess they were busy fighting daily for enough money to feed their families, instead of watching those cable news network debates.

And, Obama does NOT have a better chance of beating McCain because those who are voting for him now are mostly democrats. When you factor in independents and cross over republicans, he may actually stand less of a chance due to their prejudices and other concerns unfortunately.

A Clinton/Obama ticket, however would almost assure a democratic win!
February 12, 2008 8:22 PM

I will assume that you meant to say that "those who are voting for him [Obama] now are mostly Republicans, and when you factor in independents and cross-over Democrats. . "
Which means that, you are utterly wrong in the base of this point: that Obama is winning these primaries/caucuses because Republicans were tired of voting for their own candidate and decided to vote for Obama instead. Nevermind those closed contests.

Anonymous said...

Clinton needs to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. If she wins all 3, she is the nominee.

All she has to do is ask Obama, "In 3+ years as a Senator, what change have you brought about that has directly affected the lives of Americans?"

When he rambles on about ethics in the Senate and making lobbyists eat standing up with Congressmen, it proves he is all talk and no action.
February 12, 2008 8:36 PM

If Clinton wins OH, TX, and PN by a delegate count of 60% to 40% and loses every other remaining state by a delegate count of 45% to 55%, she will gain +48 delegates on Obama. Considering that Obama already had a lead of at least +50 pledged delegates coming into tonight's contests, where, after the three large wins, he is expected to add an additional +40 pledged delegates to his lead, winning OH, TX, and PN by anything less than extrodinary margins will not in any way make Clinton the nominee.

karry said...

yes i have waited many years for the opportunity to vote for a women, but I am darn sure it is not going to happen during my life time.

At least you have hope that a women will rise to the position at some point in the future who has the abilities that will get her across the line.

so we may have a black man as president, big deal, doesn't mean he is going to be a good president, just means he is going to be black.

if people are voting for him because he is black, well as I said before, that is their choice.

This is just as true from the opposite perspective as well. Just switch the words 'black' and 'woman'.

dwit said...


I don't see Obama joining that ticket. He's just got too much popularity for that. She wouldn't have it. Could be Obama /Edwards or Clinton/Edwards.

As an independent, I don't see independents voting for Hillary over McCain. They are just too similar. Even so, he has shown streaks of independence from the extreme right.

Hillary and Bill have been instrumental in moving the party to the right under the guise of "progressivism". They are already far to the right of their base.

Ohio demographics favor an Obama win, same with PA (even considering those with false documents). And Texas...are there dems in Texas?

Anonymous said...

Ok I've done the math, at least on how Hillarycare would affect me personally.

I'm sure that I make too much as a single male (because I'm not ALLOWED to get married to my partner of 14 years) to qualify for her 'government subsidies' to purchase healthcare. Back to the math and why I cannot afford Hillary's healthcare plan.

2007 Salary $32,000(Self employed 12 hours a day)Sound good right?
After state & federal taxes totaling $7,000 I have $25,000. minues food approx. $500 per month X 12 = $6,000 (I don't buy cheap food, I buy stuff that's is actually good for me). Now I have $19,000. My car payment is approx. $400 X 12 = $4,800. Now I have $14,200. Vehicle insurance is $75/mo X 12 = $900. Now I have $13,300. Rent (I live in San Diego) $850/mo X 12 = $10,200. Now I have $3,100. Utilities (averaged) $60/mo = $720. Now I have $2,380. Student loans $120/mo X 12 = $1440. Now I have $940.

So now that I have $940 left for the year, because her plan does not take into account geography, it only take into account simply income and dependents. And since I have no dependents then I don't get any "tax credits". I make too much as an individual, but even though I live in a "high" priced area of the country, I will be FORCED to purchase her healthcare plan regardless of whether I can afford it or not. Well guess what. I would rather take my $940 a year and take a nice vacation as opposed to handing that over to the government as well. If I get sick I pay out of my pocket. But I'll be damned if the government is going to get my last dime simply so they can tout that I have healthcare coverage.

This is why I am supporting Barack Obama. He WON'T be garnishing my wages. At least with his plan I can OPT OUT.

I have nothing against HRC personally, I simply don't like her policy of forcing individuals to purchase something they cannot afford.

Anonymous said...

Karry, I do live in a very green area of Washington State in a small town called Fall City. It's a town that I wished I first moved to when I moved to Washington from California 10 years ago. I have been trying hard to live a Green lifestyle and have faltered numerous times, so I still have a long way to go. I mistakenly went down a path for a number of years here in Washington of going with the flow and getting sucked up into the materialistic rationalizations that was around everywhere I lived before. The last home I had while on that path was a 6000 sf home on four acres which two were fully landscaped. While there I finally woke back up and decided that if I feel the green way of life is the right way for me and my kids, I had to make some big changes. I sold the house, moved to a 1600 sf quaint rental home in Fall City and I'm getting back to my Green roots. It was tough for me to turn my back on the other things, even though I knew it is right. I guess what really pushed me was realizing that my kids are getting older and they were getting sucked into the affluent, privileged lifestyle that was all around us. I started to realize my long talks with them about the importance of preserving the environment and trying to show them on outdoor excursions the reasons for nature preservation were sounding more and more hypocritical. I finally asked them what was more important to them, that I spend most of my free time keeping up the landscape and doing a lot of general maintenance on the house which they helped me with or spend time with them on discovery projects, hiking, biking, camping, and visiting family. The answer was obvious. I decided to make the hard switch and by doing so I’ve freed myself from the handcuffs of feeling like I had to make a lot of money just to keep up a lifestyle that wasn’t right for me. By doing so, I’ve discovered it has allowed me to start making some key changes in my future work plans and shifting to a schedule that will give me a lot more time with my kids, with nature and with doing certain charitable work. It certainly won’t make me monetarily wealthy but it will in nearly every other way. Like I’ve said, I still have a long way to go but now I’m on a path that I can see myself growing old on and not feel like it was just a temporary path.

Carry, it does sound like you need a big virtual hug. I give you one now, here… Try to hang in there. We may not see eye-to-eye on who our first presidential choice is, but at least we are staying on the Democratic side. I’m voting for either O or C in November for many reasons, but the key is knowing they will put more effort into the environment and social justice then any recent Republican President has.

I’m going to hang up my hat up for a while and see if the O and C camps get more positive again. I certainly hope so. I’m still holding onto wanting to see Obama over Clinton in the Whitehouse, but time will tell.

Best wishes!
S.R.S. a Green in Washington State

Anonymous said...

To say all of Obama strong holds are done, because all the large black populations, and cacuses are done. Well the numbers today show something more then just a black vote. This also shows how little Hillary supporters understand Obamas campign when they make these type of comments. Some Hillary supporters are starting to fall for that fairy tale.

Obama went right after her core supporters. He took over half the white male vote, he took 40%'s of white female vote, and the female block as a whole. He cut very deeply into latinos. I believe he may have taken it in some states.
The largest thing Obama cut into tonight IMO was middle class voters. There was little class disenction tonight.

Maybe I was wrong for saying Latinos where voting for Hilary initally because of name recognition. I took away from Obama by saying things. Obama appears to be actually stealing the non hardcore Hillary supporters away.

Also another intreasting exit poll stat. Hillary supporters where happy with Obama as there 2nd candite. Obama voter where are less likly to go to Hilary.

Also Hillary will not take the margins she needs in texas, ohio, and PA. In fact Obama will most likly go 50- 50% with her in all of the states. With the possiblity of taking some.

Texas actually has alot of democrats in it. However there very conservative for democrats, and did not like alot of the things the clintons did. Obama will take the white male vote in Texas. They have a distaste for Hillary(thats the polizering effect of Hillary). I have even heard Texas democrats saying it could go blue if Obamas the nomminee.(I have my doubts)

This is real trouble for Hillary It is clear that Hillary put all her bets on winning the nomination on super tuesday, and was suprised when Obama competed. Obama appears to have simply out campigned Hilary. His campign was more organized, learned from there mistakes, and simply out manuvered Hilary so far. Which is a good early sign of how good of a president he will be.

Im also sorry that some of you Hilary supporters will not support Obama in the Primary. However make sure your doing it because your voting for the right candite for our future, and not because your angry that the American public spoke and rejected your canidite.

Hey maybe in time Obama will even win back the Femanist block.

Carrie said...

SRS and my other virtual family members - before you go...

I didn't want to give my email out here - can you imagine some of the spam?!?

So, I've started my own blog for talking positive politics.

"Warm 'n' Fuzzy Argument Reunion Center" at

Please stop by for some cake and ice cream.


Carrie said...

Anyone who cares:

I don't know that I'll be back here for a while. I wrote a heartfelt post about what this all meant to me, and people seemed to sieze only on the part about my "being unhappy with the course of the election" and thumbed their noses at me. This reinforces the anger I felt toward Obama when I first came here - that his talk of unity was incongruous with the lack of compassion he showed his detractors.

I didn't really want to drop out here having come full circle.

Thanks to a few of you, I won't.

Tokar said...

Here is a followup to the data that I posted:

That is a VERY good read over at RealClearPolitics. It pretty much highlights similar data, except it takes into effect % of population which are union workers, and median salary.

If you dont feel like reading that article here is the summary:
The guy is saying similar things like I was saying, Obama has done well in primaries with high black population, and caucuses with low black population, but the future contests in the next 3 months dont favor Obama in this demographics. Only 2 causes (3 including Puerto Rico) left, and only a couple primaries in states with high black population.

He argues that momentum is really something that will have an effect on the race. He says that all the february contests have really favored Obama, not only in black population but in median salary. Notably, in VA and MD, the percent of democrats who have $100,000 income or more is 39% and 41%, respectively. So it is no surprise that Obama won a lot of the demographics.

There is a lot more than I don't feel like summarizing (for the sake of making a short comment post), but it is really a good read, i recommend it.

Personally I expect to see Hillary to do well in:
Texas (32% hispanic)
Ohio (high working class, 4th highest union)
Pennsylvania (high working class, highest union percent among remaining primaries)
Rhode Island (decent amount of Hispanic, 2nd highest union percent)
Oregon (decent Hispanic, 3rd highest union percent)
Montana (non-caucus low african american pop. primary, 5th highest union percent)
Indiana (

Obama should handily win:
Hawaii (caucus with low african american pop.)
Wyoming (caucus with low african american pop.)
Mississippi (primary with high afican american pop.)
North Carolina (primary with high african american pop.)

I think it will be a statistical tie in the following states:
Montana (non-caucus) midwest state with low african population, but appreciable hispanic population)
South Dakota (non-caucus midwest state with low african american population, but appreciable hispanic population)
Vermont (non-caucus northeast state with low african american population, and low hispanic population)

Im not sure about West Virginia and Kentucky...

Old City Jim said...

Hilary Clinton is a better campaigner that either Gore or Kerry, yet Obama is now beating her in nearly every demographic segment. The tide is all in his favor.

Dems now have a chance for a sweeping electoral victory, a large majority in the House, and over 55 Senate seats. With a handful of Republican Senators, this nearly filibuster proof.

Professional politicians are most impressed by election wins and money raised, and the smart ones do not swim against the tide.

There is so much we need to do (change) in this country, and we now have the best chance to do so in over 40 years.

Race is a concept that had to be invented. Gender is less important that the potential for meaningful transformation.

Let the healing begin.

Tokar said...

For some reason my post cut off the link. Just go here:

And look for the post "The Democratic Race Moving Forward"

Anonymous said...

