Obama Memo: I'm Electable, Baby

Please. This far out all of these polls are meaningless. The press has given Obama a free ride because of their hatred of the Clintons. Now that Saint John has a chance to win, Obama will be destroyed by the Republicans and the press. He has no idea what is about to hit him.

Posted by Teresa | February 8, 2008 1:59 PM

Teresa: Hillary's new slogan No We Can't!!

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 2:02 PM

Teresa: Would you like some dessert wine (whine?) with your sour grapes?

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:05 PM

We democrats nominated two uncharasmatic candidates with no appeal to the independents in the last two elections and lost.
Obama is the best choice for the Democrats in November because of his huge advantages among independents, and because pro-life Republicans are willing to vote for him.

Posted by Ni | February 8, 2008 2:05 PM

The Clintons have thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and he is still standing and stronger than ever. Yeah, the republicans will try to throw stuff at Obama, but it won't work...he's bulletproof...if Bill Clinton couldn't take him down with his smarmy race baiting, no republican will be able to thread that needle.

Posted by RKA | February 8, 2008 2:08 PM

Teresa-

The polls show Hillary, in all likelihood, would lose to McCain. That's before you factor in your very own suggestion that the media will make McCain a "saint" and, at the same time, exercise all their hatred of the Clintons. With that, she loses. Period.

Is it possible Obama could be slimed by the Republicans? Maybe, though I imagine the Clintons are going to use anything and everything in their power before going down in defeat. But there's also a chance that Obama can withstand it.

See the difference? Obama might beat McCain. Clinton will not.

Posted by Yes, we will | February 8, 2008 2:09 PM

Obama has gotten a "free ride" because there's no dirt on him except Rezko, which has been analyzed to death and found to be largely without merit. He's also gotten a "free ride" because he is exceptionally likable, and journalists are human beings too (though sometimes that's hard to remember!) His plans for the presidency in both foreign and domestic policy are extensive, detailed, and have been tested and vetted over the course of 18 tough debates against a highly competent and experienced opponent in Sen. Clinton. No "free ride" there to me.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:10 PM

Teresa-

The polls show Hillary, in all likelihood, would lose to McCain. That's before you factor in your very own suggestion that the media will make McCain a "saint" and, at the same time, exercise all their hatred of the Clintons. With that, she loses. Period.

Is it possible Obama could be slimed by the Republicans? Maybe, though I imagine the Clintons are going to use anything and everything in their power before going down in defeat, and leave little new material (to the extent that it exists) for the Repubs to use. But there's also the greater chance that, having vanquished the Clinton machine, Obama can take it from the GOP.

See the difference? Obama might beat McCain. Clinton will not.

Posted by Yes, we will | February 8, 2008 2:10 PM

The idea that Obama has gotten a "free ride" is frankly a "fairy tale". Obama has undergone more scrutiny in this race than any other candidate. The reason is because he was the new guy. So all of his past mistakes, no matter how far back, were considered newsworthy.

This is not true for the other candidates. Their past has not been re-examined. You can say it's old news, but the fact is that most people have lodged those memories in the back of their minds and haven't thought about them in a long time. When they are reminded by the press, it will have an effect.

So Hillary supporters, don't kid yourself. Hillary is not immune to these attacks. She will suffer just as much as Obama.

Posted by Mike | February 8, 2008 2:10 PM

please please please let this story win the news cycle rather than chelsea v msnbc (feminist alert: from the tears to being broke to now the daughter, hillary is playing the poor me fem card)

Posted by heather | February 8, 2008 2:11 PM

I have very strong feelings for Hillary. She's going to right many wrongs men have been perpetrated on the Sisterhood throughout the years.

Posted by Teresa | February 8, 2008 2:12 PM

Obama has barely had any negative ads run against him. He's barely had any hit pieces done on him by the press.

The minute he's the presidential candidate all his ties with Rezko will be dissected. Every bit of dirt in his past will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Then the attack ads will come. He's flip flopped heavily from his very liberal positions when running for the senate. Example of what to expect: "He said he'd decriminalize marijuana, now he says different - where does Obama really stand" (nice subtle jab at his past drug use in that one).

Yes, Hilary is the easiest to beat but if anyone thinks November will be a cake walk with Obama get real.

Posted by Jesse | February 8, 2008 2:12 PM

There are also many Democrats for Obama who will not vote for Clinton if she is given the nomination. They see her as an inevitable loser to McCain. To harp on any one piece of "baggage" she carries appears mean, but when the whole list is presented, the Republicans will eat her up. She will not maintain the newfound groundswell of interest and involvement that is in large part due to Obama.

Posted by Charles | February 8, 2008 2:13 PM

LEAVE CHELSEA ALONE, YOU BASTARDS!!!!

Posted by Chris Crocker | February 8, 2008 2:13 PM

The idea of using polls this far out to measure electibility is somewhat silly. The general is nine months away, and much will have changed by then.

If Clinton wins the nomination, though, the Republicans unify in their hatred of her, and any problems McCain might have in getting the base on fire is gone.

Posted by Curtis | February 8, 2008 2:14 PM

Completely agree, RKA.

Peggy Noonan said it well in today's WSJ here.

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:15 PM

Heather, I don't believe that Shuster's comments amount to Clinton "playing the poor me fem card" at all. I have yet to see her campaign take advantage of his thoughtless remarks in any way, although I do not rule out that they may do so in the days ahead. I would like to see Obama come out strongly against these comments because it stand in strong contrast to the way that Hillary did not come out against the comments by Bill after SC. Clinton supporters have a legitimate right to be angry at Shuster (and Chris Matthews as well.)

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:16 PM

Love the Peggy Noonan article.

Is she related to Danny Noonan?

Posted by Jay | February 8, 2008 2:16 PM

"She's going to right many wrongs men have been perpetrated on the Sisterhood throughout the years."

Ask the millions of poor, single mothers who have been wronged by our federal government giving the states authority to impose crushing work requirements and massively cutting funding for after-school programs and health care as a result of "welfare reform" (PRWORA). Wait, who caved to Republicans and signed that into law again? Oh that's right. The Clintons.

Posted by Yes, we will | February 8, 2008 2:17 PM

He's shooting the moon because his own memo projecting loses in Ohio, Texas and Penn. show him coming out ahead in the pledged delegate count at the end of the day.

The issue for him now is not whether he can come up with a higher number, but whether he can show dominance and to do that he has to win at least one of the big remaining primaries.

Posted by C.B. | February 8, 2008 2:18 PM

Jesse, don't you think the Clinton campaign has been exceptional in bringing up all of the dirt in Obama's past? Their resorting to drug, muslim, and race smears via surrogates shows they have nothing else - and it exploded in their faces. And Obama made a mistake in raising his hand at a debate, he has always been in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:20 PM

Sure, the Republicans are going to attack Obama if he's the nominee, but you are simply not being honest if you do not recognize that the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth venom that Hillary inspires among the "right wing conspiracy" is unique.

It's really funny the argument that Hillary supporters raise: "Yeah, the Republicans hate us and want to pummel us into the ground. But that has nothing to do with her. They do that to everyone!"

Yeah, right. The Clintons are just reaping what they've sown: inciting fury in huge swathes of the American electorate with their constant lying, scandals, vindictiveness, and cynical scorched-earth politics.

You become "battle-tested" when your strategy is to battle everybody.

Posted by Penelope Chen | February 8, 2008 2:22 PM

I'd say Shuster's comments re Chelsea are on the mark. Bill has always seen himself as a Big Pimpin' Poppa.

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 2:24 PM

Theresa, it seems to me from reading many blogs that Clinton supporters at this date *mostly* fall into 3 camps: 1) Those who haven't been introduced to Obama yet. 2) Those who don't believe he can actually bring about the change he promises. 3) Those who deeply admire Hillary as a strong woman trying to break through the highest glass ceiling in the country. You sound like a member of this third group, and it's this group of Clinton supporters whose motives I understand and respect. My question is why you are so strongly committed to having the first American female leader be someone who is so deeply polarizing and has so much scandal in her past as Sen. Clinton. Why not get behind a strong, uniting, scandal-free charismatic female leader who can win red states in the fall instead (Sebelius, Napolitano, McCaskill)?

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM

Hey Teresa,

How Ironic would it be if the sisterhood propels Hillary to the nomination, she loses to Mccain because she is unelecatble, and Roe V Wade is overturned at the end of John McCain's 1st terms because poor Justice Stevens ain't going to live forever.

The sisterhood may well end up shooting itself in the foot on this one.

Posted by RKA | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM

It's been obvious for a while that Obama would have better chances in the general election. Hillary wouldn't do as badly as some people have claimed, but Obama has far more independent and crossparty appeal, and that's what wins elections.

Posted by m | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM

Clinton did better Tuesday in purple state, up for grabs areas where the conditions most closely resembled a general election (that is, primaries instead of caucuses). In Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona and Arkansas, Clinton went 4 for 5, and Obama squeaked by in Missouri.

The fact is, unless it's a caucus we're talking about (and caucus conditions obviously won't prevail in November), Obama is a weak candidate -- very much in the John Kerry uberliberal mold. He simply hasn't expanded his base beyond blacks, affluent liberals, and younger, left-leaning, aspirational independents.

Democrats: wake up before it's too late. The Clintons have demonstrated a proven ability to win in areas that usually go GOP, and this has enabled them to defeat the Republicans in two national elections. Choosing far left process liberals like Obama hasn't worked before, and might even be a weaker strategy this time around, given Obama's utter lack of ability to win Hispanic votes, and his easily swift-boatable, McGovernesque positions on national defense. The MoveOn wing of the party attacks Clinton for triangulating on Iraq, but at the end of the day winning requires tacking to the center in a general election. Hillary -- sensible, strong on defense centrist -- will accomplish this far more readily than the extreme liberal Obama. NO WONDER Obama has mostly emphasized unity rhetoric rather than policy! His positions are the LAST thing he wants the media to focus on. Also, Obama puts California into play -- exactly what Democrats don't need this year if we're to play offense instead of defense. Oh, and it's obvious the Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against Obama. Anybody see Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ today?

I have a feeling Team Clinton and the media are about to expose The Great Myth of Obama's Electability. My guess is this memo from Obama is a preemptive first strike to get out in front.

Posted by The Obama Electability Myth | February 8, 2008 2:32 PM

All I know is teh Clintons have had their turn. America is not some Banana Republic with revolving doors for spouses to take turns at the White House.

Posted by John Rawlings | February 8, 2008 2:37 PM

I'm a lifetime Republican who went to his first political rally in 1984 to hear Reagan speak. Never voted for a Democrat, grew up in an upper middle class home with a bunch of conservatives who absolutely DETEST Hillary. Some of them are a bit ambivalent this year about McCain, but mention Hillary's name, and you'd think a firecracker had gone off in their ass. M, you have NO IDEA what's coming if Hillary's nominated. The only chance she'd have is if McCain was so stupid as to name Huckabee as his VP.

I plan on voting for Obama. However, if Hillary is nominated I'll try very hard to vote twice (against her both times).

Posted by Marc | February 8, 2008 2:37 PM

TOEM:

And Clinton won handily in California and New York. We could nominate my mouse pad as the Democratic candidate and he/she/it would win those states in a general election.

Your arguments are suspect, at best.

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:39 PM

Obama Electability Myth / Clinton Campaign Worker...

Thanks for coming out! And for free, too! That was really nice of you.

Posted by Jen | February 8, 2008 2:41 PM

Here's the problem with your analysis: it misses the point. Every Democrat that has voted of Obama, Edwards or Clinton, will vote for whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is. The question then, is will the independents and Republicans who re-registered as Democrats to vote for Obama vote for Clinton in the fall. All of the polling to date suggest the answer is an emphatic NO.

His message, throughout the primary, has been the same. Methinks he doesn't have to alter a word of it to appeal to independents in the general unlike Clinton and to a lesser extent McCain.

Posted by Keith | February 8, 2008 2:41 PM

I plan on voting for Obama. However, if Hillary is nominated I'll try very hard to vote twice (against her both times).

I strongly feel that Marc is one of MANY voters who feel this way. Case in point: my father. A lifelong Democrat, there is "no way in hell" he'll vote another Clinton into the White House.