I still contend that Obama is untested which is to his detriment with many voters should he become the nominee. In addition, he has won mostly caucuses which are events which allow for those who can attend at a certain date and time to attend and many are left out due to their work schedules.

Primaries where votes are counted are much more reflective of the actual will of the people and in the popular vote, Hillary leads.

However, in a national campaign and election, I feel that Obama will be chewed up and spit out by the republican swiftboat machine and his current primaries wins are not reflective of the public in general.

The polls and the actual primaries are a very narrow snapshot of his popular support which I don't think will hold up in a national election where you have many other factors and voters to consider.

Anonymous said...

This isn't meant to be a racist comment, but I'm sure some will interpret it that way (and I know that blacks have been opressed, etc. in the US).

But, why is it that Barak Obama who is half white and half black is considered to be a black man?

If we go by the standards used today and I suppose set by blacks and the fact that on almost every survey, census, etc. one has to classify oneself into various ethnic categories, I am a black person. Blacks (and maybe others) consider anyone with ANY black blood to be black. Well, that makes me, a white woman, black because my great, great grandfather was half black.

So if I ran for president, would I be the "first black woman candidate"?

Or do you just have to look black to be black?

I guess it is payback time for blacks who are voting overwhelmingly for a black man since whites have been in control all this time.

No way around it I suppose but this country IS split racially and it has become a very major factor now in who gets elected now and in the future.

If Obama wins, does a white, Asian or any other person stand a chance in the future since the black electorate seems to be very prominent now?

Carrie said...

Morning's here. Daughter's well. NPR is NOT writing off Clinton - my fight is back.

Old City Jim said...
Race is a concept that had to be invented. Gender is less important that the potential for meaningful transformation.

Healing...I'm not sure what your rude poetry and other remarks have to do with healing. If they are meant to be a force for unity and change, they're flopping.

What is this supposed to mean? I first read it as a judgement about which minority categorization has rendered people more powerless. If that's the case, let me know. I'd like to weight in.

If you're suggesting that I or any other woman here who is distressing over Clinton's falling behind are only voting for her because she's a woman. Wrong.

The only gender-based comments I've had here are around my distaste for Obama's campaign strategy capitalizing on the sexism-driven HATE train the republicans have been fueling for years.

Do I think having a woman in the white house would be fantastic? Absolutely. Would I vote for a woman who I felt was less qualified or capable - who was not going to be the best source of meaningful transformation because she was a woman. Fat chance.

Hillary spent decades devoting the overwhelming majority of her time to public service - advocating for the underserved and children in particular.

When Obama left college, he went to work for a consulting firm that helped US companies work abroad. Clinton went to work for the Children's defense fund. Which of those two moves is going to be easier for republicans to pan in October? Does it matter? The real question is, which of those moves suggests a commitment to transformation and change?

I'm not saying it's wrong to vote for Obama because you're optimistic. I'm just saying that I'm voting for Clinton because I am.

Anonymous said...

You guys are still doing it. You are assuming Hillary is going to do well in certian states due to certian demographics.

Texas with 32% hispanic. First 32% is not enough alone. Second Hillary has lost her control over the latino block. Hilary wont take hispanics 2-1 again. Obama will get the "white man" vote in Texas also.

Ohio will be a toss up. Im intreasted in seeing how it turns out. However Hillary appears to have lost the middle class support.

Penn. (I honstly think the race will be over by then). Will goto Obama. It has Phildephia which contains a large black population. (His demographics are loyal. He will split the rest of her demographics.

These type of race driven number games is really just a sign of hope by Hillary supporters, but its not there. Hilary's Campign tryed to make her it her vs a black man in SC. All this did was cost her the black vote, and alliante many others.

Her stratgy didn't work for Guiliani, and it wont work for her.

This is really all but over, her super delegtes are starting to break rank. They dont want be to on the wrong end of this fight.

Anonymous said...

The reason Obama is considered a black man in this election is first he says black himself. Though the main reason is that he has a black family. Not that it should matter either way.

Anonymous said...

The media is just sickening.

I'm sure they have a few tricks up their sleeves. I'll never forget the way they promoted GW Bush and drank his 'change' and 'compassionate conservative' Kool-Aide. They are now rallying around both Barack Obama and John McCain. I wonder what side they will eventually choose once the nomination is secured? They sure don't want Hillary Clinton. They must see Barack Obama as the weaker candidate for their lovely right-wingers to beat.

Boy do they love to play the race card don't they. I think it's very strange how they say nothing about 90% of blacks (reported last night) are voting for BO over HC. Imagine if whites voted 90% for HC over BO. We would never hear the end of it and BO's peeps would be calling whites 'racists'. Yet, when 90% of blacks only vote for another black that's not racisim.

I'm just about done with the Democratic party. Like Lou Dobbs, time to be an Independant.

This primary election has been so repulsive. Yes, I'm white, but I've also donated and helped many in my city, including the AA community and have given my free time to homeless shelters including volunteering for a day care service that provides free services for women who are struggling to work and get off welfare.

This reverse racisim has left me deeply sad and empty.

Unknown said...

Anybody notice Hillary changed her entrance theme music to U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name" in El Paso last night? Her progression has been from Celine Dion, to Big Head Todd and the Monsters, to U2. Obama has been using U2's "City of Blinding Lights" pretty consistently. What I find funny is Hillary is using 1990's U2, Obama 21st Century U2. Symbolic or Freudian?

Anonymous said...

protactinium said...
You guys are still doing it. You are assuming Hillary is going to do well in certian states due to certian demographics.

Texas with 32% hispanic. First 32% is not enough alone. Second Hillary has lost her control over the latino block. Hilary wont take hispanics 2-1 again. Obama will get the "white man" vote in Texas also.

protactinium you are absolutely correct. Especially since a Latino superdelegate is now slamming Senator Clinton due to Doyle's "stepping-down" as campaign manager.(

Old City Jim said...


My main interest is in seeing a progressive presidential candidate achieve a governing majority. The kind of majorities in both congress and the electoral college that savvy politicians in both parties will interpret as a mandate for change. The kind of mandate that Reagan got in 1980.

In order to accomplish this goal, the type of change sought must be clearly articulated by such a candidate. Both Clinton and Obama succeed on the articulation standard, but Obama does it better. I think Clinton has no chance of winning by more than a razor thin margin which would make it impossible for progressives to realize any meaningful change. She could also lose to McCain, as current national polls suggest. Obama has landslide victory potential, the type that could result in the switch of several additional Senate seats to the Democratic side.

This is why red state Democratic Senators endorse Obama (McCaskill of Missouri, Nelson of Nebraska, Johnson of S.D. and Conrad of N.D.). They realize it does little good to be in the nominal majority without the ability to win a cloture vote. Otherwise, the Iraq war votes in the Senate in 2007 would have gone differently.

This is also why Nancy Pelosi seems to favor Obama. She wants to retain the majority in the House, and remain Speaker. She wouldn’t mind getting things done, either.


If a Democratic, progressive woman of either race could win a sweeping electoral majority, I would vote for her in a second,

Other than Hilary in the White House and “meaningful transformation,” what do you want?

To avoid a “book length” entry, I’ll stop here. I’ll reply to your other points, and I have some questions, so I’ll see you (virtually speaking) this evening, and I look forward to it.

Anonymous said...

dear old city jim, As you and Obama about how great Regan was, please look at what he did to the core of American politics. You should know what Regan did with that mandate in 1980s that you are talking about. Why are dems sucking up to Republican. Republican are not evil, just have evil idealogies.

You say Hillary has no chance of "winning by more than a razor thin margin and could also lose to McCain, as current national polls suggest". The same pollster were saying Obama would take NH by "double digits" and he would take California. and we saw what happened. Let the American people decide, not the pollsters. You are doing a disservice to your country by spreading the pollster's propaganda.
Also, as you know, many red states elected officials endorsed Sen. Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Obama was down by 20% in the polls leading up the the california election. The day before the election the polls showed Obama could take it.

Why? Answer is absente balloting. Alot of people had already put there vote in for Hilary. This was the diffrence in margin. Obama actually tied or took the people who voted the day of.

Again I agree we can not quite trust the polsters. I mean after all they said Obama would only win last night by 18 - 20 point in those states. When he actually did much better beating Hillary by 30-50 points.

Hillary will not get such benfits from Texas, and Ohio. There all starting to hear his message. He has a winning formula now.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you aren't leaving. Your posts are articulate and well-reasoned and sum up many of my thoughts.

My distaste for Obama grows as he he feeds into the anti-Hillary hysteria of the right.

Hillary has been tested and attacked in a way no other candidate has ever been. It sickens me as a woman and as a Democrat. It is even more disheartening to hear Obama use it to his advantage. I don't think this is something I will easily forget after the convention.

Old City Jim said...

Dear kiga911

I don’t think Reagan was great, or even OK. I just envy his electoral success, and would like Obama to achieve same. If it would make you feel better, let’s go for Lyndon Johnson’s success in 1964 (60% of pop vote, over 60 Dem senators) How you could possibly interpret my post, which begins with “My main interest is in seeing a progressive presidential candidate achieve a governing majority” AS “sucking up to Republican(s)” is baffling. Did you read the whole post? See “Democratic progressive woman,” in particular.

I agree the pollsters success has been “spotty” this year, but see this:

You are right that Senators Bayh (IN), Blanch Lincoln (AR) and Pryor (AR) have endorsed Clinton, but the recent tide is in Obama’s favor.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said..

"My distaste for Obama grows as he he feeds into the anti-Hillary hysteria of the right."

I keep reading these claims, but I have honstly not seen any evidence of this. Please provide some evidence. I am appartenly ignorant to this.

Anonymous said...

dear dwit,
I support Sen. Clinton and I am not freaking out, but thank you for your concern.
Re your postings being taken off, I can neither prove or disprove that. What i do know is that many supporters of Sen. Clinton including myself have been harassed by NObama people, they have been putting trash next to my Hillary yard sign (and we live in a very nice part of the Bay Area), have been called names on BART, and even confronted for wearing a Hillary T-shirt. I am confident that Sen. Clinton will be the dem's candidate for president, but just in case she is not, after voting democratic all my life will not vote for a candidate that inspires anarchy. I assure you harassing Sen. Clinton's supporters will not make them want them to vote for your guy. This by the way is not an isolated incident and it has been covered in print media as well as TV.

Carrie said...

Old City Jim -

I'm glad my impression on first reading was incorrect. Hopefully it's clear to you that I'm not just voting pink.

I'm sorry, but I heard Nancy Pelosi interviewed last week on NPR and she seemed sincere about not wanting to endorse either candidate. She says she almost never does. I think this type of political speculation is taking far more away from the democratic process than the super delegates ever could. It's part of what's really irking me about Obama's current platform of running on electability. If even Obama's wife will say she would vote against the party if Cliinton was nominated, then - why would ANY of his supporters vote for her? He began with the change/hope campaign. Clinton's campaign blew it with the false hope statement. Once we'd gotten past that, he moved on to the electability platform. She has outperformed him in debates. It seems he must know this because he has refused to debate her repeatedly - most recently this past weekend. He decl. He knows where his strength lies, and it is not in actually competing with her on policy or substantive debate. We've seen this happen before. Clinton has counted on the head-to-head. Obama won't engage.

I appreciate the notion of the "clear mandate". I had a poli sci teacher who talked about how we have a long history of splitting the pres & congress across party lines & accomplishing little as a result. Your argument is exactly why, unless there's some really special reason to do differently, I vote straight ticket.

Should people not vote for Obama at the risk of inviting scandal & scrutiny that's no doubt lurking? I don't think so. Should anyone avoid supporting Clinton because the people who oppose our platform hate her more? Doesn't really make sense to me.

But then I think both of these candidates are electable (unless one of them would seriously abandon the party and take all his support with him if he lost).

In the primary, I have to go for Clinton.

(I'm going to stop there for impact, and pick back up on the topic of "what I want" a little later. My daughter's about to...

Anonymous said...

There will be 2 debates between Obama and Hillary. The reason you ask for debates is to stop your oppoistion for campigning in states, force him to take a whole day off to come to a debate.

This is very typical in presidental debates for the lagger to ask the leader for lots of debates, and the leader denys.

The point of asking for all the deabtes is to stop Obama from his rallys. It seems when Obama gets on the ground Hilary lead collapses. So asking for lots of deabte is not Hilary trying to prove herself, but rather a poltical maunvuer to stop him form ending all this in texas, and ohio.

Anonymous said...

dear dwit
you say "live in Seattle (San Francisco North) and I have never seen the kind of behaviour you speak of." Why should you see the obnoxious behavior of Obama supporter, try wearing a Hillary shirt or hat, then you may get the kind of harassment I have gotten. I know what I have seen!
I have asked many friends who are Obama supporters about the pattern and they have realized that it is a problem with some of Obama followers. I think Obama, by saying "I can take her votes, but she can't take my votes," is being divisive and signaling to his followers look at Hillary supporters as the enemy.
As I said, come Nov, I will not vote for a candidate that inspired so much anarchy and for the 1st time in my adult life will not vote at all.

Anonymous said...

If anyone has the time to figure out and post here what Hillary needs in the remaining states to be competitive in the race, please post it here. I have a feeling most of the super delegates will pledge to Hillary because of longstanding relationships and loyalty, which is the way it should be in my opinion.

Actually, in my opinion the primary process is very flawed in mixed ways such as caucuses in some states, primaries where voters actually vote (which is the way I think it should be in all states).

Anyway as a woman who wants to see a qualified woman President (Hillary), I hope she can pull it off but it looks kind of discouraging.

Carrie said...

Protactinium -

I believe both are maneuvering politically. That's what this is. Politics. Sure Obama does better when he's on the ground and not facing Clinton directly. That was my point.
- Clinton outperforms in debates. She explains her plans clearly. When people tune in for debates, they're looking for the nuts and bolts. That she has in spades. Obama has it, too, but is not as strong here.
- Obama outperforms in the freeform rally. He's very charismatic and evokes a very emotionally powerful reaction from his supporters. This is not Clinton's strength.

What that distinction says about the two of them, what qualities and strengths they might bring to the presidency - and which skillset would be in our best interest seems to be where we part ways.

On maneuvering...
By not engaging and saying (is he really saying this?) that the invitation is some plot to get him out of town seems a little hokey. I understood that the townhall was to be in ME the day they were both there, before they both went to the same dinner. Doesn't seem like she was really trying to get him to go all that out of his way. But, of course, I'm biased.

Anonymous said...

Lets not be coy. Evidence for the Obama campaign's feeding into mindless anti-Hillary hatred is apparent in his claims that he can take Hillary's votes but not vice-versa and that he doesn't have her
"negatives". What are her negatives in that regard other than that she has for years been the target of half-witted right wing hatred? Should he seek to be the beneficiary of this? Is this the "change we can believe in?"

And Mrs. Obama's interviews in which she states she would not vote for Hillary - how does this serve the party?

If Hillary spoke of Obama's "negatives" in this wink wink nudge nudge way - we all know what she would be accused of.

Old City Jim said...

A new argument has been injected here recently, namely, the debate about debates.

Folks, let’s keep our eyes on the ball, which I believe is the election of a Democratic Pres. with as much congressional clout as possible.

There have already been about 20 Democratic debates, and Obama has been to all of them. He has agreed to two more before the March 4 primaries. Should be enough.

The real question is who can win debates against McCain. I agree that Clinton is a superb debater. Obama is also excellent. Obama and Clinton differ little on domestic policy, and either should do well against McCain there. The big edge Obama has over Clinton (and McCain)is in foreign policy.

I assume most of the folks on this blog are Democrats, and opposed the Iraq war. I know how some of you feel about polls, but about one million percent of the American people (OK, maybe it’s only 75%), now think the Iraq war was a mistake. Obama will present the clearest contrast possible against McCain on this issue. The majority of Dems certainly seem to agree with Obama on this point.

Carrie said...

I'm not taken in by the argument that this dictinction will really mean much by November. It will be a clear enough distinction that Clinton has a solid plan for leaving as safely as possible while McCain is committing to staying 100 years or more. If the war vote is seriously still the issue in November - not the economy which has taken the front seat as of late - then the distinction between Clinton and John "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain will still be pretty easy to make.

I had a WHOLE lot more respect for Obama when he said that, while he opposed the war, he didn't know how he would have voted had he seen the same intelligence Clinton had. That to me was a very sound and reasoned response - clearly he opposed the war, but he recognized that he didn't have all the same facts. It's a nice cozy spot for him now, having had no real role to play at the time.

If the issue is political clout and the best thing for everyone here is to just blindly line up behind anybody to beat McCain, why don't you all come over here? (big raspberries)

dwit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dwit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dwit said...

mali said:

"As I said, come Nov, I will not vote for a candidate that inspired so much anarchy and for the 1st time in my adult life will not vote at all."

And I am telling you Mali, that it
is only the Clinton supporters here in Seattle that I have heard blasting Obama supporters. Not the other way round.

You use the word "anarchy" to describe Obama supporters, sounds like you have control issues.

I think it is Bill and Hill that have been preaching the politics of division lately. Fortunately, we are all over these Rovian tactics. Its time for a clean sweep.

Sorry, but Obama supporters are tired of the same old politics of division preached by the Clintons.

Whoops! Alright don't vote, but that sounds pretty childish to me.

Carrie said...

dwit -
Two very distinct points:
1) If immigration is your top issue, vote for Clinton. She's against allowing drivers' licenses and for building a fence along the mexico border. Obama's for giving licenses. He voted for the fence in '06, but then came out against it in '07. It appears he's still sitting on the fence (get it?).

Here's an Obama quote on his general feel on the issue of illegal immigrants (from 11/07):
"When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention... The problem we have here is not driver's licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here to drive... They're here to work. And so instead of being distracting by what has now become a wedge issue, let's focus on actually solving the problem that this administration, the Bush administration, had done nothing about it."

I knew this distinction because it's one of the few areas I actually lean toward Obama's position. It's just not my priority. It appears to be yours, so you might want to rethink your vote.

2) If you're going to spew rhetoric and make mean comments, at least learn the issues.


Mali - Thanks for your comments. It's sad how lacking in compassion people can be in their quest for unity and positive change.

Hillary supporters feeling a little beat up -
Have you read Robin Morgan's "In Support of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Good-bye to All That, Part II" lately? google it - it'll make your day.


Carrie said...

dwit - thanks for the self edit on the last line for mali.

dwit said...

That's the problem with Hillary, Carrie. She does what is politically expedient. She advocated drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and then when polls showed it was unpopular she changed her tune.

She is just such a chameleon. Bill is the same way. They are both experts at parsing.

That is why independents are more likely to vote McCain if she is the nominee.

As much as I disagree with Obama, at least he stands by what he says.

PS. I'm more interested in foreign policy, because the sooner we wrap up The Palestine/Iraq/Iran/Israel issue we will have more resources for domestic policy.

Anonymous said...

Carrie, I have read dozens of your posts over the last several days. I do not normally vote but you have convinced me to do so this year.

So don't think that you are not having any impact.

Because I do not believe that your vote should count, I have decided to monitor your postings and just vote for the other guy, no matter who it is.

Anonymous said...

I thought this was interesting. Mark McKinnon (spelling), John McCain's campaign strategist, said that although he would support John McCain from the sidelines and that he disagreed with Obama's positions, he respects him and that he would LEAVE John McCain's campaign because he would feel uncomfortable attacking Obama. Here is the link: click on the "listen now" link at the top of the page. It is toward the end of the interview.

I find it interesting because there is NO mention about being uncomfortable attacking Hillary.

dwit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Protactinium, You will never get through to the base of HRC's supporters on here - women with most likely a lower education (no offense to those of you in this group, it's reported all over the MSM, so I'm just forwarding that information).
For once the polls are right.

Should Obama's camp try to win these voters as someone suggested?? Uh, no and you're missing his message people. He is not polorizing, HRC is. And the ones on here (mainly her supporters) stating the black votes are the ones putting him out front - you seriously need to educate yourself before posting such nonsense. He's getting the MORE EDUCATED (doesn't that tell you something!), higher income, poor, black men and women, white men and after last night looks like a big jump in Latinos and Hispanics and some of the white women are finally coming out of the coma they have been in also. I have NO respect for HRC for MANY reasons. Ask yourself? Was the 90's really that great for you?? I remember them being great for the company I worked for, not me. Her health care plan didn't get passed then (with her husband as PRESIDENT and a majority of Democrats in office handing her the job of passing this with their backing)and it won't get passed now. Even after the changes she stole from Edwards and throwing in the statement that she would garnish wages, are you kidding me?? Not to mention her stance on IRAQ, she does whatever the people she owes favors to want her to do. She has taken how much from lobbyists and pork-barrel projects? Obama has never taken a dime and owes no one nothing. And then yesterday she decided she'd be better off heading to Texas instead of doing her JOB and voting on the telecommunications legislature, which to date is the most important piece of legislature to come her way since she became a junior senator. No show. Not even present. And just why did she become a NY senator? Because that is the only state that would have her. As for Michigan and Florida, all the candidates signed agreements to not campaign in those states and knew up front those delegates would not be counted. What does HRC do? Oh she sneaks on down to Florida anyway, along with Bill, and campaigns. And now they want to change the law so it favors her? If the roles were switched, do you think she'd be saying a word? Not to mention how she is publicly criticizing the importance of the caucases and so called activists in the states she is losing in. Either that, or not even going to those states at all. I hope every last person in Wisconsin votes for Obama. She is disgusting. And tonight on Larry King, Bill's former Campaign Manager was on and is now endorsing Obama. Even James Carville, a long time Clinton supporter, concedes that she is losing it. THAT speaks volumes. And today, she began running negative TV ads in Wisconsin towards Obama. People like you just don't get that this is EXACTLY the type of thing we are trying to change. Speaking of 'change' - she now calls her campaign a 'movement' and screeches 'yes we can' at her rallies - wonder where she got that, the copy cat.

And to the person above that quoted Michelle Obama on Larry King the other night. You are absolutely WRONG, she did not use those exact words and did not imply that in any way. Go to Youtube and pull up the video. You are spreading the hate and lies. I'm really, really surprised none of you have commented on him being Muslim (incorrect by the way). If Mr. Obama (our next POTUS) had ANYTHING remotely as scandalous as we have seen from the Clintons, do you not think we would have been informed of that over and over again already? NO, because there is nothing. You say he has no experience, again, do you homework. He may not have as many years connected to the politics that is Washington and that is exactly what I am looking for. I have been to many blogs in the past months and HRC supporters are the most vile and single minded individuals that I have ever seen. It's almost a shame that you too will benefit from the great things this man will do for this country.
And in case you want to know, I'm a college educated, middle class, white woman, 41, that lives in SW Virginia area, where unfortunately alot of you Hill supporters thrive. Thank God, Virginia has seen the light and proved that last night! Good bye and Good Luck!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous asked -
"If anyone has the time to figure out and post here what Hillary needs in the remaining states to be competitive in the race, please post it here."