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:42 PM

TOEM, do you honestly think Clinton can win AZ against McCain? Do you honestly think a dem can win TN after Gore failed to carry it in 2000? Do you honestly think a dem can carry deep red OK? Here are the Obama pickups for 2008: IA (+17 vs. McCain post-caucus!!!), CO, MO, VA, NM, OH. Here are states Obama may pick off: NV, FL, NC, KS (+Sebelius), LA, WV. I'd love to discuss what states Clinton can pick up besides probably NM. She has a good shot at OH, FL, MO, and possibly AR. I do not like her states lined up next to Obama's. The key for Dems is not the south, it's the midwest, and midwesterners adore Obama.

Posted by John M | February 8, 2008 2:42 PM

Obama is STILL for legalizing marijuana? Ouch.

I think its fairly obvious that Obama is going to be painted as the most liberal of liberals if he gets the nomination.

Hilary, on the other hand, has always been seen as someone who hugs the center. Her husband governed from the middle.

Obama's cross over appeal will simply dissapear after a succesfull ad blitz questioning his integrity and painting him as ultra Liberal and out of touch with Americans.

Posted by Jesse | February 8, 2008 2:44 PM

Jesse, you mean *decriminalizing* marijuana, which 72% of Americans now support (2002 Time/CNN poll)? Yes, Obama is still in favor of it. I wish you luck in the general my friend.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:50 PM

Hilary, on the other hand, has always been seen as someone who hugs the center

I loved her stance on flag burning. Very relevant!

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 2:51 PM

How do you ObamaNation people explain this?

ABC News
The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel?
Obama's Connection With an Accused Political Fixer Raises Questions

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
Jan. 10, 2008

In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.

Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."

This week, a federal judge in Chicago ordered the Rezko trial to begin Feb. 25.

Obama maintains his relationship with Rezko was "above board and legal" but has admitted bad judgment, calling his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer.

Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,5000, which the senator maintains was a fair market price.

Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times, "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe he had done me a favor."

Obama had known Rezko long before the house deal, calling him a "friend."

An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation.

"It surprised me that late in the game he [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state," said Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts.

In the wake of the Rezko indictment, Obama says he has given $44,000 of the Rezko-connected money to charity.

There is no mention of Obama in the Rezko indictment. Federal authorities say the investigation is focused on Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, identified in court filings as Public Figure A.

Posted by Frank | February 8, 2008 2:57 PM

After the failure of polls this year I put zero stock in what they say will happen 9 months from now. I do not believe Hillary is unelectable, even if Obama may have a few points edge at the present time. I too support her to break the bar on women achieving the presidency. I do not believe she is "scandal ridden" ( a ridiculous conclusion on the 90's when the Repubs tried to destroy her and Bill personally, financially, and politically is that she is "scandal ridden") and the more unreasonably arrogant and maddening her critics become the more strongly I seem to feel about her. I am not sure thats healthy but there you are.

I do also believe this is the one chance to elect a woman in my lifetime. With about 20% of people saying they will not vote for a woman no matter whom, with no other potential presidential candidates on the horizon (yes, I know all about Sibelius and other woman governors and I stand by my comment. Did you listen to Sibelius' response to the state of the Union?) people are always going to be torn over a woman. If she cries she is soft, if she tries to act tough she is mannish. Its a hopeless box. The fact that so many women reject her is depressing, but not at all unexpected. In my experience, the most damning criticism of women comes from other women. Sometimes I wonder if women deserve a woman president. African Americans have certainly come together around their man.

I really wish Obama had waited. I like him too but I have been committed to the first woman president for a long time, and the more Obama and his supporters attack the 90's, the 60's, the 70's and Bill Clinton the more aggravated I get with him. If Hillary says anything about him she is accused of all sorts of evil deeds and thoughts. He can waive away 40 years and the very successful Clinton presidency and get a complete pass even though thats not quite how I expected the man of hope and unity to get to be president (joining the Repubs in dissing Bill and the 90's). Moreover, his supporters strike me as largely arrogant, exclusionary (the nasty talk about baby boomers and the "failed politics" of the past 40 years doesnt make me feel included, welcome or accepted at all), not really very progressive at all (the constant threats by supporters to vote for McCain rather than Hillary if she is nominated: a capital crime in my book) and somewhat akin to a mob. I have always stood against the power of the mob because they are usually wrong and always arrogant.

Finally, in terms of electability, if Obama democratic supporters support Hillary if she is nominated, she will win. If they split off and some go for McCain, they were not true progressives anyway, obviously dont give a damn about progressive policies or the Supreme Court, and McCain can have them as far as I am concerned.
I think we will still win.

However, Obama will have my enthusiastic support in the fall if he is the nominee. We MUST have a Dem president. I am just sad that a strong, centered, super smart woman who would be better than her husband may well lose out. Can Obama supporters make the same pledge: that they will enthusiastically support whomever the Dem nominee is for the greater good our our country?

Posted by Jammer | February 8, 2008 3:00 PM

One last quick point: I know many many Republicans. Not a single one of them is even tempted to "crossover" and support Obama. They think he is way too liberal.

Posted by Jammer | February 8, 2008 3:01 PM

The reason for those poll numbers are twofold.

First of all a hatred of the Clintons from the right based on the fact that they are the only ones since Jimmy Carter to beat them in an election.

Secondly, the public doesn't know Obama. The mainstream press, and certain OBAMA PAID BLOGSITES like Drudge and Politico give him a free ride. So, to a large extent have the Clintons in the interest of maintaining party unity.

Everyone wants to believe the self created myth of Obama, and assume that he was found in a basket in the bullrushes just a few months ago.

But the delayed trial of REZKO, CHAIM, and ATA, will eventually proceed.

The public will become aware of the Black Supremist views of Obama's mentor Jeremiah Wright Jr. and the Trinity United Church.

The public will begin to ask about his maternal grandmother Maddie Dunham, who won't talk about (or to) the grandson she raised.

Perhaps they will wonder why the sweet old African "grandmother" the campaign provided for PR purposes, is not related to Obama except by virtue of being another wife to his grandfather who took over care of the children when Obama's biological grandmother left the family to become a prostitute in Nairobi.

Perhaps they will get information from the American woman Barack Obama Sr. took back to Kenya with him after abandoning his first American family. That woman, Ruth Atkins eventually left him because he beat her constantly. Perhaps they will find out that Barack Obama Sr., the "Dream Father" left a young wife and his child in Kenya before he ever came to America, and returned to them with a new "wife" some 5 years later.

Perhaps the fact that Obama Sr. was a bitter drunk who never even asked about Ann Dunham or his son after he returned to Africa and before he died in an intoxicated car crash. One of many he had, which previously cost him both his legs from the knee down, and various other afflictions.

Perhaps the machete weilding Luo youths wearing Barack Obama/Raila Odinga T shirts, who are slaughtering Kikuya countrymen in Kenya, and have driven 200,000 from their homes will come to light.

Perhaps the fact that Obama supported Odinga in Africa, hosted him in America, and sent political hitman Dick Morris to manage his election campaign will come to light.

Perhaps the "Million Person March" Odinga wanted to hold in Nairobi will be traced to Black Supremist Louis (X) Farrakhan, via Jeremiah Wright who honored him as an outstanding American recently, and Obama, Wright's protege.

Perhaps the refusal of the suburban Chicago police force to release an artist composite drawing of the African American who cold bloodedly executed 5 women in a South Side mall (even though they had exact description from a surviving victim), will be traced back to political pressure due to the fact that it happend just a few days before Super Tuesday. Major news outlets declined to even mention the race of the suspect WHO IS STILL AT LARGE and a threat to kill again.

Perhaps the fact that Obama thinks Canada elects a "President" as it's head of government will come to light. Maybe someone should ask him if he knows where Canada is on a map.

Perhaps the fact that he CAN'T EVEN PUSH THE RIGHT BUTTON when voting in the Senate will get a little more attention.

Certainly the Republicans will be all over this stuff to an exponentially greater degree than Obama's Democratic rivals have been.

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 3:05 PM

i thought obama said he wasn't a poll-driven candidate? so much for that.

Posted by jose | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM

The Chicago media has been extremely aggressive about searching for evidence of any favors done for Rezko by Obama. They have found nothing. Let me repeat, there have been no illegal transactions between Rezko and Obama, and nothing borderline shady except the house purchase. The various financials of the purchase are explained quite well by the article. Obama, who had dinner with Rezko perhaps twice a year as he was an important cog in the political machine, mentioned his difficulty in purchasing the house and lot to Rezko, and Rezko expressed interest in purchasing the lot next to the house. Was it "boneheaded" to decide to go forward with the transaction without learning more about Rezko's brewing legal troubles? Absolutely. Did it compound the error to later purchase part of Rezko's undeveloped lot at above a fair market price? Yes. But from this vantage point it sure looks like a single stupid decision to me. Compare it to Clinton's extensive scandal sheet or list of 17 seedy donors published in TNR, or to McCain's Keating Five role and flip-flopping on Bush positions and he looks like a veritable saint.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM

Sure, Jammer. A left wing, reactionary wacko like you hangs around hordes of conservative Republicans I bet. What a joke.

Posted by Marc | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM

"Reality check" for Teresa and others like her: I went to an all women's school, I've lead 'down with the patriarchy' chants, and I am NOT voting for Clinton. I am happy that she's running but I am convinced that an Obama presidency would bring a much better world for women in this country and woman elsewhere than a Clinton presidency would. If anything, the war-mongering and behind closed door, insider politics that Hillary Clinton has been a part of represents the worst of the partiarchy.

So don't pretend to speak on behalf of "the sisterhood". Hillary Clinton's campaign is not the campaign of feminism. And if you, Erica Jong, and Gloria Steinham keep trying to portray it as such, and cut women and men who support other candidates out of the feminist movement than you are hurting, not helping the cause of feminism.

Posted by former Deaniac | February 8, 2008 3:09 PM

Clinton's campaign is running behind Obama in all the states before March 4. Commenting on ad spending Howard Wolfson said, “I do not anticipate he will have any significant advantage in the March 4 states.” Okay, but 8 states, DC and the Virgin Islands vote before then. According to polls released today Obama is 15-20 points ahead in Virgina, a state her campaign said as late as yesterday it has a chance of winning. Clinton's campaign bought ad time too late in the contests through Feb. 12 to do anything but keep Obama's victory margins down a little.

I don't understand the anger surrounding Obama performing better versus McCain. At the end of the day, as a Democrat, I want the strongest candidate who can win in the fall. For right now however Obama has empirical data he can cite as to why he can win in November and Clinton does not.

Posted by Ben | February 8, 2008 3:10 PM

"Clinton did better Tuesday in purple state, up for grabs areas where the conditions most closely resembled a general election (that is, primaries instead of caucuses). In Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona and Arkansas, Clinton went 4 for 5, and Obama squeaked by in Missouri."

I love how (to a Clinton supporter) TN, OK, AZ, and AR are 'purple' but Colorado, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Delaware aren't.

Posted by BobP | February 8, 2008 3:10 PM

People don't trust Hillary

People trust Obama......

So don't get too hung up on policy details.

Policy means nothing if you don't trust the person speaking it. And they are very similar on policy.

Obama has more integrity than Clinton....Unless Hillary can undo that... She will be beat.

Further Hillary would have no credibility arguing the war against Mccain....Obama would

Posted by lubetkin | February 8, 2008 3:12 PM

It seems likely that a series backroom deals would favor the Clinton machine. However the better argument should be made that Obama is much more electable than Clinton, given the crucial Independent vote and his high performance in swing states and the South. However, the Clinton’s are established. For instance, they are apart of the DLC, a corrupt faction of the Democratic Party that accepts money from special interest groups and questionable organizations. The DLC strongly supported the Iraq war and NAFTA. Obama refused to join. Are they trying to gain more power by placing Hillary in the Oval Office. Make no mistake about it; the Democratic Party is suffering. What is odd is that if Barack Obama is elected, he will not only defeat McCain, but restore the courageous courageous ideals that drew people to the party in the first place.