Anonymous said...

"This is really all but over, her super delegtes are starting to break rank. They dont want be to on the wrong end of this fight."

Exactly, prior to 1/11/08, HRC had received a large majority of the superdelegates because Obama was just beginning his climb. After 1/11/08 up until Super Tuesday, the superdelegate votes were for the sake of argument, mainly equal. After Super Tuesday, Obama has been receiving approximately 3 to 2 of the superdelegate votes. Take a look at the last couple days and see for yourself. IF they do come into play, you will see a great many that originally committed to her switch their vote. There is no way they will go against the majority of the popular vote. Never happened before and won't happen this time. And Mr. Obama will be the 44th President of these United States.

DaxDiamond said...

3253 pledged delegates, so half is 1627.

Projected Obama pledged in contests already held = 1140.

1627 - 1140 = 487 needed to win half

Remaining contests = 1082 delegates

487 is 45% of 1082

Just the facts: If FL and MI stay out, and supers do not overturn, Obama needs only 45% in remaining contests.

dwit said...


People are angry with career politicians right now. Unfortunately, Hillary fits that description. If Hillary wins we will have been ruled by a Bush or Clinton for 24 YEARS! That is more than half my life.

I live in Seattle (San Francisco North) and I have never seen the kind of behaviour you speak of. In fact this has been the most inspiring and uplifting race I have ever seen. Though on caucus day I did hear a news story about angry Hillary supporters ranting about how Obama has stole her thunder.

For the first time in 30 years Dems are raising more money than the Republicans. I'm just glad we have two solid candidates running.

History in the making; a black man and a woman. Wow! I never thought I'd see it. I am just stoked!

I just think Obama has a better chance against McCain and the polls (for what they're worth) agree with me. She and McCain are just too similar on foreign policy and illegal immigration. These are two hot button issues among independents right now.

It aint over though, so Obama supporters get out there and make your voice heard!

dwit said...

Another reason I am voting for Obama over McClinton is that it will do wonders for our reputation abroad.

As a man who spent some of his childhood abroad, he is familiar with other cultures and their way of thinking. When it comes time to negotiate sensitive matters he will have the empathy to succeed where hardliners like Clinton and McCain will not.

He will do wonders for our reputation with regard to people of color in general.

Clinton has clearly posted herself in the Israel Camp, so she will have little credibility when it comes time to deal with the ME issue.

Obama will be seen as a chance for a new beginning by other leaders around the world and will be more willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt as a result.


Anonymous said...

You are right. I cannot believe that a man running to be the president of the free world had the balls to state that he will 'go the gates of hell to kill Bin Laden'. What are the people of this country thinking by voting for him. Him as president will be more damaging than dubya was.
Obama is going to clean his clock.

dwit said...


I like your work. Lot of effort. I will just give you my experience in Washington State. The numbers for the non-binding Dem primary will not be announced for another week, but these results will give you a good indication on this Obama/caucus state hypothesis.

I thought this state would surely go in favor of Hillary, as we have a female governor and two female Senators. I was blown away when I went to caucus in my urban Seattle precinct and saw that EVERY vote on my table was for Obama. I was Just floored and a little freaked out.

That is when I became a believer. This country is fed up with the status quo. Oddly enough George Bush is as much to blame for Hillary's troubles as she is.

Women, men, black, brown and white are just plain fed up. Parsing the numbers is fun, but like game theory you have to take human psychology into account.

dwit said...

Here you go Carrie,

Obama on immigration reform his Senate website:

"Senator Obama offered three amendments that were included in the Senate bill. The first amendment would strengthen the requirement that a job be offered at a prevailing wage to American workers before it is offered to a guestworker. The second amendment would make it simple, but mandatory, for employers to verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. And the third amendment would authorize $3 million a year for the FBI to improve the speed and accuracy of the background checks required for immigrants seeking to become citizens."

I can't find a similar position statement from Senator Clinton's website.

Anybody help me on that one?

dwit said...

Another Obama statement on his Senate website:

"Like millions of Americans, the immigrant story is also my story. My father came here from Kenya, and I represent a State where vibrant immigrant communities ranging from Mexican to Polish to Irish enrich our cities and neighborhoods. So I understand the allure of freedom and opportunity that fuels the dream of a life in the United States. But I also understand the need to fix a broken system.

When Congress last addressed this issue comprehensively in 1986, there were approximately 4 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. That number had grown substantially when Congress again addressed the issue in 1996. Today, it is estimated that there are more than 11 million undocumented aliens living in our country.

The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws."

Anonymous said...

FL and MI are not comming back into play. Hillary campign keeps making noise about it. However Howard Dean wanted to make a move about redoing them, but recieved huge negative response from the insiders. The ONLY way FL and MI come into play is if Hillary can pull off a victory in total vote count. The only reason that will work at all is it will give Hillarys superdelegetes an excuse for holding there line. The democratic party is going to do everything to make this election to appear to be as legitment as possible. The democrats are trying very hard not to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

Also Obama plans on laying out alot of his policys over the next couple of weeks, up to the debates. Where Hillary will ask her version of "wheres the beef?"
Obama will be ready for this move.

Hillary has started negative campigning. I heard her strategy is still going to be same as before, but now they relize they can not win the black vote. They also plan on ratching up the attacks on Obama to prove he has no "substance"

Should be intreasting. However I would like to point out that every time Hillary or Bill has made a negative comment. Her campigned has suffered for it. So i expect this to work against her, but shes grabbing for straws now.

Its unlikly but if Obama blows Hillary out in Wis. it would take blowouts in penn, ohio, and texas to get her nod. However Obama is only up by 9% by the polls, not large enough.

dwit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Old City Jim said...

Dwit: great job on Obama’s immigration positions. Research. Facts. Refreshing! His approach addresses the actual problems which surround the issue, instead of appealing to the emotional aspects.

Thanks also to Dax Diamond for the delegate math. Your conclusion of 45% agrees with the figure Chuck Todd is giving on MSNBC (who is the top guru on this subject, in my opinion). I just didn’t calculate how he arrived at that number. Now that you have, it will be easy to do further calculations after WI and Hawaii, and beyond.

Anonymous said...

@kevin m

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. There may yet be hope for our nation.

Unknown said...

One indication of Obama momentum: Hillary has not outperformed the polls in any state since Super Tuesday. Conversely, Obama has met or exceeded polling expectations in every state since Super Tuesday.

Tokar said...

New polls out,

WI: 47-34 Obama [+4] (rasmussen)
OH: 55-34 Clinton [+21] (quinnipac)
OH: 51-37 Clinton [+14] (rasmussen)
PA: 52-36 Clinton [+16] (quinnipac)

Anonymous said...

To the person who said Hillary's female supporters are not highly educated-

Well, I support Hillary - I am a few credits short of an MBA. This was in the 1980s. I chose to be a parent so I have the time to read this board.

Maybe the guys here are all PHDs, but if you are, you haven't learned to break up your thoughts into coherent paragraphs.

It has been written that Obama ia like a Rorshach test and indeed he is. With his slim record of accomplishment and mulicultural heritage, people can project onto him whatever they choose. The cult of personality is a dangerous thing- I'll go with a solid record
and political skills vs. "gee I really like this guy" when it comes to my vote.

Dave said...

Some random thoughts...

I'm tired of hearing about Obama's lack of specifics. This whole notion that he just gives good speeches but offers no real ideas is BS. I wonder, do people who say these things actually take the time to listen to his talks or look at his website? It's so clear to me that's he's a man of real ideas for improving this country.

On the subject of debates, all I can say is "oh, please." To go to the Wisconsin voters and say "Wisconsin deserves to hear BOTH candidates debate the issues that matter" while she's already in Texas is almost comical. If the issues are so important, why not spend your 30 seconds of ad time talking about them! She also says "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions." This too is ironic given that I saw him in Wisconsin yesterday ANSWERING QUESTIONS in a town hall meeting. How many questions has Hillary answered for the Wisconsin voters?

And on the subject of Obama talking about being more electable. First, it's TRUE...and it DOES matter. If you're a democrat, it should matter to you that he's much more liked by independents than Hillary is (whether you think that's fair or not). But second, she does it to! They both spend time claiming to be the more electable candidate. It's just that when Obama says it, people take him seriously. :-)

Tokar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Am fascinated by the nomination process itself, though my ultimate decision will be determined by voting against the candidate most strongly linked to the Big Business of Big Abortion - Planned Parenthood and their lobbying groups. That means I will vote for McCain (or Huck). When real moderates on the issue of abortion like Bayh, Vilsack, and even Biden can't get any traction, the special interests are to blame.

Tokar said...

@dwit: here are some more numbers.

The media has been mentioning union numbers. So I took a look at the latest (2006) percent of population referring to union members.

OK first, i removed the caucus states because Obama just does ridiculously well there so demographics mean nothing. So the rankings are sans the caucus states (38 states total).

Second I must note the following states:
#1 - NY - 24.4%
#3 - MI - 19.6%
#4 - IL - 16.4%
#33 - AR - 5.1%
they mean nothing. NY, IL and AR are home states for the candidates and MI didnt have Obama on the ticket. I consider florida in the game because it was a pure race, though it had no effect from union votes since it had only 5.2% union voters (#32 overall).

So what do the union %'s indicate? Nothing actually. This is because, leaving out the caucus states and the home states and delegate-removed states (though florida should be considered), only 5 of the top 13 states have voted.

#2 - NJ - 20.1% (voted-HC)
#5 - CA - 15.7% (voted-HC)
#6 - CT - 15.6% (voted-BO)
#7 - RI - 15.3%
#8 - WI - 14.9%
#9 - MA - 14.5% (voted-HC)
#10 - OH - 14.2%
#11 - WV - 14.2%
#12 - OR - 13.8%
#13 - PA - 13.6%
#14 - MD - 13.1% (voted-BO)
#15 - MT - 12.2%
#16 - IN - 12.0%
#17 - VT - 11.0%

The next three states went in favor of BO:
#18 - MO - 10.9% (voted-BO)
#19 - DE - 10.8% (voted-BO)
#20 - DC - 10.3% (voted-BO)

Then there is:
#21 - NH - 10.1% (voted-HC)

So sans the home states and caucus states:
HRC won the top 2 in convincing fashion (NJ,CA).
HRC did well in #3 (CT), but only lost marginally for reasons unknown to me.
She won #6 in convincing fashion (MA).

And we really cant consider MD, DE and DC in terms of their union population because of their rather high african american population, thus putting them strongly into BO's column.

Then theres MO, which she almost won, but might have had influence by its 11.2% african american population. And she won NH.

What I see from these numbers is that 5 of the next 7 primaries (minus HI, and WY because they are caucuses, and minus MS because of hits 36.3% african american population) will see a very heavy influence from Union workers (in order or occurance):

#8 - Wisconsin
#7 - Rhode Island
#10 - Ohio
#17 - Vermont
#34 - Texas (4.9% union)
#13 - Pennsylvania

What do I think?
I think Hillary will win 5 out of 6 of these states.
Texas because of hispanic vote (32.0%), PA and OH because of heavy union population, RI and VT because of mix of high union population with very low african american population (4.5% and 0.5%, respectively).

I dont think she will win WI, but she will probably pull even in delegates with Obama because of the union population. I think her choice to neglect the state and go straight to Texas will be a reason for a loss in WI.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous (re: Michelle Obama)

Mrs. Obama said on GMA that she would have to think about supporting Hillary if she won the nomination - think about her policies, her tone....

Well, could there possibly anything she doesn't know about Hillary vs. McCain at this point?
Another wink, wink nudge nudge answer.

Anonymous said...

And where is HRC today?? After telling Obama to 'come on down' to Texas yesterday - she's now in Ohio. And where is BHO?? He's in Wisconsin holding meetings with union laborers as we speak.

Anonymous said...

Even more cheap shots from Mrs. Obama. She said while campaigning in Chicago that part of this race is "modeling what good families should look like- if you can't run your own house you can't run the White House."

What do "good families look like"? If that is a factor might as well vote for any Republican with a dutiful wife and family.

Do we vote for Obama because he knows how to keep his family in line? Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

Latest Polls

Clinton 55
Obama 34

Clinton 52
Obama 36

Ohio - General Election
McCain 44
Clinton 43

McCain 44
Obama 40

Pennsylvania - General Election
Clinton 46
McCain 40

Obama 42
McCain 41

Big leads for the Comeback Girl and proof she is the stronger general election candidate in the swing state and important blue state.

Anonymous said...

More lack of homework above. So McCain's second wife and the one child we've seen represents a dutiful wife and family to you?? The woman is scared to death to speak. And why is only one child ( the one he had with the second wife after spliting from the first wife because she became maimed and gained weight from a horrible accident while he was a POW) supporting her father for president? Where's his children with the first wife. They are with the first wife, that's where.

And I don't even know where to start with the Clintons.

If you are trying to bash Mrs. Obama, maybe you should look around your own home first if these are your role models. I can't believe one woman on here stated that Hillary was such a role model for her. Guess that's what happens when you stay home having 'virtual' cake and ice cream, drinking that hawaiian punch.

Anonymous said...

"Do we vote for Obama because he knows how to keep his family in line? Give me a break."

Bet you it's the other way around! LOL! She is one tough cookie and I can't wait til she is First Lady!

Anonymous said...

I don't look to politicians, movie stars model family life for me. Mrs. Obama, a highly educated woman herself, knows better than what she is spouting. The Obamas will say or do anything to get elected in the same way the Clintons are constantly accused of.
Nothing wrong with that- lets just not pretend that one is pure while the other is evil.

JFK, FDR, MLK and yes, WJC were not faithful to their wives. Of course that list is endless. Who cares? The statement made by Mrs. Obama is straight out of Jerry Springerville. My man knows how to handle me crud. Its embarassing and beneath contempt.

Anonymous said...

Yes- Michelle Obama is one tough cookie and will be one in the White House. And it was Hillary who paved the way for that. In no time at all she will be criticized in the same way that Hillary was - not a reason not to vote for her husband but a reason for her not to bash the woman who helped make intelligent forceful first ladies acceptable. Eleanor, nothwithstanding!

Anonymous said...

No sign of only picking favorable polls in that comment! Watch... I can do the same thing:

Pres '08 (D)
Feb 14 Gallup
Obama 46%, Clinton 45%

Pres '08 (D)
Feb 14 Rasmussen
Obama 49%, Clinton 37%

Pres '08
Feb 14 Rasmussen
Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 42%

Pres '08
Feb 14 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 41%

Feb 14 Rasmussen
Obama 47%, Clinton 43%

Anonymous said...

Union votes are not so good for Hillary anymore. No union wants to be on a sinking ship.

Hillary has decent leads in those three states. However this has been typical all election for her to start out with leads. Also she has been campigning non-stop in those states, while Obama has been playing the whole election. Obamas got three weeks. If they where closer I would say Hillary is alot better off. But three weeks with 10wins in a row. Obama closed in 20 point gaps in alot of states in a week for super tuesday.

I do give you Hillary supporters credit for fighting to the very end. However even if Hillary does great and takes those three states.(which it will be very tight) She can not lose the rest of the states in the union. Hillary can only win if she gets the super delegtes all to support her. Just alot of things that need to fall into place for you guys.

I can not wait for this all to be over, so then I listen to the pro-lifers, anti-civil rights people whine for pages. Oh and btw anyom, this is a DEMOCRATIC site. If your going to vote republican either way, democrats dont much care about your opinon. Thats how poltics works.

Anonymous said...

dear Chaz/Rod,
you said, "I would also argue that he has more foreign policy experience than she, simply because he has lived abroad." I have lived in Israel, Spain and UK, and i have also traveled half of the world. Following your flawed logic, I have more foreign policy experience. Sen. Clinton is a member of the Senate Arm Committee. How about that?
Also, keep your women heating remarks to yourself, your mother/wife/daughter don't appreciate it and neither do I.

Anonymous said...

Carrie -

Hope you're still around. I've been at the hospital with gramps past two days. Yes, I read your post and I really appreciate everything you said in it. I think you're right, I misinterpreted the intention. Definitely. *Sigh.* Maybe I hit a saturation point; so many people have been throwing accusations around about Obama supporters all over the place. Clearly, you are NOT one of those people. I'm sympathetic to the sexism issue. It's kind of the giant pink elephant in the room everyone walking around and acknowledging by virtue of stealthy movement but ... not really head-on.

Have many questions for Clinton supporters ... but also, I'd like to compile a huge list of why it's so important to vote democratic in the fall no matter what...

anyone have any ideas? I have a few.

I'll write more to specific issues, and to your longer email Carrie, but I've got to get back to the hospital. Thanks for well wishes ... and I'm sorry if I made you feel sad! I have so much respect for your opinions! (Anyone who thinks that 35 is old is an idiot).

Anonymous said...

Heres his experince. I think he has done more then Hillary. Please talk about the issues, and stop spreading Campign lies.

"As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[63] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel."[64] He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[65] The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.[66]"

Anonymous said...

Your post speaks more to Obama's eligibility for frequent flyer miles than to experience.

Anonymous said...

protactinium -

Obama campaigns on the coalition of change.

In 3+ years as a Senator, what changes has Obama accomplished that has affected the daily lives of any American?

I remember the debate with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards where she told Edwards that his Patient's Bill of Rights never got passed while she forced thru legislation to get millions of children health care.

That is change accomplished by Clinton.

Where is Obama's change accomplishments?

Obama gives speeches, Clinton gives solutions.

Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania = Nomination.

When she wins all 3, the Superdelegates will have a hard time voting against the winner of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

Anonymous said...

Just proves Hillary supporters will ignore and say anything to support there canidite. I think its Ironic that Hillary supporters do the same negative tatics that Hillary herself does. Its ok this pain will soon be over for you guys, then hopefully we can get past the name calling to real issues.

Attack Obamas issues, not his charcter. This is why Hillary is losing.

Anonymous said...

I Am A Democrat, Have Been For About 20 Years, I Have Loyally Voted Democrat, Even Fanatically Choosing Not To Vote For County Positions Like Clerks, Who Happen To Be An Unopposed Republican.

Now That I Got That Out Of The Way Here Is What I Think, I Will Vote For John McCain If This Delegation Elects Barack Obama The Nominee!

I Am Not Comfortable With Barack Obama On National Security, Or Commander In Cheif Issues!


Hillary Clinton Is Just Liberal Enough For Me Like Many In Rural Areas, Like Upstate New York Where I Live!

I Have Seen Earlier A Post Which Suggested McCain May Cut A Path Across BLUE STATES, Well My Feeling Is If Barack Is The Nominee He Will Have To Fight HARD To Hold Onto My State Of New York, And Along With Those It Is Legitimate To Assume Florida Will Fold To McCain When They Remember How Obama SHUTS OUT THE FLORIDA VOTERS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DELEGATES!

I Personally Have 1 Vote But Mine Is An Opinion Which I Know Will Multiply Like A Back-lash If States Like freakin Idaho Decide The Democratic Nominee!

Superdelegates Should Be Wise To Head The Warning Of The BLUE STATE BASE!

In Any Event If Barack Wins By Shutting Out Florida And Michigan Voters I Will Register Independant And I Will Be Lost To The Reach Of Democrats For Votes This November!

And To Anyone Who Says Florida Broke The Rules And They Don't Get A Vote, Thats Like Me Saying You Can't Post Here, The Page Is Like November ALL WILL BE ALLOWED, Irregardless Of WHAT The Domocrats Have To Say!

Anonymous said...

Hillary said she will rely on Bill if she gets in the White House.

Remember when Bill was President...

1)Jobs went overseas
4)Lying to America about the affairs but getting away with it based on HIS definition of sexual relations.
5)Impeachment !!!!!
6)Splitting up the dems and reps more than any other president has
scandel after scandel.
7)Last but not least, having Hillary talk about not making cookies and listening to Tammy Wynette. Come on girls, that one must make you so proud!! UGH!

Anonymous said...

The Wall Street Journal provides a snapshot of life inside Hillaryland: "But the campaign has something of a shellshocked feel, as staffers privately chew over a blowup last week where internal frictions flared into the open. Clinton campaign operatives say it happened as top Clinton advisers gathered in Arlington, Va., campaign headquarters to preview a TV commercial. ‘Your ad doesn't work,’ strategist Mark Penn yelled at ad-maker Mandy Grunwald. ‘The execution is all wrong,’ he said, according to the operatives. ‘Oh, it's always the ad, never the message,’ Ms. Grunwald fired back, say the operatives. The clash got so heated that political director Guy Cecil left the room, saying, ‘I'm out of here.’”

Anonymous said...

To the last poster of Bill's Ills-

Even if one accepts your list 1-7 ,
only number 1 had any effect on the everyday lives of Americans. The rest is just right wing engineered garbage that distracted from America's real problems. You are really reaching with that slim list.

Say what you will about the Clintons, they managed to give us a two term Democratic presidency.
Have you felt better with Bush- after all he isn't a philandering husband (as far as we know), hasn't been impeached. Not sure if Laura bakes cookies or listens to Tammy Wynette- Come to think of it, she doesn't do much of anything. But I guess that's really what its all about for alot of guys here- anyone is better than a female in power. I am utterly convinced of that.

Anonymous said...

" Not sure if Laura bakes cookies or listens to Tammy Wynette- Come to think of it, she doesn't do much of anything. But I guess that's really what its all about for alot of guys here- anyone is better than a female in power. I am utterly convinced of that."

As much as I hate what Bush has done to this country, Mrs. Bush has ALWAYS acted like a lady.
And by the way, I'm not a guy but your narrow-minded stereotyping sure did make you think I was didn't it? Go bake some cookies.

Anonymous said...

No, I think it was the fact you called women "girls". All the dead and maimed with Bush- but as long as his wife is a "lady".

Anonymous said...

That's because you all act like 'girls' you know as in 'grow up little girls'. Your second sentence, like most of what you say doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and after 8 years of clintons. The republicans took the senate, congress, and the president for the first 2 years. The republicans appear to have not lost control sience then. Clintons alinated alot of independents.

I know alot of Hillary supporters are mad. You guys feel she is obligated to be president. Thats why Hillary ignored Obama at first, and then jumped on the experince issue so quickly. She felt that experince means people where obligated to vote for her.

You can see how bitter her, and her supporters are getting about people not voting for her because its her turn. Shes running her campign like a republican. However these are democrats, and they dont belive in handing out nominees just because one feels that there obligated.

I know anyone that does not vote for Hillary seems to either not matter or no count. Sorry if Hillary loses the popular vote even with Penn, Ohio, and Texas. She will not be nominated.Guillani did the same strategy and lost.