Many people recognize Obama as something rare that most citizens never get to see, a president that can get the people to take part in steering this nation. He is a movement that could possibly change the course of this country for the better. He would easily be the front-runner if not for dirty tactics and an overall fear that the American people may actually have a say in this process. By giving away the election to a corrupt figure such as Hillary Clinton, people will understand that their party sold them out. Without the party having the courage to move forward with vision and integery, will they end up pounding the final nail into their coffin? Are we to stay in Iraq for many more years? The question is, where will the Obama supporters go who are not married to party lines? The implications may go a lot farther than throwing a vote to McCain.

Posted by Jess | February 8, 2008 3:12 PM

The Chicago media has been extremely aggressive about searching for evidence of any favors done for Rezko by Obama. They have found nothing.

Too bad the same can't be said about the Clinton's and Norman Hsu and Marc Rich. I laugh every time some Clinton wacko starts down the path of accusing others of dealings with shady characters. I heard Bill had a nice vacation recently in Kazakhstan. See how easy it is? And I'm barely trying!!

Posted by Marc | February 8, 2008 3:13 PM

I realize I am troll-feeding, but this is directed to Robert Ethan:SHOULD'T YOU BE OUT ON A LEDGE SOMEWHERE?

Posted by bougie | February 8, 2008 3:15 PM

First, a disclaimer - I'm a Republican supporter of McCain.

No matter what kind of dirt gets dug up on Obama, no matter what kind of liberal brush he gets painted with, he will NOT evoke the kind of response by the right (and parts of the middle) that Clinton does.

As a McCain supporter, I think that his best chance of winning in November is to run against Clinton. I also think that he doesn't have a very good chance to beat Obama. I *still* want Obama to win the primaries, just so Clinton doesn't become president.

As another measure of why Obama has a better chance than Clinton - I dislike Huckabee tremendously. If Huckabee were to somehow become the nominee, I would seriously consider not voting if he was running against Obama. If he was running against Clinton, I would vote for Huckabee in a heartbeat. Heck, I would vote for Buchanan before I voted for Clinton. Much of the far-right of the party feels the same way about McCain. They don't like him, but they'll hold their nose and pull the lever for him just to keep Clinton out of the white house.

Posted by Christian Buhl | February 8, 2008 3:18 PM

robert ethan is a hairless, odorless dwarf who lives in northeastern Minnesota. He's been banned from many a blog as well as quite a few public restrooms. he truly is a legend.

Posted by robert ethan rocks! | February 8, 2008 3:20 PM

I've noticed an interesting phenomena and coincidence...many supporters of Billary tend to filibuster about rubbish on blogs just as Hillary tends to filibuster about rubbish well past her allotted time in debates. Pure chance? I think not!

Posted by Ken Starr | February 8, 2008 3:24 PM

The rumors are that Obama's cousin and "long time friend" Raila Odinga is among the 5 Kenyan politicians denied visas by the U.S. for to "inciting violence" in Kenya.

U.S. envoy J. Frazer is also pressing for an international tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of violence in that county.

Great stuff for the Repubs if Obama's blood relative ends up being prosecuted for war crimes, with photos of the two of them together floating around the Internet.

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 3:24 PM

Jammer, I will strongly support Clinton if she is the nominee as well. I prefer Obama because I deeply believe that he is simultaneously more electable and more liberal and that "better than her husband," though true, just isn't good enough given the situation we face right now. A smarter, more competent, less sleazy, less charismatic Bill Clinton with exceptionally high negatives is not going to shake the nation out of its funk and lead it forward into the 21st century. And in passing I'll mention that Sebelius's SOTU response was pretty flat but in no way poor. She does much better in front of crowds and really, really well in the interviews I've seen. She hasn't gotten much play outside of KS and was clearly uncomfortable with the format. I believe it's nothing a little experience can't cure. I think her ludicrously high favorables and ability to win KS crushingly without abandoning any core democratic principles speaks extremely highly of her.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:25 PM

robert: is it true that you're a hairless dwarf in northeastern mn?

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 3:26 PM

Forget the independents. I voted for Obama in Colorado. I will vote for John McCain against Hillary a 1000 times. I do not need polls to know that most of my friends who voted for Obama will vote McCain.
Good luck DNC. You are the party of missed opportunities. You will find a way to mess this one up.

Posted by Alan | February 8, 2008 3:28 PM

Charlie Cook addressed the subject on POTUS 08 today. He see no difference today between Clinton and Obama against McCain, although he think Clinton has a lower ceiling and a higher floor and that Obama is a riskier candidate.

In my mind Obama is a general election disaster.

His weakness among older voters, Latino voters, and Jewish voters are gaps he has not shown he can close. He will not win FL.

He won't flip NV, CO, AZ, or NM as Democrats hoped to do.

He may have problems with working class white in PA and OH.

At the end of the day he will just look light as a feather standing next to McCain on issues of national defense and security. It will doom Obama.

Plus lets just lay it on the line. A lot of Americans will not vote for an African AMerican for President. The white guy will win.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:29 PM

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hu1q9MI4JTHR_27gg8FtQ6zvvFSwD8ULV7300

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 3:30 PM

Jammer, I will strongly support Clinton if she is the nominee as well. I prefer Obama because I deeply believe that he is simultaneously more electable and more liberal and that "better than her husband," though true, just isn't good enough given the situation we face right now. A smarter, more competent, less sleazy, less charismatic Bill Clinton with exceptionally high negatives is not going to shake the nation out of its funk and lead it forward into the 21st century. And in passing I'll mention that Sebelius's SOTU response was pretty flat but in no way poor. She does much better in front of crowds and really, really well in the interviews I've seen. She hasn't gotten much play outside of KS and was clearly uncomfortable with the format. I believe it's nothing a little experience can't cure. I think her exceptionally high, continuously rising favorables and ability to win KS crushingly without abandoning any core democratic principles speaks extremely highly of her.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:31 PM

In my mind Obama is a general election disaster

And we know what a feeble mind you possess, Dick Head Flatts.

Posted by Chris Crocker | February 8, 2008 3:32 PM

I cannot understand how people can think that hillary's phony centrism, her triangulation, will help her in the general election.

Why did Kerry lose to Bush in 2004? Because when the Democratic candidate acts like a Republican, why not go for the real thing? (and because Kerry, like Clinton, was unable to connect with people at a personal level and appeared untrustworthy and a flipflopper).

The same thing happened in 2000.

Bill Clinton invented triangulation, but he would never have won without Ross Perot... and he only beat Dole because Dole was a terrible candidate.

Hillary will be accused of flip-flopping on Iraq. People will think "I disagree with McCain on the war, but at least I know here were stand."

Obama can't be accused of flip-flopping because he publicly spoke out against the war before we went in (despite the potential damage to his political career if the war had been a success).

The main thing to consider, however, is that Obama touches people in a way we have never seen before. I was at an Obama rally in Manchester, New Hampshire and Chris Mathews (who was also at that same rally) was telling the truth when he said that if you go to an Obama rally and don't cry, you're not an American. I would say you're not even human.

The election is not a ware, a battle, or a boxing match. It's not about who is bigger, meaner, plays dirtier, or hates the other side more. It's a popularity contest.

Historically, the more charismatic candidate ALWAYS wins. without fail. consistantly. Think about it. Look back at every election in American history. The more charismatic candidate ALWAYS wins.

Posted by DB | February 8, 2008 3:32 PM

Also do not forget. Obama has had 2 months of press like no pol has ever seen in his life. It was a national media love fest. Only Hannah Montana got better coverage.

That is already ending as the race lengthens and it becomes more of a process story. Not to mention the media likes McCain too.

So Obama is doing well now because of all that hype. How will those numbers hold up? Probably won't.

Clinton on the other hand had 2 months of hellish press which seemes to be reversing. She was beating McCain last fall and into Nov., Dec. I suspect she could easily return to those numbers soon enough.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:33 PM

Lets not refer to any of the candidates as bulletproof just for today out of respect for the Kirkwood, Missouri City Council.

Let's tamp down on the rancor. One of these two (if not both) will be on the Dems ticket and we'll need to rally around them. They are both good, they both have flaws, they are both extraordinary Americans. Lucky us.

PS. You can't even guess who I'm rooting for but I'll tell you. I'm backing the US of A all the way.

Posted by MB | February 8, 2008 3:35 PM

Last note:

Obama's friend - the man he said he "saw socially on occasion" - Tony Rezko's trial starts on Feb 25, 2008.

The Sun-Times reports Obama is the "unnamed political candidate" mentioned in the indictment.

So come the end of Feb Obama has headaches and his challengers have all the ammo they want.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:36 PM

Only Hannah Montana got better coverage.

And given your pedophiliac tendencies, no doubt a subject you're well acquainted with.

Posted by James Dobson | February 8, 2008 3:36 PM

Last note:

Promise?

Posted by Chris Crocker | February 8, 2008 3:37 PM

James Dobson ... really classy comment there bub. Can't argue with substance so you accuse me of crap.

NICE.

I find most Obama supporters tend to be arrogant and childish. I assume you are one.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:39 PM

Dickie,

1) Can't carry CO? Did you *look* at what happened there Feb. 5? Did you see how he dominated both the urban and rural vote? Did you read anything about the extreme enthusiasm?
2) Can't carry NM? Either candidate will carry NM. Last I checked btw it was a 1000-vote margin with 17000 provisional votes out that are likely to favor Obama.
3) Latino voters. A bunch of analyses have been done that suggest it was mostly Clinton's locking up the Latino machinery in CA early that gave her her margin. Obama's much better results in other states support that theory. He won Latinos in IL, proving that as that group gets to know him they come to like him. I cannot say the same of Clinton for the youth vote or independents in NY. Obama just needs to cozy up to Villaraigosa and play up his support for *eventual* driver's licenses for illegals.
4) FL. I see Clinton's margin as nothing more than a result of name recognition. Look how fast Obama closed in the last 2 weeks in other states when he was able to actually reach them. I have yet to see a convincing argument that she would run better in FL than Kerry in '04.
5) AZ. McCain is the nominee, AZ will not be flipped period.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:42 PM

Fact: Republicans Can't stand Hillary, and she improves republican turnout and fundraising
Fact: Independents don't vote for her
Fact: You need independents to win
Fact: McCain is the best republican candidate in the eyes of independents, and does well with independents against hillary
Fact: Mccain Loses his edge against independents if he is matched against Obama, as they prefer him
Fact: Obama is increasing turnout, and moderate republicans are voting for him.

Who has the better chance to win?
Who has the only chance to lose?

You can vote with your emotions and argue for Clinton, but the facts are clear. Clinton is a disaster in the general, and could actually lose. Remember, she is not Bill. I'd love to have a woman president, but not her, at least not now, because she polarizes, which makes a close, nasty general election. Obama wins in a landslide, and the country can unite behind him and move on...

Posted by William | February 8, 2008 3:44 PM

Dickie, here's a full paragraph from the "unnamed political candidate" story: "The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating."

Do you ever get tired of lying and distorting? It looks exhausting. Back in the day this sort of crap might have stuck, but thanks to the internet I can show what a fool you are in less than a minute.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:46 PM

Dickie Flatts, despite his accusing others of being "childish and arrogant" is a consistent Clinton shill, distorting facts, outright lying, name calling, etc. The guy seems unhinged, frankly.

Posted by Nelly | February 8, 2008 3:51 PM

Isn't it obvious that the White House spokesperson would NOT be saying that Obama was more difficult for the Republicans to beat IF THAT WERE TRUE!!! You've got to be really naive to think the rationale for saying this isn't actually the EXACT OPPOSITE! The Republicans have been enabling the Obama nomination precisely because they know they will be able to devastate his "glass jaw" and his lack of proved handling of terrorism, etc.as too much of a risk in these times. Then there's going to be the leader of his "afro-centric church", support of Louis Farrakan, etc. etc....and some likely "orange alerts" at the convenient times. Everyone knows that Clinton would not be suseptible to such threats and the growing fears the Republicans will most assuredly instill into the population at having multiple wars being handled by a novice.

Posted by Mayo | February 8, 2008 3:51 PM

John M:

Newsflash. All states are blue states in a Democratic primary season. Democrats win Democratic primaries and Democratic caucues all of the time ... 100% to be exact.

If he underperforms among Latinos he isn't going to flip CO. Nor will he flip NV, AZ or NM.

As for Latinos, I am not making up the brown - black divide. There are friggin' books written on the subject and unlike IL's primary, Obama isn't going to have years to win these voters over and favored son status. Not to mention IL was not exactly contested.

McCain knows how to work with Latinos being from the west. He will also be able to gain some good will from his attempt, with Ted Kennedy, to reform immigration. Many Latino small business owners are receptive to lowering taxes. McCain can gain similar support as Bush. Meaning the west could hold for Republicans like it did under Bush.

As for FL. Obama's problems are not just with latinos. They are with older votes. He has put "all options on the table" with regard to social security, and his generational talk (ragging on the 60s for instance) doesn't help him either. His problems extend to Jewish voters who have problems with Obama. McCain will so well with these voters on his hawkish stance in the Middle East. Lastly the Cubans will vote for Obama in smaller numbers than they did for Kerry. Obama promising to meet Castro is a loser. Obama can't win FL.

Posted by Dickieflatts | February 8, 2008 3:52 PM

Nelly, agreed. I wonder if it's even worth responding to them, but I feel like it's valuable to collect the obvious, basic counterarguments to their lies in a single place.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:53 PM

I kind of feel sorry for the Clinton's. There caught in the middle between the Republicans (who have played dirty ROvian politics and a perceived saint, Obama)If they try to get into a Rovian style battle with Obama, saying things like false hope or misquoting him it backfires against them. However they had to defend themselves all during the 1990's against the republicans using these same tactics from a defensive posture. At this point If they really wanted to help the country, I think they should step aside and allow the healing process to occur with Obama. I think thats the only way this type of Rovian Politics/status quo since 1980's will die.

Posted by Emanuel | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM

Mayo: Nice use of logic. You also seem to be overly fond of parenthesis.

How old are you? Let me guess...15?

Posted by Bill L | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM

John, where did I lie? I didn't say Obama was accused of anything in regard to the Rezko affair. Not accused of anything YET anyway.

You never know what will come out at trial. Plus it is well documented that Fitz is famous for working from the bottom up to use the little guys to take down the pols.

So who knows.

If nothing else it exposes Obama has someone who has social ties to a sleazy indicted criminal. That isn't very "different" of Barry Obama, and sort of flys in the face of his no skeletons in the closet pledge.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:56 PM

Mayo, you should go over to the Republican blogs (start with townhall.com), go back into the archives a bit, and see the exact same case being made in favor of Romney a few weeks ago. They were absolutely CONVINCED that Democrats were saying "Romney lol" because we thought he would be tough to beat in a general and we are a obviously a unified machine capable of intricate spin. Republican pundits as a group simply do not have the degree of message control that you attribute to them.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:58 PM

For all you Clinton supporters talking about the Rezko connection, let me ask one question. Do you really want to talk about shady connections? Hsu, Marc Rich, Denise Rich, Peter Paul. Should I go on?

There haven't been any illegal ties from Rezko to Obama, period. Maybe everyone should see "Hillary: The Movie" and then make their decision. Oh, let me guess, that is all a bunch of BS, right? Anyone of you can go to http://youtube.com and search for Hillary The Movie and see clips pertaining to this documentary.

Now, if we want to continue this talk about shady connections, then please, let's do. If you don't, then shut the hell up.

Posted by Darrell Elliott | February 8, 2008 4:02 PM

Dickie, you know that was an incredible distortion. You must be a troll, because no sane human being would enjoy distorting the truth enough to do it all day as I see you do all over the blogs. Uh oh, Obama is the "unnamed political candidate" in the Rezko trial that's starting! Oh wait, he's mentioned in one paragraph as one recipient of Rezko's ill-gotten money and there's nothing that suggests he did anything wrong or had any idea what was going on. You were massively shading the truth of the situation through incomplete information and you damn well know it.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 4:03 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184952,CST-NWS-obama24.article

Posted by Pago | February 8, 2008 4:03 PM

Didn't Clinton's co-chair take money from Rezko? Face it, if your in politics, sometimes people get money and then they do something stupid. It happens to everyone.

We don't need more Clintons,

"Clinton (Bill) is just a mushy-mouthed
treacherous politician who’s given sex a bad name." -Hunter S. Thompson

Why don't people remember the "2 for 1" campaign that Billary ran under in their first election. We don't need more of the same. You can't view them as separate.

Posted by Jess | February 8, 2008 4:04 PM

Didn't Clinton's co-chair take money from Rezko? Face it, if your in politics, sometimes people get money and then they do something stupid. It happens to everyone.

We don't need more Clintons,

"Clinton (Bill) is just a mushy-mouthed
treacherous politician who’s given sex a bad name." -Hunter S. Thompson

Why don't people remember the "2 for 1" campaign that Billary ran under in their first election. We don't need more of the same. You can't view them as separate.

Posted by Jess | February 8, 2008 4:04 PM

Polls of this sort are suspect. They're too far out and the notion that independents are telling the truth prior to any of the general election
campaigning doesn't pass a smell test. The reality is that both Dem candidates will be going through all sorts of ups and downs and contretemps before they even get to the convention. By the time we have a nominee, a familiar guy like John McCain may start looking pretty good to folks on the fence. I'm also wondering if the Obama pitch about unity and putting an end to partisanship is going to fly in the general. After all, he's essentially asking the GOP to aquiesce. I don't see that happening before--and perhaps after--he's sworn in.

Posted by Ed | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM

10 years of Hillary's 35 years experience was as a corporate lawyer. And 8 after were as First Lady. btw do you know why Hillary wanted to have sex with Bill every morning??? She wanted to be the first lady. Obama vs McCain I'm voting Obama. Hillary vs McCain I'm voting McCain I always liked that guy standing up to the Republican party lines anyway.

Posted by Tyler | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM

Sorry for the double post

Posted by Jess | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM

I repeatedly see on these chat boards that Obama has no position, no platform, no experience and nothing but “biased” positive press. This is preposterous. I cannot tell you how many pro-Hillary articles I have read that are really editorials, though they pass themselves off as “news briefs”. For instance, look at the TIME magazine article on “Inspiration vs. Substance,” which, aside from repeatedly making a case for the mutually exclusive existence of these two things (that is, if you are a skilled and eloquent orator, if you “inspire” people and are articulate– that’s an indication that you have little else to offer but rhetoric. The real substance comes in a plodding, non-inspirational package), the article also inexplicably has a single photo of Barack Obama from high school in the 70’s. Not only does he look young and inexperienced (as most high school students do), but gone is the polished, slender statesmen and instead the undecided voter stares at a very ethnic, large-afro-ed, youth. I will stop short of saying this is a deliberate attempt to appeal to voters uncomfortable with “youth” or his “blackness” (neither of which are things that are immediately apparent about him when one sees photos of the modern day Senator Obama). Why was a high school photo used in an article not about his youth or high school days, you ask? Because the media is slanted every-which-way during election year and that’s just the nature of the beast.

For what it’s worth, there are many things I believe are to be admired about Hillary, and in a way I believe we have an embarassment of riches on the democratic side, but I also firmly believe that Obama is the better candidate to face down McCain, to inspire the country to roll up its sleeves, and to dispense with the bipartisan blood bath that has gone on so long. If you truly are interested in some facts about Obama’s platform, here they are:

Here is a 59-page BRIEF example of the sort of information available for anyone interested in finding out the individual facts about this candidate. There are websites and cross references within it if you care:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

While I agree that Barack is quite liberal, there is absolutely no denying that currently, he has more moderate and conservative support than Senator Clinton does. I personally find much to like in Clinton, and I actually understand why her supporters support her and find no fault with people who have done the research, read widely and fairly, and are civil when they campaign for and endorse their candidate. However, it is interesting to note that the things for which Obama is often criticized, e.g., “being too liberal” and having “too little experience,” the government’s OWN statistics refute:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

Type in each candidate’s last names and look at their voting records, the names and substance of bills drafted and supported, and basic biographical info .

Hillary is considered a “radical liberal” on the senate information website, while Obama is considered to be a bit right of that as a “rank and file” democrat. This designation is based upon their votes.

Although Obama has 11 years of legislative experience (5 more years than Hillary) his critics cry “no fair” only the national legislation counts. O.K., Obama has passed into law in 3 years (with bills that he authored or co-authored) 5 pieces of substantive legislation, while Hillary has passed into law in 6 years time, 6 substantive bills that she has authored or coauthored. He essentially has accomplished the same job in half the time. Although Hillary has about 26 bills that have become law, 20 of them are things like “name post office after Thurgood Marshall” and “Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.”

Here are the substantive legislation each has passed:

Hillary:

1. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
2. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
3. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
4. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
5. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Here is Obama’s:

1. the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
3.The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4.The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
5.The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)

There is a wealth of information on both candidates to be found if you really are interested in the issues and not in ad hominems and emotional attacks on the candidate whom you do not support. Vote the way you want, support whom you admire for whatever reason you wish, emotions, nostalgia, feminism, etc., but stop being dishonest about the other party’s platform and substance. If you want details, they can be found.

Posted by Joy | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM

Yipee, we democrats finally have a candidate that can actually win. Go Obama! He has brought more independents into the democratic party than any other candidate ever.

Posted by rosie | February 8, 2008 4:10 PM

HIT THE ROAD, DICK HEAD FLATTS.

A source in the Charlotte Police force names you as a sex offender. Why should we believe you?

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 4:10 PM

REALITY CHECK

Seven recent polls by every respectable organizations show an average spread 5.3%

Time (Feb 1-4)
Obama 48 (+7)
McCain 41

Clinton 46 (+0)
McCain 46

CNN/Opinion Research (Feb 1-3)
Obama 52 (+8)
McCain 44

Clinton 50 (+3)
McCain 47

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll (Jan 31-Feb 2)
Obama 45 (+2)
McCain 43

Clinton 41 (-4)
McCain 45

ABC/Washington Post (Jan 31 – Feb 1)
Obama 49 (+3)
McCain 46

Clinton 46 (-3)
McCain 49

Fox News (Jan 30-31)

Obama 44 (+1)
McCain 43

Clinton 44 (-1)
McCain 45

Rasmussen (2/04-2/07)

Obama: 47 (+5)
McCain: 42

Clinton: 43 (-3)
McCain: 46

Posted by yiannis | February 8, 2008 4:11 PM

Mayo and others,
It's worth keeping in mind that the "chief strategist Matthew Dowd" who you think is some kind of trickster pulling a fast one on us is the same Matthew Dowd who essentially admitted last year that Bush was a disaster of a president and that he deeply regretted helping Bush get reelected.

So it is highly unlikely that he is engaging in some kind of Machiavellian plot to trick us into thinking that Obama is the stronger Dem candidate. He seems to have seen the light, and may be simply offering an objective analysis (which stands up in light of the polls) on Obama's chances.

If you care to read what I'm talking about, try here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 4:12 PM

I wish the Clintons would just go away.

Posted by rosie | February 8, 2008 4:12 PM

The reason why Obama did so well with independents in those states highlighted in the memo is that they're liberal independents. There's some myth out there that independents are too "centrist" to join the Democratic or Republican party. The reality is there are many highly ideological independents, but that, for whatever reason, they choose not to register with one of the two big parties (in my neck of the woods, for instance, the Democratic party is associated with big city, ethnic machine politics, and I suspect many progressives are therefore a lot more comfortable registering independent). Thus, when faced with the choice of Clinton or Obama, your typical aspirational liberal who happens to be a registered independent naturally chose the more liberal candidate, Obama. Obama almost certainly will attract lots of liberal minded independent voters in a general election, and what this mainly will accomplish will be to pad the party's margin of victory in places like Massachusetts and New York. What he won't do is compete as effectively as Hillary will against John McCain for more centrist and culturally conservative independents -- at least not after the GOP attack machine is done defining him as Barack "retreat at any cost" Obama. It is such voters who are the key to electoral victory for the Democrats, as 1992 and 1996 showed us, because they concentrate in purple states. I know a lot of Obama fans don't want to face the music, but if Hillary convincingly takes Ohio, will you believe it then?

Posted by The Obama Electability Myth | February 8, 2008 4:15 PM

BTW, Dowd was disparaged and mocked by the Bushies and their ilk after his admission to the times. They even suggested that he was perhaps mentally unwell, and that maybe that's why he turned on Bush.

Once someone turns on Bush, they're banished forever. Loyalty is everything.