And for you people saying you will run to Mccain if Obama because the nominee because of the nuke. Good luck swallowing your pride to vote for the, "sexist machine" and a "pro-war" regime. However it seems hippocritcal to me to attack Obama for using the same sexist machine as the republicans, and then vote republican who supposedly created it. But a scorn women has no boundries.

Anonymous said...

I guess you don't get it because it is not spelled out- how about-

I'm sure it is great comfort to the families of the dead and maimed from the Iraq war (you know the war started by Bush who you prefer to philandering Bill) to know that their first lady is indeed ladylike. I'm sure if they could have back their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers, but had to trade Laura for an unladylike first lady (oh you know who) they would choose not to.

That last sentence was sarcasm by the way.

Anonymous said...

dear all, Senator Clinton won NM by 4000 extra votes. CNN just broadcast the report. YOU GO GIRL!!

Anonymous said...

You are really off your rocker. No where did I ever state I was for Bush in any way. I'm a true democrat and I voted for Gore, truth be known, because I knew what was going to happen. BUT I will not vote for HRC. I will wait until Obama'a name is on an independent ticket and still for him. If not that, then I'll write it in myself.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton has officially won the New Mexico Democratic caucuses, more than a week after the state's February 5 Election Day.

Per CNN-"After a nine-day vote count, the state party chairman announced the result Thursday.

Clinton now has one more delegate to add to her total — she will receive 14 of the state's pledged delegates, and Obama 12.

The New York senator and her Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, were separated by just 1,709 votes in the final tally — 73,105 for Clinton, 71,396 for Obama.

The count had been delayed by a large number of provisional ballots."

Congrats to the Clintons, they got 1 more delegate and it'll be the last one for a long time! :)

Anonymous said...

"However it seems hippocritcal to me to attack Obama for using the same sexist machine as the republicans, and then vote republican who supposedly created it. But a scorn women has no boundries."

"Woman" ?
I Am Not A Woman, I Am A Man Living In Upstate New York And Hell Yes I WILL Vote For John McCain If Hillary Is Not Nominated As Anyone Who Remembers Al Gore And George Bush Fighting Over Florida In 2008, In Our Roosevelt Democrat, Blue State, Hillary Loving Land Called The Democratic Base Who Has Voted EVERY YEAR EVERY ISSUE FAITHFULLY!

I Worry That Obama With His Inexperience Will Become Overwhelmed In His Job Much Like Watching George Bush!

I Don't Trust The Security Of Our Nation Under Bush, Why Would I Trust Barack Obama More Than John McCain?

Anonymous said...

How Many People Here Can Honestly Say They Appreciate Barack Obama's Use Of The Reagan Years As Better Than Our Bill Clinton Years?

Personally I Remember Reagan As The Leader Of A Nation Smuggling Into Itself Cocaine (Oliver North/Iran Contra), While Reagans Wife Contradictory Says "Just Say No" To Drugs

Why Would Barack Obama Site Ronald Reagan As Positive, And Bill Clinton Negative?

Why Did The Dnc Punish Florida Democrats For What The Republican Legislature Did With Regards To The Florida Primary Date Being Moved? Yes That Was Jed(b) Bush And His Friends in florida!!!!!

Wake Up Barack Obama Will Not Win Over Hillary's Votes No Matter How Hard You Try, But The Party Should Realize Hillary Doesn't NEED Baracks As Badly As He Needs Hillarys Voters!!!

I Would Bet Any Money 2/3 Of Hillary's Votes (DISTRICTS) Would Go To McCain From Blue States!

Anonymous said...

I used to watch MSNBC pretty much exclusively but not anymore! I'm sick of the Chris Matthews, Morning Joe, Tucker Carlson mentality of rejoicing in and laughting about Hillary Clinton.

Most of what they chew on is false but I'm sure there are lemming gobbling it up and repeating it as fact.

Yesterday Chris M. went on and on about Hillary not congratulating Obama, "What's THAT about?", he spits. 30 mins. later I saw a clip of her in TX congratulating Obmama which obviously had been tape much earlier than the time at which he asked the question.

Today (when I decided not to watch him anymore--nor Carlson or Caffeine Joe), Chris was laughing about the fact that Hillary and Bill are using the same "talking points" in their speeches. Well, duh? Of course! One isn't going to use Obama's and the other Hillary's.

He thought it was just hysterical that they both said in a different way that Obama makes good speeches and she makes good actual changes.

In other words he told the lemming listeners that she said she could make a good speech if she wanted to but chose not to.


No wonder Hillary has an uphill climb.

Obama is all hat and no cattle much like Bush!

Anonymous said...

You Are So Right About The MSNBC People I Hope Everybody Who Sees The INCREDIBLE Bias AGAINST Hillary Is Emailing

I Told Them I Am Writing Congress.

Anonymous said...

Hey girls - here's some good news for OUR girl !!!! :))))))

(CNN) — One of the country’s biggest unions — the United Food and Commercial Workers Union — voted Thursday to endorse Barack Obama.

Obama’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, had also hoped for the union’s nod.

The union, which has more than a million members, is very active in Ohio and Texas — both contests the Clinton campaign is counting on to help her regain momentum in the Democratic presidential race.

It is also very strong in Pennsylvania, another major contest looming on the horizon, and is a major force in voter turnout in all three states.

The union represents workers in the meatpacking industry, in supermarkets and food processing.

Anonymous said...

oh comeon people. Hillary is not a vicitim. I think you supporters are starting to project. Last few days all I have read is how everyone pick on poor old Hillary.

That its not her fault shes losing but everyone elses. How its all a republican conspircy to make Obama the nominee.

Please your not helping your canidite by playing false claims. Why not instead tell us why Hillary is a better candite. Sure seems like you supporters are starting to turn to all talk and no substance.

Anonymous said...

Rack up another endorsement for Obama. This is an endorsement that holds weight, and unlike the culinary union in Nevada, these people won't be so easily tricked by the Clintons manipulation skills.

Anonymous said...

"Some black superdelegates reassess Clinton support"

New article above on CNN website.
This day just gets better and better! Can't you just feel the love on this Valentine's Day!!

Anonymous said...

More good news for Hilary.

WEST ORANGE, NJ –Christine “Roz” Samuels, a superdelegate from Montclair, New Jersey, who was supporting Hillary Clinton announced she was now supporting Senator Barack Obama for President today, citing his ability to unite the country:

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:
How Many People Here Can Honestly Say They Appreciate Barack Obama's Use Of The Reagan Years As Better Than Our Bill Clinton Years?

You CLEARLY have no idea on how to use CRITICAL thinking skills because you can't even HEAR correctly. What he said was that the Republican Party has been the party of ideas and that Reagan was a transformational figure in American politics.

This statement that Obama made was absolutely CORRECT. He did change the trajectory in America and the Republicans DO have ideas. What he did NOT say is that they were good ideas. While Hillary was on the board of WAL-MART fighting AGAINST worker's rights, he was on the streets in Chicago as a community organizer.

Just like Clinton, when he finished school he could have gone to a cush job at some fancy firm. However unlike Clinton, he was doing community service for YEARS as in plural. She did community service for less than a year. By the way, she COULDN'T go to a cush corporate law firm right out of school because she FAILED the DC bar exam TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Obama is not uniting the country. His arrogance and greed (need to be President) are dividing the country.

It is polarizing people into ethnic groups (90% blacks vote for Obama in Virginia, etc.).

Splitting the Latino vote, this and that with the women's vote, blah, blah, blah.

He knows he is the least experienced and has not paid his dues like Hillary has but yet he is supposedly in his mind able to do a better job.

Just like George Bush who should have been principle enough to tell his advisors that he didn't feel comfortable running for the presidency, there were much more qualified, deserving people and therefore he would decline running.

But no, running for the highest office in this land has become a game and qualifications are not that important but "star" quality is!

Look where it got us!

dwit said...

Yes Mali,
I would agree you do have more foreign policy experience than Mrs. Clinton.

Anonymous said...

kiga911 said...
dear all, Senator Clinton won NM by 4000 extra votes. CNN just broadcast the report. YOU GO GIRL!!
Why do Clinton supports have to lie? She won by less than 2000 votes.

Anonymous said...

They got it from their role model.

Anonymous said...

Anon said: Obama is not uniting the country. His arrogance and greed (need to be President) are dividing the country.
Are YOU kidding me?

Lets look at recent comments made my Clinton:
Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.

She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were."

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama's advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton's.

"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she said, naming several of Obama's red state wins."

It is statements like this that turn our country into RED and BLUE states. THAT IS DIVISIVE! Obama has NEVER used the race card. Bill and the media brought race into the campaign. Obama tried to leave race and gender OUT of the race, but Bill and Hillary keep bringing it up.

Like Obama said, "This is not red American, this is not blue America, it's not a black America, or a white America, it is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". This is the key ingredient that Clinton is MISSING! She is dividing the country up into red, blue, black, white, brown. If she is willing to write off so-called "red" states, then she DOES NOT represent ALL Americans. There is a no more divisive figure in American politics than Hillary Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said
"It is polarizing people into ethnic groups (90% blacks vote for Obama in Virginia, etc.).

Splitting the Latino vote, this and that with the women's vote, blah, blah, blah."

Some would say that Hilary polarized the black vote with Bills racial comment back in SC.

Also you could say that Hilary is trying to polarize the race among Hispanics. Her campign had said before the elections start "hispanics historically will not vote for blacks" However this is flawed because Obama is taking way more hispanics now.

I think the very defination of uniting is the fact that he has split or taken almost every demographic. Including the 8% republican vote in Virginia. Hillary supporters quit projecting
her poltics to Obama.

Anonymous said...

Another thing strikes me the wrong way about one of Bill Clinton's speeches “All my life, I have wanted to vote for a woman.”

“And all my life, I have wanted to vote for an African-American,” he continued.

He added, then laughed: “I wonder why God gave us this dilemma.”

Why does this strike me the wrong way you might ask? He has had the opportunity THREE times and one of those he could have had a twofer. Are you telling me he didn't vote for Jesse Jackson when he HAD the opportunity to vote for an African-American? Are you telling me he didn't vote for Carolyn Mosley Brown when he had the chance? Are you telling me he didn't vote for Al Sharpton when he had the chance?

He is acting like Barack Obama is the FIRST African-American to ever run for the highest office in the land.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it funny that everything the woman said above about Obama's polorizing is EXACTLY what Billary is doing! You see, this is the mentality of her supporters and the reason that the walls of Jericho are falling hard and fast.....
It really is sad in a way that people are so warped. It's also sad that when the day is over and she and Bill are back at their multi-million dollar home and in a world so different than their own, the supporters will continue to excuse this away. She is out for herself, not you people.

Anonymous said...

Oops I forgot to mention....he had the opportunity to vote for TWO females that have run for the highest office in the land.

Carolyn Mosley Brown and Elizabeth Dole. Now granted Elizabeth Dole ran as a Republican candidate, but he had EVERY opportunity to vote for her.

Old City Jim said...


When Sen. Obama mentioned Pres. Reagan, he was referring to Reagan’s electoral success and the fact changed the path of the country. Here is exactly what Obama said:

"Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."

"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom,"
He did not say that the Reagan years were better that the Clinton years. He did not say that Reagan’s ideas were better than Democratic ideas. If Obama thought Republican ideas were better, I think he would be a Republican, instead of having one of the more liberal Senate voting records.