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 4:17 PM

People like Robert Ethan bringing things from Nairobi are referring to the wrong sources for their writings. If you are in college and write papers like the way Robert Ethan quoted people from Kenya in his essay here you will fail. And I hope Robert Ethan is a high school drop out.

Barack Obama is smart. He is educated and he unites people. Bringing the words like machettes etc into this site to poke unwarranted dirt to Barack Obama is tantamount to emptiness. Maybe that is how Robert Ethan washes his face in the morning -- by applying dirt to his own face. This kind of thinking resonates with lack of education and deep ignorance.

It is an empty argument that makes a middle school student fail in a debating class.

All rightfully thinking people agree that all those people who line up and listen to a charismatic leader speak, all those respectable people endorsing the God-send Barack Obama are not out of sync.

These people endorsing Barack Obama have high Intelligent Quotients (IQs) and they have been waiting for a change like John Mayer sings.

To say that Caroline Kenedy, Maria Scriver (Arnold's wife), Ted Kennedy, Opray Winfrey, Ethel Kennedy etc etc and Fulbright Scholar/music maestro Hubert Temba and other great thinkers are wrong in endorsing Barack Obama is to be out of one's mind and a symptom needing psychiatric treatment.

It is like saying Edison was wrong in his inventions. It is tantamount to saying that the one who invented pennicilin or prednisone or all those great thinkers were wrong.

The people who have endorsed Barack Obama have great minds. And they are right because they have great minds. They don't have the sausage-greed that Bill Clinton has, wanting to be in the white house for several more years so that he car "sscrew" more interns. That is greed. Sausage Bill should be room mates with Robert Ethan.

Great writer Hubert Temba has endorsed Barack Obama and many other minds. There is nothing wrong with picking the best person for the job of being President of the USA. It is a pity that geniuses are not from K-Mart or chargeable on a Visa or Mastercard.

Barack Obama is the God-send angel to save the USA.

Cut and final cut. Thanks to God for Barack Obama.

Posted by Upepo Mdogo Upepo Mkubwa | February 8, 2008 4:18 PM

Oh, and as an aside, I live in New Mexico. Hillary, despite the fact that this state (according to US Census) is 44% Hispanic (the ethnic majority in the state), is coming no where near sweeping New Mexico. It is neck and neck right now and there are several thousand provisional ballots from Rio Rancho which are likely to, if anything, favor Obama. Think about this, if there was not significant Latino support h ere for Obama, with the majority population, Hillary would have won handily. Someone said "well New Mexico was already primed to not vote for Hillary because their governor, Bill Richardson was in the race until recently". Ummm, wouldn't that imply that we were primed to not vote for Obama as well? New Mexico, despite all the pundit explanations, simply likes what we have read about and seen in Obama. Plain and simple. I would never be so audacious as to make some of the claims about others states as some of these commentators have been amking. Take it from somebody who lives in New Mexico, there will be no easy sweep in New Mexico by anyone---not especially McCain.

Posted by New Mexico Dem | February 8, 2008 4:18 PM

Clinton not only voted for the unneccessary Iraqi war she voted AGAINST Amendment 4882 banning the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas so she wouldn't look soft on terror. 98% of those victimized by cluster bombs are civilians and 1/3 are children. So much for Clinton's stand on human rights, she prefers cold calculating political decisions that might only benefit her career. Sen. Obama was against the war from the start and he voted in favor of banning cluster bombs in civilian areas. I prefer his moral decisions in these two very important areas rather than her politically aimed ones.

How a nurses association or any medical organization can endorse a candidate who voted as Clinton did escapes me.

Posted by Angela | February 8, 2008 4:20 PM

Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school in New York to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand. The Senator asks him what his name is.

"Kenneth."

"And what is your question, Kenneth?"

"I have three questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? And, Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?"

Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume Hillary says, "Okay where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is.

"Larry."

"And what is your question, Larry?"

"I have five questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House? Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And, Fifth - what happened to Kenneth?

Posted by Tyler | February 8, 2008 4:21 PM

From the Times:
Mr. Dowd does not seem prepared to put his views to work in 2008. The only candidate who appeals to him, he said, is Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, because of what Mr. Dowd called his message of unity.

Yeah. Sounds like just another Republican who's trying to trick us into nominating John Kerry 2.0.

Mayo, next time you show up, do your homework first.

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 4:23 PM

Obama voted 'present' on a bill banning sex shops within 500' feet of schools.

Republicans will LOVE that one.

I can see the poster now .... some lily white little boy and girl walking past a porno shop with their lunch boxes and some thug leerying at them from the doorway.

Soccor mommies will be running in the arms of John McCain to keep their kids safe.

Posted by Dicke Flatts | February 8, 2008 4:27 PM

TOEM, if Clinton can knock Obama off in a couple of swing states besides ME this month (I'd like to see VA or WI at least) and beat him *convincingly* (say +6 or better) in OH as you stipulate as well as TX and PA, then she will win the nomination on pledged delegates anyway, and I will be here on day one to admit that she richly deserves it. And I love how you are now using strict Republican talking points to go after Obama. "Retreat at any cost"? It's Clinton who suddenly switched from no timetable to a rapid timetable for withdrawal when it became politically necessary, btw.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm a lifelong Democrat, never even considered voting Republican. This year, however, if Hilary Clinton is on the ticket I would consider McCain. Some of you might think, a white male writing. No. 41 year old woman who would like to elect a president who, when the chips are down, has integrity, honesty and ability to think and make wise decisions based on the information at hand, rather than the opinion poll.

Posted by Sue | February 8, 2008 4:29 PM

I'm a lifelong Democrat, never even considered voting Republican. This year, however, if Hilary Clinton is on the ticket I would consider McCain. Some of you might think, a white male writing. No. 41 year old woman who would like to elect a president who, when the chips are down, has integrity, honesty and ability to think and make wise decisions based on the information at hand, rather than the opinion poll.

Posted by Sue | February 8, 2008 4:29 PM

I'm a lifelong Democrat, never even considered voting Republican. This year, however, if Hilary Clinton is on the ticket I would consider McCain. Some of you might think, a white male writing. No. 41 year old woman who would like to elect a president who, when the chips are down, has integrity, honesty and ability to think and make wise decisions based on the information at hand, rather than the opinion poll.

Posted by Sue | February 8, 2008 4:29 PM

It isn't just the Syrian immigrant Antoin Rezko, that Obama has to be concerned about as the details start to emerge from the Kennedy investigation.

Rezko is just part of a Pan Arabic Politcal Terror Cell which infiltrated Chicago South Side politics. (What better place to practice corruption, eh?) :(

Co defendants include Abdulmuhamid Chaim, via Iran, Ali Ata from Saudi Arabia, with massive financial backing from exiled Iraqi billionaire, Nahmad Auchi (currently in London with France seeking his extradition to face corruption charges).

Obama is tied up with this Pan Arabic Muslim affiliation as surely as he is with the Pan African movement which includes Raila Odinga, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright Jr.

In Cousin Odinga's case he is promoting the cause of their Luo tribe in Kenya, as well as offering to facilitate the spread of Islamic Sharia Law in that country.

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 4:32 PM

I think it is interesting that the press hasn't gone after Obama for playing the race card. He has done so, far more than the Clintons - and the Clintons have worked for multi racial causes a heck of a lot more than Obama ever has a for a lot longer time.

He doesn't recognize his White mother and grandparents who reared him, he talks about "brothers" when he was schooled in elite "white" prep schools, not down with the brothers. He talks about his father being an immigrant, I think he meant a foreign student getting a Ph.D. at Harvard, and his poor single mother. She was twice divorced and also had a Ph.D.

This is easy information to find, highly verifiable. One of the reasons he stays away from the experience issue, is because he doesn't really have a very deep resume. He is an appealing guy in many ways, he is very bright, likable and well-educated, and his language skills are superb. However, he is also a very slick and crafty politician and has positioned himself as high grade teflon. The media is so wierd in the ways that is distorts and the funny perspectives that it takes. For instance, John McCain, is popular in Blue states therefore he is not popular with core republicans, Obama, on the other hand, who is popular in red states, demonstrates that he can appeal to conservatives. Same facts different message. The media is just so purposful in fueling a controvery that just isn't really there and doesn't really want to do a very thorough analysis. Shame on them. Are they afraid of being politically incorrect or are they just not very critical when it comes to looking at the evidence for their claims?

Posted by IB | February 8, 2008 4:33 PM

The USA has been a great country. But that can change. The Bible says in proverbs that God hates pride. And that pride goes before a fall.

Americans take things for granted. Americans think by virtue of being born in the USA they are the best in the whole world and anybody with an accent does not know the English language. Americans are so uneducated (watch Jay Leno's Jaywalk and you will witness people who do not know that there is a presidential election in 2008 let alone know the difference between New York and Wisconcin).

Many Americans are ignorant and think God chose them alone, and only them. That is why we have conversative and the christian right in the USA. And there is no place in any writings about Jesus Christ with credibility that points to right or left in God's Love.

Because we have demographics in America where some people practice wrong and do not have the instincts still alive that will tell them that they are wrong (the small voice within) they keep on thinking they are right all the time.

Then there is the will that is sacred that shouts from within to change things. And that voice has become so loud now. That voice is manifesting itself in Barack Obama.

This idea came from writer Hubert Temba in his new book THE SACRED WILL, soon to be published.

Thank God for God-send Barack Obama.

Let us all elect Barack Obama. God has spoken.

Posted by Upepo Mdogo Upepo Mkubwa | February 8, 2008 4:35 PM

FREE AT LAST,
FREE AT LAST,
ON NOVEMBER 4TH AMERICA WILL BE FREE AT LAST.

Posted by yiannis | February 8, 2008 4:35 PM

All those stories that the Clintons stole from the WHite House or trashed the place are baseless. False. Debunked. It is sad to see people bring up such urban legends here.

Some info:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_hillary_clinton_take_china_from_the_white_house_when_they_left_office

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0518-04.htm

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h021701_1.shtml

You have to be under 18 years old to be dumb enough to believe those old myths.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 4:36 PM

Dickie, Obama voted present on that bill because he supported its spirit but believed that zoning ordinances should be left to the local authorities. Are you going to be here all day with more distortions? It's ok, it's a slow day at work and I've got time.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 4:36 PM

I visit sex shops here in Charlotte all the time. They're an excellent way to relax!

Posted by Dickie Flatts - Charlotte, NC | February 8, 2008 4:37 PM

Take this and shove it Robert Ethan.

Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers
decided that a fellow black panther named Alex Rackley needed to die.

Rackley was suspected of disloyalty. Rackley was first tied to a chair.
Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among
other things, pouring boiling water on him. When they got tired of torturing
Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put
a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later found floating in a river
about 25 miles north of New Haven Connecticut.

Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black
Panthers? In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the
Killers was still in jail. The shooter,Warren Kimbro, managed to get a
scholarship to Harvard and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He
later became an assistant dean at an eastern Connecticut State College. Isn't
that something? As a '60s radical you can pump a bullet into someone's
head and a few years later, in the same state, you can become an assistant
College dean! Only in America !

Erica Huggins was the woman who served the Panthers by boiling the water
for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a
California School Board.

How in the world do you think these killers got off so easy? Maybe it
was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of
the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale
University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers
during their trial. One of these people was none other than Bill Lan
Lee.

Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He is
not a member of a California School Board. He is now head of the United
States Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, appointed by none
other than Bill Clinton.

O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable
Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther apologist now
an assistant college dean? No, neither!

The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale
University at the time. She is now known as the "smartest woman in the
world." She is none other than the Democratic Senator from the state of
New York ----our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham
Clinton .

Posted by tyler | February 8, 2008 4:38 PM

Dickie,

No one is buying your distortions and grade school spin. Give it up man. Obama supporters are better informed. Take your spin to the Hillary blog where you can inflate your ego.

Posted by Jess | February 8, 2008 4:40 PM

Why won't Hillary Clinton release her tax records?

Posted by Richard Reina | February 8, 2008 4:47 PM

Two Points:

1. Dear Robert Ethan,
I thought we settled this already: Obama is Raila Odinga. And he is also a violent Muslim fundamentalist. And he's also secretly planning on disenfranchising all white people. This makes Obama exceptionally evil, but also quite impressive, balancing three lives simultaneously.

Rob, I hope your idiocy is intentional.

2. I am a 27 yrs old and am a registered Dem in NY and I plan on voting for Obama. If Hillary is the nominee, I will either vote for McCain or just sit back and try and minimize the importance of politics in my life. I know many Dems and Indies like myself.

Posted by aeli | February 8, 2008 4:48 PM

Jess has got it right: "It seems likely that a series backroom deals would favor the Clinton machine. However the better argument should be made that Obama is much more electable than Clinton, given the crucial Independent vote and his high performance in swing states and the South."

Both Democratic and Republican parties are soul searching – searching for the soul of their respective party. The Democratic choice: Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, but not both. The Republicans: John McCain, so far. Times have changed, the parties want new leadership, new leaders. Barack Obama is a new leader with a new soul, a new vision. John McCain is an old leader with an old soul. Stay the course? Hillary Clinton, is Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is like Poison Ivy; with her, you know what you're going to get: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 8, 2008 4:48 PM

IB,
Barack Obama scarcely forgets or neglects his mother; he talks about her a lot and clearly misses her a great deal.
The Punahou School which he attended is not a "white" school, nor was it at the time:
The 1,200 students at Punahou were a diverse group when he graduated in 1979, mostly white, Asian, Hawaiian, or a mix thereof. Common names that follow Obama's in the school yearbook's index include O'Connor, Okamoto, Oshiro and O'Sullivan. - Honolulu Advertiser
He was one of only a few black students, but I'm not sure how that means he shouldn't use the term "brother" or consider himself an African-American. And I think his years working on the South Side of Chicago probably negated whatever overwhelming whiteness you'd like to pin on Punahou.

Posted by tinisoli | February 8, 2008 4:48 PM

I was a joke Dickie. You're a dumbass!

Posted by tyler | February 8, 2008 4:49 PM

Upepo--

I support Obama too, but the God-sent stuff is likely to turn people off. Just a heads-up.

Despite the fact that many of us believe in God in this country AND believe in democracy and intellectualism and all kinds of different things, most Americans are turned off the by the notion of a "God appointed" or "sent" leader. Even the Pope needs bishop votes to make it into the Vatican. Let's keep it real. This race will be about qualifications (as long as the populace and not superdelegates make the decision), not anointments from God, smear campaigns, or any other crap-ola that is being peddled on these boards. Aren't we fortunate that the frontrunners are all US Senators? That means we can actually go on the congressional website and see if what they say they believe translates into what they do?!!! Look at their voting records, read their legislation, go to their individual websites and look up their policy pdfs. All 3 have this info available. Make an informed choice. If I read one more post that attributes false positions to the candidates, or claims they have "no" position, I will go apesh*t! This is your country. Make an honest, informed choice.

Posted by Joy | February 8, 2008 4:51 PM

Upepo--

I support Obama too, but the God-sent stuff is likely to turn people off. Just a heads-up.

Despite the fact that many of us believe in God in this country AND believe in democracy and intellectualism and all kinds of different things, most Americans are turned off the by the notion of a "God appointed" or "sent" leader. Even the Pope needs bishop votes to make it into the Vatican. Let's keep it real. This race will be about qualifications (as long as the populace and not superdelegates make the decision), not anointments from God, smear campaigns, or any other crap-ola that is being peddled on these boards. Aren't we fortunate that the frontrunners are all US Senators? That means we can actually go on the congressional website and see if what they say they believe translates into what they do?!!! Look at their voting records, read their legislation, go to their individual websites and look up their policy pdfs. All 3 have this info available. Make an informed choice. If I read one more post that attributes false positions to the candidates, or claims they have "no" position, I will go apesh*t! This is your country. Make an honest, informed choice.

Posted by Joy | February 8, 2008 4:52 PM

Rezko was not only a fundraiser for Obama and a financial backer on a personal level, the two families were close friends for 17 years. Obama was "groomed" politically by the South Side influence of Rezko, Chaim, Ata etc. Similarly he was "groomed" on a philosophical level by Jeremiah Wright Jr, a close freind of Louis X, and an unabashed supporter of the Pan African movement that demands loyalty of all black people "to Mother Africa". First and foremost. That is stated right on the front page of the church website.

Obama's ties with Odinga go far deeper than tribe and family. Obama spoke out for Odinga when he was in Africa, and Odinga came to America for the kickoff of Obama's Presidential bid. When bloodshed began to erupt in Kenya following the election, and the relationship between the two began to emerge, Obama made frantic calls to Odinga to hold off on his planned "Million Person March" since it would have resulted in front page chaos on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. The Obama campaign made a show of calling Maui Kibaki as well, but Kibaki didn't return the call. Obama is seen as "Odinga's Stooge" in Kenya by the ruling party, and a divisive, disruptive influence in Kenyan politics.

A recent article in the LA Times by an African American international correspondent was entitled "Kenyans for Hillary" revealing that despite Obama's blood ties to the country, a large portion of the population associates him directly with the murderous tactics of their own "candidate for CHANGE", Raila Odinga.

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 5:04 PM

Robert: Odinga is neither Obama's friend nor a cousin in the usual sense of the word. He is from the same tribe as Obama's father was from. There is simply nothing there - Odinga has tried to take some ownership of Obama because of who Obama is - that's all.

Posted by Jay4Obama | February 8, 2008 5:08 PM

Mayo: No, I don't think the Republicans are saying this about Obama because they want to set up an easier win in November. I think they are saying it because they can't abide the idea of any possibility that Clinton could lead the States for the next 4-8 years. They are also saying it because when they look at Obama they see a leader that would be good for the country at this time, and you've got to remember that Bush - like a number of Republicans - isn't overly fond of McCain.

Posted by Jay4Obama | February 8, 2008 5:13 PM

According to the Book of Barack all will be well: fear not the Hillary Beast as she and her supporters, of which I am one, will be but burnt offerings on the way to a brave, new political world. Is he not the ONE? Has he not been selected by the Big O? Does ne not have the best abs? Chill. Relax. Exhale. Your time is now. Enjoy the ride.

Posted by MAD | February 8, 2008 5:21 PM

I am a strong feminist! It is stupid for any woman to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated consistently that she is dishonest to the core, and I will be afraid for all women if she is elected President. It wasn't enough to stand on her own record, she was willing to lie to women in huge mail distributions about Obama's 100% pro-choice and advocacy for women's rights in order to get their votes.
In just one month she and Bill have damaged and divided the Democratic party and regardless of which candidate is elected, it will take years to undo the internal damage. In addition, everyone knows that if she is elected, those who did not support her, or went against her will be punished. Two days after the Kennedy's endorsed Obama, Bill was on the campaign trail bad mouthing Ted Kennedy, a highly respected leader in the U.S. Senate, for many years.

Posted by Katy7540 | February 8, 2008 5:26 PM

I have to laugh everytime a Hillary supporter brings up Rezko. Like the Clintons don't have a tons of majorly shady deals...just a few weeks ago the NYT came out with that story about Clinton in Kazakhstan. Wake up, people! Imagine if he pulled that kind of stunt while Hillary was in office!

Hillary supporters can go on and on and on about how she has more "experience", a better health care plan, more vetted, etc. etc...but what good is any of that if most people in this country simply don't trust her? There is not much difference in their plans...the biggest difference between the two is in their character. I trust that Obama will do what is best for the country..I cannot say the same about Hillary. She voted for the war. When she had a chance to stand up and do what is right, she failed. Still, to this day she says she didn't know what she was voting for. She's full of it. She knew exactly what she was doing. She took a gamble with American lives thinking it would look good on her resume when running in '08. But it backfired. She chose personal ambition over what was best for the country.

That there is one of the many reason why I will never vote for her.

Posted by Laura | February 8, 2008 5:35 PM

Vote Hillary 2008!! Hillary will protect the Sisterhood! Any woman who doesn't like or vote for Hillary is an female version of an Uncle Tom!! She's ready, vetted, and rarin' to go on DAY ONE!!

Posted by Susan | February 8, 2008 5:36 PM

ALL THE people bringing the RACE question are stupid do not have an IQ for mathematics. Race has nothing to do with success and happiness!!

They better find another base of argument.

And unfortunately there is none left. It is all Normal Temperature and Pressure and all the laws of the Universe.

And race is not an argument. Basing an argument or debate on race is very shallow thinking indeed. Yes it is.

It may be indicative of thinking with the bile or intestines or something.

Look at the constitution. It is either in black and white or other color.

Take a feeling on fever or flu. You either get sick from the same germs or not. Germs don't choose race do they? The wind do not choose race does it? Hurricanes do not choose race, does it? I find out I am writing this to three graders.

Look at breathing. You either breathe or not breathe.

Look at heart beats. Your heart needs an electrocardiagram, echocardiogram or not.

I have never seen such stupid people as those writing here or voting in some primaries. And even voting for someone who will never save this country.

If Hillary gets the nomination you know I will vote Republican and tell my followers in my website and I have thousands of followers, go Republican, so the Democrats can remain in the doghouse with their chief chef Bill Clinton -- Bill will be making sausages and whoppers (Burger King Whoppers) here and there and change their bed sheets in their Motel Six room and service.

If the wrong person gets into the white house, this country is done.

If the right person gets into the white house, then America gets to where it belongs -- national/internal celebration and international respect.

Right now these things are lacking. That is why they young people and independents want a change and look up to Barack Obama for that answer. That is why Barack Obama will win in November.

The question of race is as shallow as an empty well of water in a dry desert.

You do not need a black or white quarterback to get your team to the playoffs. You do not need a black or white or Asian cardiologist to discover your heart murmurs. You do not need a black or white or brown president to save your rubbish from the angry oil countries' wrath.

You just need a good intelligent human being. And Barack Obama is a good smart charismatic individual who will restore good where bad has been rulling, relief where pain has been dominating.

There is a lot of more people with low IQs who vote in these elections or who write in these columns.

Maybe these people should emigrate to another planet.

Next time NASA should research about how to send unappreciative people to Mars and let those fools figure out how to free themselves. For they do not respect or even appreciate great minds, minds which work very hard to make this planet a better place.

Go NASA, find a place for these people who think with the minds of racoons.

And let us build this country. Let us make USA good. Let us get respect from every human on this earth. Let us worry about global warning after putting Barack Obama in the white house.

Let us go People.

Thank you God for bringing Barack Obama to this world.

Vote for Barack Obama positively in primaries, caucuses, the Presidential Elections in Nove
mber 2008.

Posted by Upepo Mdogo Upepo Mkubwa | February 8, 2008 5:38 PM

I, like many others I know, voted for Obama in the California primary even though our votes did not count.

They did not count because I did not register Declined to State. I registered Libertarian.

I will vote for Obama in November.

I will not vote for Hillary. The Clinton style of politics disgusted me the first time that family was in office. I dont want round 2. I'd rather vote McCain.

Posted by Edward | February 8, 2008 5:40 PM

I guess you stupids don't realize that OBAMA IS A BLACK. And you actually think he can be the PRESIDENT? hahahahaha PWN3D!!

People will only elect a president who looks like one. The Dems do not have any candidates.

Posted by Jeff | February 8, 2008 5:49 PM

I don't understand all the hate directed at Hillary. She is smart, intelligent and ..corrupt as are most of politicians are. She went to Jerusalem to kiss some b**ts to get elected senator, as do many other politicians from NYS.
Obama is less corrupted, may be. But he is THE change and I hope he wins.
McCane is old F88T. He is proclaimed a hero for killing innocent Vietnamese.He need rest.

Posted by John | February 8, 2008 5:53 PM

As I just mentioned in Matt's blog, the whole electability issue is nuts. I don't care what your daddy says he'll do or what your buddy the life long Democrat says he'll do. The polls don't matter a bit--they've been profoundly wrong before now.

Obama has lost the white vote in the direct primaries of all but two states that I can find (results posted in Matt's blog), New Mexico and his home state of Illinois. He won the white male vote in just two or three other states.

He's only carried whites in small caucuses dominated by white liberals in red states. He's lost the Hispanic vote, the Asian vote (important in California), the Jewish vote (extremely important in Florida).

The Republican candidate will be popular with swing voters, men, and will have a lot to offer Hispanics.

Anyone who would tout Obama as more electable when he's lost every single demographic except blacks has been drinking so much Koolaid his fingers are pruny.