The Clintons have been good at getting power for themselves, but not so good at building the Democratic Party. The fact is, after the 1992 election, there were 57 Dem Senators, after the 2000 election, 50 Senators (and loss of control due to V. P. Cheney). Democrats lost control of the House in 1994, and did not get it back until 2006. From the 1992 election to 2000, Democratic Governors went from 30 to 18. Obama is trying to achieve an electoral mandate and build the Democratic Party, like Reagan built the Republican Party.
Clinton appears content to win the nomination at any cost to the Party. She would happily win by one superdelegate, even if she lost the pledged delegate and popular vote totals. She would gladly change the rules and seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, even if it split the party apart.

And so I ask those Clinton supporters on this blog, which would you rather have. Pres. Obama with a large majority in a Dem. Congress , or Pres. Clinton with a small majority (or none), or Pres. McCain with Republican majority?

dwit said...

anon said,
"In 3+ years as a Senator, what changes has Obama accomplished that has affected the daily lives of any American?

I remember the debate with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards where she told Edwards that his Patient's Bill of Rights never got passed while she forced thru legislation to get millions of children health care."

Yeah, she also forced through an authorization of war in Iraq. Whoopdee f'ndoo! What a record. Where is her health care for all RIGHT NOW?

According to her own estimation she has 35 years experience. And what does she have to show for it? ZEEERO!

Last I checked we are still hemorrhaging billions in Iraq and I don't have health care.

Meanwhile, its still illegal for my retired mother to get prescriptions from Canada where they pay half the price for medications from American pharmaceutical companies.

Wow! What a record!

dwit said...

To all of you cry babies who have to have all or nothing.


He loves: torture, oil, money, Israel, power, war, blowing huge sums of taxpayer dollars.... Have I forgotten anything?

Sounds like your man!

Anonymous said...

Another news flash just posted:

CNN) — Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights movement veteran and Democratic congressional leader who endorsed Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid last year, is switching his superdelegate vote to Barack Obama, according to a report Friday’s New York Times.


Carrie said...

I actually find I'm conflicted about Obama's speech in Nairobi and his subsequent exchange with the Kenyan embassador to the US. It is particularly troubling given the recent democratic crisis and violence there. I think part of it has to do with his tone - which I hear echoed here. I wonder how Obama's words affected the outcome of their recent election and the anger felt between the political rivals leading into the election. He may have been right about their needing to work on graft, but was the approach he took to speaking out on it the best diplomatic approach? It really doesn't seem that way. Was his response to Ogego's letter fair? Maybe. Could it have been written in a more tactful and diplomatic manner? It seems to me it could have been.

I haven't heard him speak on the recent violence. He may have & I missed it. I haven't gone out looking, but NPR covers both Obama and Kenya daily. Hopefully Kofi Anaan will have brokered a lasting peace between the rival factions there by January and it won't matter, but I do wonder how effective Obama could be there in helping to reunite the people of Kenya as he's alienated one side.

I'm not interested in a whole lot of hostility on this. It's an honest concern. An honest question. If you have a more positive perspective on it, I'd be happy to hear it.

DaxDiamond said...

What would you have us do about Sudan - do we need more tact and diplomacy there as well.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - that is a good example of effective diplomacy.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Gorbechev didn't tear down the wall and Reagan had little to do with it actually. The PEOPLE are the ones who tore down the wall rose up against communism. Reagan, at best, cheered them on.

Same thing with Obama. What will be expected of him by his ancestors and relatives in Keyna for example and what kind of protection must they receive if he becomes President?

Anonymous said...

Something to read before beddie bye:

(CNN) — CNN has learned the 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union is poised to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for President.

Three sources familiar with the deliberations said union leaders met via conference call Thursday to deliberate on the endorsement issue. These sources, speaking to CNN on condition of anonymity, said Obama was the overwhelming choice of the union's state and national leadership.

Barring an unexpected complication, the endorsement could be announced as early as Friday morning, the sources said.

It would be a significant boost for Obama, including in the coming major primary battlegrounds of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Thursday afternoon, Obama received another major labor endorsement likely to help in those delegate rich-states, when the 1.3-million member United Food and Commercial Workers Union decided to back his presidential bid.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what type of protection his relatives receive when he becomes President, but in the meantime, I'd like to know who is paying for the extra Secret Service for Bill & Chelsea, jet fuel, room & board, meals, entertainment, massages, etc. And why haven't they released those much sought after tax returns. Those are questions that need answering.

Carrie said...

I don't see the parallel between 2006 Kenya - when it was lauded an example of hope, stability and democracy in Africa - and the current situation in Darfur. I understand that there is now a crisis in Kenya, and that we may need to step in in some way to prevent another Darfur. However, in 2006, the concerns were not about ethnic violence but about graft and ethnic politics.

My question is, could Obama's comments and negative exchange with the ruling party have exacerbated the rift between tribes? If so, was it worth doing so in the interest of pointing out an issue that was already commented on in their popular media - an issue that was, however ineffectively, being addressed in Kenya's political sphere?

If Kofi Annan, Kibaki and Odinga aren't able to settle the party conflicts and bring order and peace back to the people, by all means we should interject. I think it is crucial we play that role. I just wonder if we had a hand in creating the problem.

Carrie said...

I should add that I am concerned about the approach - a publicly televised speech - and the tone of his interaction with Ogego moreso than the virtues of his position.

Carrie said...

On Reagan's public calls - a president is elected by the country as a whole to represent the country as a whole. I do believe that grants him/her broader latitude in speaking on behalf of the country. Obama was a junior senator from Illinois on a recess fact finding mission who presented himself as a representative of the American people.

Anonymous said...

I think all caucuses need to be done away with. I can't imagine how it allows participation by working people. Most of us have to be at our jobs all day long - no time to spend a few hours at the caucus, would be too tired to after working anyways. Plus, caucuses only elect officials to the local conventions who then go on to the national convention. It seems very inefficient to me.

Anonymous said...

Re "CNN has learned the 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union is poised to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for President." and that he was the choice of the union leader. Well, we all know what that mean. One word; Nevada. Remember Senator Clinton took Nevada and the members of the unions decided for whom to vote for when casting their votes.
Let the people decide, not the union leaders nor the pundits on TV, nor the pollsters.

Anonymous said...

Hi dwit, you said that Obama "will do wonders for our reputation abroad. As a man who spent some of his childhood abroad, he is familiar with other cultures and their way of thinking." I have spend most of my childhood and teenage years in different country, following your flawed logic, i could be good presidential candidate too! How about Senator Clinton having more experience because she is actually a member of Senate Arm Committee!

Anonymous said...

I think the democratic party would be making a very big mistake nominating barack obama, because thats all he will be, everone i know who supports hillary says they will vote mccain if its obama, so this leave just one question, does the party want to elect a nominee or a president?

I too would enjoy seeing a black president come to pass, but unfortunately THATS NOT OBAMA, I need to consider the SECURITY of my family, and he has no idea how to deal with foreign leaders, makes promises which he cannot keep, talks a big game, but no substance, so if he wins the nomination, everyone should enjoy his brief lived spot in the light, but at the end of your day remember in massachusettes, new york, new jersey, florida, and california (which are full of ELECTORALS---not foolish petty delegates) had more votes cast for hillary, and we can choose mccain too, come november if we are unhappy with the superdelegates/ party decision, we as hillary supporters can easily stop barack obama we outnumber his supporters almost 2 - 1 in very electorate rich states!

Obama supporters talk big games just like him, but in the end you will be hoping hillary's supporters will follow
we do not follow we lead!

hillary versus mccain i choose HILLARY.
obama versus mccain i choose MCCAIN

and to those who suggest we (hillary supporters) need to convince to vote for hillary not against obama, your obama lost my state 2-1 and he will again in november too!(when it really matters)
you and obama will be crying for hillary supporters help later if you think you can just dismiss us,

Hillary supporters everywhere only need to realize john mccain is less of a gamble than barack obama!

Anonymous said...

i think that the resmuglicans love obama and obama loves reagan, barack supporters defend his statements about reagan, wtf are we the resmuglican party? lol

since when did we come to concensus that the resmuglicans had ANY ideas at all?

barack is the loser today he will be on election day to wake up before it's too late!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, just vote for McCain if Clinton doesn't get the nomination. I guess dwit is right. Clinton voters are republicans any way.

Makes me REALLY want to Obama now.

Obama/Edwards? Oh Yeah!

Anonymous said...

As a Hillary supporter, if Obama is the nominee, I will either stay home or vote for McCain (this from someone who vowed to NEVER vote repulican again after seeing what the republicans have done to this country--esp. GWB.) (I didn't vote for the little *urd because I KNEW him from TX when I worked for MADD and didn't like him then nor now.)

Anonymous said...

McCain/Clinton '08

Has a nice ring to it. Iraq will be the second Hundred Years War! Woohoo!

Go McClinton!

Anonymous said...

Yeah Kiga,

And George Bush has more experience because he is the President? Your point is?

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, just vote for McCain if Clinton doesn't get the nomination. I guess dwit is right. Clinton voters are republicans any way. "

Insulting Hillary voters will NOT Get Barack Obama Elected!

It Is Not Fair That People Who Fear For The Security of this Nation Under Obama To Be Called "Racist" Or "Republicans, anyway"
I Reject Completely That Bill Or Hillary Are Racist, I Watched As Obama Surrogate Michael Eric Dyson Threw Down The Race Card Against The Voters Of Hillary Clinton In New Hampshire, During The Coverage on msnbc of the election returns!

The First Black President Will NOT Be Elected By Calling White Democrats Racist, Just For Political Gain!

Obama Deserves To Lose He Fumbled Then He Will Fumble In Our Nations Security Too!

I Am Not A Resmuglican, Have Never Voted That Way, Not Once, But I Will Not Put The Security Of Our Nation In The Hands Of Someone With No REAL RECORD, No REAL EXPERIENCE!


Call Me What You Will I Do Not Care I Live In An Electorate Rich State, In Fact New York, Florida, And California Alone Comprise 40% Of The ELECTORATES Needed To Become President (Just New York And Florida Together Are 58 Electorates More Than Californias 55 --- Compared to 4 electorate for IDAHO, 9 for colorado,6 for kansas, DO YOU SEE A TREND HERE?)

Obama Should Take V.P. While He Can, In 4-8 Years I Would Reconsider Voting For Him, With His NEW Experience, Otherwise The Party Loses RELIABLE Democrats, Possibly FOREVER!

Anonymous said...

this link will show you what the Nominee will need!
It Is The ELECTORATE Map For 2008!

Just Compare Baracks Wins (OVER ALL REPUBLICAN VOTES)
Versus Hillary's Wins!
She Has New York, California, Massachuesettes, New Jersey, Florida(yes in november it WILL count), Michigan (yes in november it WILL count), Oklahoma, Arkansas, And Tennessee.

Barack Has Georgia, And Illinois, And You Call That A Movement? (check the primary returns, But Dismiss Caucus States, There is no caucus, in november)

Anonymous said...

Electorate map

Anonymous said...

p.s. the president must get 270 electorates

And The Superdelegates Of THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY Don't Get A Vote In THAT!

Old City Jim said...


It has been fun going back and forth with the Clinton supporters here. I appreciate the information, and admire the passion. I’m not changing any votes, and I didn’t expect to. In this post, I want to explain one reason why my mind is made up for Obama, and against Clinton.

Lies and the Levin Amendment

Her position on the Iraq War, her inability to admit the mistake, and even her recent dissembling on the reasons why she voted against the Levin Amendment indicate that she will say and do anything to be president.