Posted by Cal | February 8, 2008 5:54 PM

The future of global farming and food supply , we need to start right now developing alternative food producing Green House facilities , and Bio Algae production reactors , to alter the future of what will be a struggle that would be devastating to the human race . it is almost to late now , but we must try to alter the future path we are on . I would like to see and hear more about these issues from our Business as usual Presidential candidates . everyone acts like there is no concern for these issues , but the people they are giving awards too , about these issues are telling them we have these problems , but know one is talking about them , so when will we be told about these issues by the top officals so we can all get a understanding of these problems and get to work trying to alter the problems ???
The limited potential for land expansion for cultivation—only 17% of cultivable land produces 90% of the world's food crops[30]—worries Borlaug, who, in March 2005, stated that, "we will have to double the world food supply by 2050." With 85% of future growth in food production having to come from lands already in use, he recommends a multidisciplinary research focus to further increase yields, mainly through increased crop immunity to large-scale diseases, such as the rust fungus, which affects all cereals but rice. His dream is to "transfer rice immunity to cereals such as wheat, maize, sorghum and barley, and transfer bread-wheat proteins (gliadin and glutenin) to other cereals, especially rice and maize".[30]

According to Borlaug, "Africa, the former Soviet republics, and the cerrado are the last frontiers. After they are in use, the world will have no additional sizable blocks of arable land left to put into production, unless you are willing to level whole forests, which you should not do. So, future food-production increases will have to come from higher yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before".[19]

President George W. Bush congratulates Dr. Norman Bourlag during the Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony honoring the doctor's efforts to combat hunger Tuesday, July 17 ,2007, at the U.S. Capitol. Also pictured is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, left, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. White House photo by Chris Greenberg. Photo source

Besides increasing the worldwide food supply, Borlaug has repeatedly stated that taking steps to decrease the rate of population growth will also be necessary to prevent food shortages. In his Nobel Lecture of 1970, Borlaug stated, "Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the 'Population Monster'...If it continues to increase at the estimated present rate of two percent a year, the world population will reach 6.5 billion by the year 2000. Currently, with each second, or tick of the clock, about 2.2 additional people are added to the world population. The rhythm of increase will accelerate to 2.7, 3.3, and 4.0 for each tick of the clock by 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively, unless man becomes more realistic and preoccupied about this impending doom. The tick-tock of the clock will continually grow louder and more menacing each decade. Where will it all end?"[20]

http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/63001

Bio-diesel: Engineered algae the way to go
KA Cheah | Feb 5, 07 5:14pm
If Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) and all the independent power producers (IPPs) in Malaysia were to grow engineered algae as feedstock in bio-reactors at their power stations to produce bio-diesel and also bio-ethanol, our electricity tariffs need not be increased but could be reduced instead.

This is because the income from the sale or re-use of bio-diesel and bio-ethanol at these power plants could offset some of the cost of natural gas or other fuels being used by them to produce electricity.

The tapping of engineered algae to produce bio-diesel and bio-ethanol has the best potential of great success because algae is very oily (it has about a 50% oil composition), it is the fastest growing organism and it becomes very dense enough to be harvested three times a day.

It feeds only on waste gas such carbon dioxide and some nutrients and sunlight and grows very fast.

Complete algae to bio-diesel and bio-ethanol productions systems have been made successfully in the US, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. The absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) to grow algae and then produce bio-diesel has also benefitted the environment in terms of reducing greenhouse gases causing global warming. This translates into green credit points for Malaysia as well.

I would also like to point out that the Malaysian bio-diesel using palm-oil as feedstock is fine but be warned that it could become obsolete and non-competitive very shortly when out up against engineered algae as feed stock.

http://www.news.com/Want-alternative-energy-Try-pond-scum/2100-11386_3-6145197.html?tag=sas.email

Posted by Tony Wickenburg, Arizona | February 8, 2008 6:02 PM

Terresa isn't really "Terresa" but a Clinton plant who's using the same term..

"Obama will be destroyed by the Republicans and the press. He has no idea what is about to hit him."

..Over and over again in different blogs and message boards. Geez.

Posted by Zenophon Abraham | February 8, 2008 6:11 PM

Terresa isn't really "Terresa" but a Clinton plant who's using the same term..

"Obama will be destroyed by the Republicans and the press. He has no idea what is about to hit him."

..Over and over again in different blogs and message boards. Geez.

Posted by Zenophon Abraham | February 8, 2008 6:12 PM

Terresa isn't really "Terresa" but a Clinton plant who's using the same term..

"Obama will be destroyed by the Republicans and the press. He has no idea what is about to hit him."

..Over and over again in different blogs and message boards. Geez.

Posted by Zenophon Abraham | February 8, 2008 6:12 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

The future of global farming and food supply , we need to start right now developing alternative food producing Green House facilities , and Bio Algae production reactors , to alter the future of what will be a struggle that would be devastating to the human race . it is almost to late now , but we must try to alter the future path we are on . I would like to see and hear more about these issues from our Business as usual Presidential candidates . everyone acts like there is no concern for these issues , but the people they are giving awards too , about these issues are telling them we have these problems , but know one is talking about them , so when will we be told about these issues by the top officals so we can all get a understanding of these problems and get to work trying to alter the problems ???
The limited potential for land expansion for cultivation—only 17% of cultivable land produces 90% of the world's food crops[30]—worries Borlaug, who, in March 2005, stated that, "we will have to double the world food supply by 2050." With 85% of future growth in food production having to come from lands already in use, he recommends a multidisciplinary research focus to further increase yields, mainly through increased crop immunity to large-scale diseases, such as the rust fungus, which affects all cereals but rice. His dream is to "transfer rice immunity to cereals such as wheat, maize, sorghum and barley, and transfer bread-wheat proteins (gliadin and glutenin) to other cereals, especially rice and maize".[30]

According to Borlaug, "Africa, the former Soviet republics, and the cerrado are the last frontiers. After they are in use, the world will have no additional sizable blocks of arable land left to put into production, unless you are willing to level whole forests, which you should not do. So, future food-production increases will have to come from higher yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before".[19]

President George W. Bush congratulates Dr. Norman Bourlag during the Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony honoring the doctor's efforts to combat hunger Tuesday, July 17 ,2007, at the U.S. Capitol. Also pictured is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, left, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. White House photo by Chris Greenberg. Photo source

Besides increasing the worldwide food supply, Borlaug has repeatedly stated that taking steps to decrease the rate of population growth will also be necessary to prevent food shortages. In his Nobel Lecture of 1970, Borlaug stated, "Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the 'Population Monster'...If it continues to increase at the estimated present rate of two percent a year, the world population will reach 6.5 billion by the year 2000. Currently, with each second, or tick of the clock, about 2.2 additional people are added to the world population. The rhythm of increase will accelerate to 2.7, 3.3, and 4.0 for each tick of the clock by 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively, unless man becomes more realistic and preoccupied about this impending doom. The tick-tock of the clock will continually grow louder and more menacing each decade. Where will it all end?"[20]

Posted by Tony Wickenburg, Arizona | February 8, 2008 6:12 PM

Why won't Hillary Clinton release her tax records until after the primary?

Posted by Richard Reina | February 8, 2008 6:15 PM

I feel like Hillary supporters do whatever they can to ignore the fact that Hillary has voted for the Iraq war several times. That is a shame to the democratic party because there is a lot of blood & money on that vote. Sure, it would be great to see a woman president because they have been oppressed in the past, but compared to African Americans, women have had it much better (not that race and gender should be a determining factor anyways... but unfortunately people usually identify themselves heavily along these lines). And lastly, as someone who studies writing & rhetoric, I notice how the Clinton strategists play the feminist card to the max (i.e. proclaiming to America in a somber mood that she had to loan her own campaign five million dollars). This persuasion tactic really stirred up the fact that men have had better financial opportunities in the past and to no surprise it worked because her campaign raised six million dollars in the next two days after that. Oh and- I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November.

Posted by Paul | February 8, 2008 6:17 PM

DEMs should nominate Obama, as he may win some southern [RED] states. Blue states will vote for DEMs no matter who is nominated. Hillary has less chance to win in any red state.

Posted by John | February 8, 2008 6:23 PM

You people can argue and write and write..but the truth will come out.

I am sorry for all of your guys. What is supposed to happen will happen.

Barrack Obama will win in every election.

Changes. Changes.
Barack Obama is the new President of the USA. And now the USA will have respect all over the world. There is no respect in Bill Clinton (the sausage maker at Burger Bing and Motel Six housekeeper and bed sheet changer.)

Hilary..where was Hilary when Monica was sucking Bill Clinton's Dirrck

Posted by Upepo Mdogo Upepo Mkubwa | February 8, 2008 6:33 PM

Terresa,
why don't go to the hot kitchen and help Bill Clinton flip the burgers. Bill is so greedy about stuff that he will do anything to be in white house again and have interns suck his COCCCCCKI.

Terresa, check Bill's pockets. They are full of sousages he wants to steal.

Posted by Upepo Mdogo Upepo Mkubwa | February 8, 2008 6:45 PM

Why won't Hillary Clinton release her tax records until after the primary?

Posted by Richard | February 8, 2008 6:52 PM

Obama '08 and if my Oregon vote in May doesn't give him the nomination, I won't be supporting either Dems or Repubs in November. This year will be a year where the Greens get my vote.

Posted by TheNumantine | February 8, 2008 6:59 PM

To all the Clinton trolls: Thank you for your recycled, debunked, and tired criticisms in all their glory. (I've got to admit you guys are good at thinking of new ways to make the same old ridiculous claims over and over again.) I just hope that you are being paid to do this on a Friday night; otherwise, you are a sad, sad lot.

Posted by just a person | February 8, 2008 7:21 PM

Hillary will EASILY win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvannia, just as she has won BIG in all the large primaries except for Illinois. It's hard to imagine a candidate who can't take big, Democratic base states winning the nomination, especially with Hillary now beginning to close the money gap.

Oh, and Chelsea is dominating this weekend's news cycle. I LOVE it!

To all the clueless Obamabots, enjoy your moment in the sun, because March and April ain't lookin' too promising for Obie. Hopefully some of you can will be placated with Obie as VP.

Posted by Hillary's Awesome! | February 8, 2008 7:39 PM

Someone recently asked: What does it mean when Obama says: “Change is coming to America”? To begin with, Obama does not accept funding from lobbyists. Lobbyists try to persuade politicians to vote on legislation that is in the lobbyist’s interest, sometimes even helping politicians draft this legislation. So, if a politician takes money from the lobbyist, this can leave the politician indebted to them. Barack Obama does not take money from lobbyists. He also has authorized the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act which allows public access to a database that shows where and how the lobbyists’ money is being spent and who is spending it. This is exemplary of his desire to change the way that Washington works. Another form of change that Obama feels strongly about is changing the health care system. Obama’s mother died of cancer. Her insurance company dropped her from the policy, considering the condition “pre-existing” when she so desperately needed their help. Obama has worked with Democrats and Republicans in the Illinois State Senate to expand health care to over 150,000 parents and children. He wants to lower the premiums on insurance for those who are currently paying and to make the insurance available to the currently uninsured. He will take the money from the expiring Bush tax cuts for people who earn over $250,000/yr to accomplish this. He wants to increase competition in the insurance and drug markets as well as to adopt standards-based electronic health information systems, which will make the healthcare system more efficient, less costly, and easier to coordinate care. Obama also wants to give incentives to companies that keep their businesses in the United States. He has advocated for workers who have had their jobs taken away from them. These are just a few examples of the “change” that Barack Obama is referring to. Obama is genuine and he is a uniter. It is time for the days of old-school, double-talk politics to be over. It is time for “A Change We Can Believe In!”
-Jennifer K. MammasForObama

Posted by MammasForObama | February 8, 2008 7:44 PM

There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

"Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Hon
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton’s bills are more substantive:

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it–the facts straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

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

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more."

Posted by Analu | February 8, 2008 7:45 PM

As I just mentioned in Matt's blog, the whole electability issue is nuts. I don't care what your daddy says he'll do or what your buddy the life long Democrat says he'll do. The polls don't matter a bit--they've been profoundly wrong before now.