It is speculative to say why she has acted in this way. Many speculate that, as a woman, she needs to signal that she is tough enough to be commander in chief. Of course, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Kerry, et al, don’t even have that excuse. Obviously, it would have been grossly unfair to judge Clinton based on her gender if her vote on the Iraq War Resolution had gone the other way. However, it is completely fair to judge her based on that vote, and all of her statements since then.

The main rationale for the war was the assertion that Iraq had WMD. After Iraq allowed U.N. weapons inspectors, any argument that the need for war was imminent, vanished. If we had simply let the inspectors complete their job, it would have become obvious that there was no need for war. It’s just that simple.

Not a Profile in Courage

Admittedly, in late 2002 and early 2003, the drumbeat for war in this country was incessant and overwhelming. I doubt that any Democrat could have stopped it. But no one can doubt that it was worth a try. A lot of good people have died over this little blunder.

The only hope of changing minds required Dems to stand up and loudly congratulate Bush for getting U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq without having to fire a single shot. Although this required thinking outside the Democratic Box, to praise Bush/Cheney, it would have been necessary. The praise for his “remarkable” achievement would have added force to the subsequent argument that war was unnecessary at the moment, since the inspectors were now looking up Saddam’s every orifice for those dreaded WMD.

A Vote for War is the Hope for Peace

Clinton’s recent argument that she had no idea that Bush would use the authority to actually take us to war is ridiculous. The only reason the U.N. voted to proceed with inspections and Saddam allowed them is that everyone thought that Bush/Cheney were big enough SOBs to actually go to war. Turns out the reason everyone thought that is because Bush/Cheney actually were big enough SOBs to take us to war needlessly.

Obama spoke out against the war in a way that was remarkably prescient, but he had no national prominence at the time. Carter spoke out, but he is too lightly regarded by those Americans who even remember his Presidency. The most prominent Dem to speak out before the war was Al Gore. He did so with intelligence, eloquence and extreme passion, but it was clear that it wouldn’t be nearly enough, even though he had correctly supported the first Gulf War.

“I Was Against This War from the Beginning” (NOT)

There were only two more prominent Dems who could have added their weight, intelligence and eloquence on the issue, and their names are Bill and Hillary. It was by far our most important foreign policy issue since the end of the cold war. It was the test of Hillary’s lifetime. And she failed. MISERABLY.

If she had acted in the way I have outlined, no one would have ever asked Obama if he was thinking about running for President. It’s hard for me to imagine what Dem would have run against her. In the event, she would have locked up the nomination more quickly than Kerry in 2004.

Not a Warmonger (just an enabler)

We will all be living with the consequences of this horribly misguided war for the rest of our lives, and beyond. The more immediate concern, though, is how Sen. Clinton’s vote on the IWR, and all of her subsequent comments, foretell what type of President she would be, and how effectively she could act in the office.

Even more immediate is the question of how successfully she could campaign against McCain. What I have said here is just one of the many reasons why she is so polarizing, and does not enjoy the confidence of so many voters. She is perceived to be a cold, calculating politician who wants power, and nothing more. Fair or not, that perception is unshakeable in the minds of so many. It’s why her negatives are so high, and why so many say they would not vote for her under ANY circumstance.

Don’t worry. I still have an open mind. I’m not a hater. I’m not the Democratic equivalent of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. I trust none of the readers of this blog are. Are you? If you are, please explain what issue or concern you have about Obama that is more important than War?

Anonymous said...

Old City Jim It's Nice To Have A Candidate To Attack Who ACTUALLY HAS A RECORD, HUH?

If She Had Obama's Record (Nothing, but REZKO) You Might Be At A Loss For Words.

Maybe We Should All Just Vote PRESENT?

Anonymous said...

when his war secretary says " Mr. President We Are Being Attacked, What Should We Do?"

will he say i dunno, but i am present?

Anonymous said...

I See Brack Obama Stumble At Debates Because He Lacks The Experience With The Issues That Matter To America, He Lacks The Wisdom Nessecary To Deliver His Pre-Written Promises, But When A Simple Question Is Asked He Says "uh, uhm" (i guess i just don't really know)

The Opposition against Barack obama IS NOT Racism, But I Dare Say His Support Is Completely Race Based, This Is Evident By The Superdelegates Being Pushed To Support Him Just Because They Themselves Are Black

Imagine If White People Called Their Congressman And Said Vote For Her Because She Is White?

Fools Talk About Uniting Us, How Dumb Do You Think I Am?

Barack And His Supporters Do Not Unite With White Democrats, They OPPOSE US!!!!!!!!!!


Anonymous said...

"I'm Ronald Reagan And I Approve Of This Message"

Anonymous said...

Chris Matthews Can Be Quoted This Morning On Morning Joe As Saying "If Hillary Wins Texas And Ohio She WILL Be The Nominee, Regardless Of Numbers"

That's Reality!

Anonymous said...

Before Rushing To Judgement On Barack Obama Being Electable Stop And Think How African-American Votes Represent 14% Overall (dem.+Rep.) Caucasians Voters Represent Over 80% Overall

Then The Math Gets Fuzzy Cause The Democrats Hold 45% Overall Vote With More Than 30% Of The Democratic Party Being African American.

But Take Overall Numbers Into Account Here Republicans Will Go For McCain, If Only 20-25% Of White Dems. Go With McCain, Obama And McCain Would Tie!

Then Add The Fact White Power Groups Come Out Hard With The N.R.A. Affiliations Against Him before november.

this coupled with barack obamas lack of record WILL drive many voters against him.

Just A Thought????

Anonymous said...

did anybody ever consider hillary has allready proven she can be president mathmatically! (electorate)

even if barack obama supporters are subtracted from the democrat numbers she wins!

why risk everything on barack after he was rejected by the democratic base?

Anonymous said...

Carrie im actually inteasted in your comment so im actually going to go read up on this Kenya thing,I honstly do not know much about.

As for the rest of your Obama haters, and smearers. Are you joking me? When you add white power? Hey I hate to brake it to you Hillary lovers. WHITE POWER will HATE HILLARY ALSO! Redicilous and ignorant comment. Again back to race poltics that costed Hillary this election. Thats all I have seen the last couple days. How racist you all really are.

Theres only two real reasons you will vote for Hillary or Obama.

1. You ok with the current policys of the last 2 decades, and think our goverment have done a good job. Obviously you think so, because you will vote for the two candites of the past. That have very simlar voting records. Ann Coulter supporting Hillary, saying that she is more conservative the Mccain. If you belive the current shape of goverment then Hillary, and Mccain are your canidites.

2. Your filled with hate. May it be because you are mad Obama stole the spotlight for your "obligated" candite". Maybe your just a racist. (viewing comment the last few days I think that may be true for some). Who knows.

But I can gurantee it's not because of the issues. Because on issues, Hillary and Obama have similar stances. I hope Hillary get out of the way soon, and support Obama. So we can end all this hate posting to the republicans. Which is ironic because that who all you hate poster will go. :-)

Oh also because Chris Matthews the man you just hated and smeared less then 24 hours ago, suddenly decides the rules of the democratic party? Im sorry its wishful thinking to say if Hillary wins those two states shes in. She landslide him there sure, but competes then wins most of the rest of the nation. Shes done. Hillary is on damage control, however I dont think it will matter much. Her institutional support is really starting to turn its back on her.

Anonymous said...


"did anybody ever consider hillary has allready proven she can be president mathmatically! (electorate)

even if barack obama supporters are subtracted from the democrat numbers she wins!

why risk everything on barack after he was rejected by the democratic base"

Divisible poltics as usual. Im starting to get used to it, but people that talk has costed Hillary the election.

First basic math skills make this logic flawed. If Obama has taken more then 50% of the vote, then actually you can subtract all the Hillary supporters and he has more vote then all three of them. However these are primarys, and really can not be compared to the primarys.

How is getting more then 50% of the democratic vote being rejected by the base? Why because there not old and white they should not count? Truth is the base is having problems accepting that its shifting. Alot of new voters have had enough of the situation we are in, and relize they have to vote. We can thank Bush for that.

But please do basic math skills before posting its not that hard. It just makes you guys look desprate.

Anonymous said...


i am not racist and calling me that is the very reason barack obama is doomed to lose in november!, why hillary's voters will turn tail against barack for dropping this race card against everyone who disagrees with obama!

will you wait till it happens to realize the insanity?

i am a democrat just like all other democrats yet you make me republican with your words then wanna beg for my support for obama in november g.f.r.

Protactinium said...

Im sorry I should proofread. That was a why you would vote Hillary then Mccain.

If you make racist remarks, Ill call you on it. If you are going to vote for republican, because of what I said. Im sorry for you. Im sorry that you vote emotionally, and not on substance.

As for all this NY will turn red, and other banter. Its really all just a fairtytale. Please lets talk poltics, and not how much you hate Obama, and how he can not be preisdent because hes black.

Anonymous said...

there you go again underestimating my intimate knowledge of my state electorate, in prefrence of an acussation for racist remarks, i provided statisticly based opinions you say i am racist whats your logic?

I Was Born In Upstate NY We Are Conservative Democrats - We Elected Hillary Clinton To The Senate In The First Place! - We Outnumber The Votes FOR OBAMA 2-1
Meaning We Determine Where Ny's Entire 31 Electorates Go!
We Can Work A Liberal DEAL With John McCain! As An Alternative To Barack Obama's Insecurity And Race Accusations!


And Why protactinum would you, try to stop users from freely debating, i don't intend to say he should not be president "because he is black", I Give Valid Reasons YOU DON'T LIKE!

MOJORISIN' said...

The Hillary people on here must have complained so NOW no one can sign in anonymous, I had to take extra time to go sign up on google, etc. etc.

How typical. See this is the kind of thing you can expect from Billary. More work than necessary and accomplishes nothing.

Anonymous said...

I Will Of Course Chuckle in your honor WITH My Black Spouse For Being Called Racist(who also supports hillary DUE TO THIS DIVIDE), When New York Turns Red In Your Face Along With Florida Thats 58 Electorals For McCain

Tokar said...

New poll out of Texas from PRnewswire:
49% - Clinton
41% - Obama

I was reading one of the earlier posts and he makes a very good, a VERY good point about Obama. (im a Hillary supporter by the way).

If Obama gets the nomination there is a better chance for a larger majority in the congress and senate, a MUCH better chance.
It is a double edged sword really...

Give Hillary the nomination, get better policy, or give Obama the nomination and get a better majority in the Senate and congress.

Why does Obama present a bigger majority on congress? Well he is bringing out new voters in droves...and not only in the blue states like NY,NJ,CA,IL,MD,etc. He is brining out the under-the-rock voters in the red states and in impressive fashion.

According to Senate predictions the following states are tossups or "leans" one way or another:

Virginia (leans D/favored D)
Louisiana (tossup/leans D)
New Mexico (tossup/leans D)
Colorado (tossup/leans D)
New Hampshire (tossup/leans D)
Maine (tossup/leans R)
Montana (tossup/leans R)
Oregon (tossup/leans R)
Alaska (tossup/leans R)
Mississippi (leans R)

Out of those states Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana could REALLLLLLY be helped by the large african american vote if they can be swayed in favor of Obama. Help from Obamacans too...
Oregon, and Montana have yet to vote, so nothing can be said about the prospect of Obamacans.

Alaska, Maine, and Colorado saw record democratic votersand were won by Obama.

New Hampshire probably won't be affected all that much, but its not terrible important since Shaheen is starting to surge in New Hampshire. She has a 3 point lead in some polls.

New Mexico...same situation as New Hampshire I guess...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1040   Newer› Newest»