Obama has lost the white vote in the direct primaries of all but two states that I can find (results posted in Matt's blog), New Mexico and his home state of Illinois. He won the white male vote in just two or three other states.

He's only carried whites in small caucuses dominated by white liberals in red states.

Whites in red states -- there's a demographic I'd sure like to win.

He's lost the Hispanic vote, the Asian vote (important in California), the Jewish vote (extremely important in Florida).

1. It's a Democratic primary, and nearly all of those voters will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the general 2. If you want to fret over Democrats losing minority groups, Hillary's overwhelming loss of the black vote is far more troubling for the general election than Obama's loss of Asians and Hispanics; Blacks vote at a higher rate than either Asians or Hispanics and are by far the most loyal Democratic constituency. 3. Not sure where you got the Jewish vote numbers (Jews generally have high incomes and would seem more likely to prefer Obama).

The Republican candidate will be popular with swing voters, men, and will have a lot to offer Hispanics.

Obama kills Hillary among swing voters and men. That's why recent polls show him beating McCain whereas Hillary is able to tie McCain at best. Hillary might be able to do better among Hispanics in the general, but Obama's lead among men and independents more than erases that small disadvantage.

Anyone who would tout Obama as more electable when he's lost every single demographic except blacks has been drinking so much Koolaid his fingers are pruny.

Cal, RKU, Sulla, whatever the fuck your name is, and whoever you work for, your argument is pathetic. How do we decide which candidate is more electable? Well, why don't we take a look at the polls (Obama does better against McCain in nearly every poll), the negatives (HRC = 48% disapproval, BO = 32% disapproval), the willingness to vote for a woman/black (88% will vote for a woman, 94% will vote for a black), and the ability of said candidate to attract men and independents (Obama beats Hillary among both groups, most strikingly among independents) -- the two most important consituencies for a Democratic victory in November. The more electable candidate? Barack Obama by a mile.

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 8:20 PM

As I just mentioned in Matt's blog, the whole electability issue is nuts. I don't care what your daddy says he'll do or what your buddy the life long Democrat says he'll do.

I'm not one to believe anecdotal evidence, but it's just too strong in this case. I'm a Democrat who won't vote for Hillay Clinton if she's the nominee, and I know plenty of others like me. I also know plenty of Republicans and independents who absolutely despise Hillary Clinton. I have to imagine that the majority of the folks who are honestly convinced that Hillary Clinton is the more electable Democratic candidate have never been outside of NYC or San Francisco.

The polls don't matter a bit--they've been profoundly wrong before now.

Hahaha. The primaries don't matter a bit now, we've nominated the wrong person before. Great argument. I'm sure everyone will stop using polls because they've been wrong a couple of times. The reality is that polls are a much better indicator of general election prospects than the results of a Democratic primary election.

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 8:40 PM

Hillary's overwhelming loss of the black vote is far more troubling for the general election than Obama's loss of Asians and Hispanics...

Surely you jest: No Republican candidate since Eisenhower (or maybe even Hoover) has stood a credible shot at taking the black vote. The ability to dominate this cohort in the primaries simply isn't all that critical to the success of the Democratic nominee in the general election. Moroever, much of the black vote in the US is concentrated in states that are either out of reach for the Democrats at present time (deep south) or are safely blue (New York, Illinois).

Hispanics, on the other hand, are fairly competitive between the two parties, and are found in large numbers in all the must win purple states such as Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.

Obama brings a classic blue state coalition to the table -- an alliance of college kids, Deaniacs, affluent liberals, and blacks. The problem is we Democrats don't need help with blue states. We need help with the economically vulnerable purple state white voters that Bill Clinton won in droves, and we need to dominate the Hispanic vote. It would also be nice to lock up the Asian vote, and here, too, Hillary is far stronger than Obama.

Posted by The Obama Electability Myth | February 8, 2008 8:41 PM

To you women out there wanting to elect HRC because this is the one chance to elect a woman in your lifetime, PLEASE consider the country, the citizens, the children and your grandchildren.

I would love to see a female president in my lifetime, but the right woman, not just the one that happens to be available right now. Please consider the difference between a Manager and a Leader. HRC has said she will be in control of every little thing in the government. This is an incredibly naïve statement. We need a Leader, not a Manager.

I hate to say it, but Obama's message that encourages us to take a step closer to fixing this country ourselves is the message that resonates best with me (and obviously many others). He is the one that thus far has helped rekindle that spirit of civic engagement and community that is the lifeblood of this experiment called democracy. He offers us all empowerment like we’ve never seen.

In the end, it’s not about choosing a woman just for the sake of choosing a woman; It’s about us choosing the best for US!

Posted by susan | February 8, 2008 8:43 PM

3 words:

"It's IRAQ, stupid!"

And the win goes to? Obama.

Why do so many Dems want us to stay in Iraq? Are you actually naive enough to think HRC really wants to end the war?

She voted for the war every chance she had until she knew it was unpopular and she was running for President. Even then, she STILL voted to give Bush leeway on Iran.

Even if Hillary wanted to end the war, she doesn't have the political courage to face the consequences. She's have Bill "I opposed having sexual relations with that woman in Iraq from the beginning" Clinton saying "Stay the course" to the media for her in no time.

There are only two candidates (with a prayer of winning) left in the race who have had consistent positions on Iraq: Obama and McCain. If you believe in continuing this war forever, vote for McCain. If you don't, vote for Obama.

If you don't care about the people dying in Iraq, America's future, national security, or personal integrity, vote for Hillary!

Iraqnam is still the most important issue of our times, people!

Posted by Truthy | February 8, 2008 8:47 PM

If you look carefully at the person doing the "free fall" in Hillary Clinton's recently-released ad by the same name you will notice that it appears to actually be two different persons (check the hair color and clothes) spiralling towards earth.

This would seem to be emblematic of Hillary's credibility problem, which is in fact in a free fall.

And now we hear that she will not release her tax returns until after she is the Democratic nominee--if that actually happens.

Why does she want to withhold such information from her fellow Democrats?

It seems pretty risky for the Democratic Party to nominate someone who will not level with it.

Posted by MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | February 8, 2008 8:57 PM

For any and all hardcore bloggers that are still online on this Friday night, I ask a question. What do you think the chances are that IF hillary wins, she will ask Obama to be VP, and what are the chances she asks someone else.

Also, what are the chances Obama does NOT take Hillary as the VP b/c she is too divisive. Will he be politically forced to do it?

Posted by William | February 8, 2008 9:10 PM

Clinton has been tested only in the minor fires that the Republicans threw at her in the 90s. Want to see an insanely irrate and Clinton-hating GOP stampede to the polls in November? Nominate Clinton. It will be like Armageddon. The Swift-boat thing will have seemed like a picnic.

Posted by Nancy Grove | February 8, 2008 9:39 PM

Clinton has been tested only in the minor fires that the Republicans threw at her in the 90s. Want to see an insanely irrate and Clinton-hating GOP stampede to the polls in November? Nominate Clinton. It will be like Armageddon. The Swift-boat thing will have seemed like a picnic.

Posted by Nancy Grove | February 8, 2008 9:39 PM

Conservative here. Clinton hater. Commend those Dems who are finally figuring out that there is no right-wing attack machine and that the Clintons really are just as bad as we said they were. Welcome to the party, albeit a little late. To the rest of the Dems, what on God's green earth will it take for you to realize how contemptible these people are?

Posted by Colin | February 8, 2008 10:12 PM

"Jews generally have high incomes and would seem more likely to prefer Obama"

Um, excuse me, "asdf", but do you have any numbers to back up this rather disturbing generalization? I'm for Obama... but "Jews generally have high incomes" is not a good thing to say. Ever. Because we all know where it goes from there.

If you've got statistics, bring 'em. Otherwise, keep the dangerous generalizations out if you're backing Obama, please. We don't that crap around here.

(humorous and/or rhetorical generalizations without unsavory connotations are just fine... I like them myself)

And I'm not sure you're right about Jewish support for Obama either, given some of the attacks that have come out against him and how they *might* have played with *some* Jews.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/949364.html

Posted by Truthy | February 8, 2008 10:34 PM

I am a independent and will definitely vote for Obama. I have republican friends who are not only voting for him but campaigning for him. My parents who have been life long republicans are voting for him. I also have friends who are life long democrats who say will vote for McCain before they would put another Clinton back in the white house. Hillary has plenty of people who obviously believe in her, but she has an equal number who will do anything in their power to keep her out of office. Meanwhile Obama continues to inspire hope and respect

Posted by Jennifer | February 9, 2008 12:14 AM

Teresa,

I'm a woman and you are just gullible.

Strong feelings? What about thinking?
Voting for someone just because she is a woman?

How damn stupid is that?

Hillary has no better record than Obama. She has no better plans, either. She doesn't understand governance more than he does.
She did nothing meaningful while being First Lady and now she tries to take credit for things other people did.

She doesn't have a better chance to convince the Congress to support her plans. (Quite to the contrary, actually.)She doesn't understand the average Joe more than he does.

She had horrible judgment when it came to the war , she stood by when Bush and the war were still popular and she now lies about why she voted for the resolution so who the hell cares whether she is a woman or not.

Sisterhood? There was not and is not a Sisterhood.
I'm not your sister. I don't have anything to do with you or Hillary or other women other than my mother and grandmother.

There are only individuals who are not linked to each other by gender.

Posted by xyz | February 9, 2008 1:21 AM

Teresa,

I'm a woman and you are just gullible.

Strong feelings? What about thinking?
Voting for someone just because she is a woman?

How damn stupid is that?

Hillary has no better record than Obama. She has no better plans, either. She doesn't understand governance more than he does.
She did nothing meaningful while being First Lady and now she tries to take credit for things other people did.

She doesn't have a better chance to convince the Congress to support her plans. (Quite to the contrary, actually.)She doesn't understand the average Joe more than he does.

She had horrible judgment when it came to the war , she stood by when Bush and the war were still popular and she now lies about why she voted for the resolution so who the hell cares whether she is a woman or not.

Sisterhood? There was not and is not a Sisterhood.
I'm not your sister. I don't have anything to do with you or Hillary or other women other than my mother and grandmother.

There are only individuals who are not linked to each other by gender.

Posted by xyz | February 9, 2008 1:21 AM

Um, excuse me, "asdf", but do you have any numbers to back up this rather disturbing generalization? I'm for Obama... but "Jews generally have high incomes" is not a good thing to say. Ever. Because we all know where it goes from there.

No, I don't. Why don't you tell me "where it goes from here"? Ridiculous. That's a simple statement of fact -- quit being so over-sensitive. The median income for American Jews is twice the national average. That would seemingly put them squarely within Obama's camp. Now, a lot of Jews live in NY, MA, and FL, so they may in fact be Clinton voters. But either way, nothing I've said can in any way be construed as anti-Semitic, so give it a rest. P.S.: Did you know that Roman Catholics have a higher median income than Southern Baptists? Oh, horror upon horrors!!!

Posted by asdf | February 9, 2008 2:35 AM

The ability to dominate this cohort in the primaries simply isn't all that critical to the success of the Democratic nominee in the general election.

The ability to dominate ANY Democratic cohort in a primary election isn't all that critical to the success of the Democratic nominee in the general election -- which is why your argument is silly.

Obama brings a classic blue state coalition to the table -- an alliance of college kids, Deaniacs, affluent liberals, and blacks. The problem is we Democrats don't need help with blue states.

You've got that exactly backwards. It was Clinton, if you recall, that won NY, CA, MA, and NJ. Obama won ID, KS, MN, IA, ND, CO, NM?, and MO. Moreover, she's won with primarily older voters and women -- two constituencies we don't need in the general election (older voters and women will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless). Clinton wins with Democrats, while Obama kills her with independents. Men and independents are the two most critical demographics for Democrats in the general election (for their growing numbers, Hispanics don't vote at particularly high rates).

We need help with the economically vulnerable purple state white voters that Bill Clinton won in droves, and we need to dominate the Hispanic vote. It would also be nice to lock up the Asian vote, and here, too, Hillary is far stronger than Obama.

The problem with this line of argument that you folks continue to use is that it attempts to extrapolate Democratic primary results onto a general election. Why don't we simply take a look at the match-ups? I hate to repeat myself, but you folks continue to ignore some very salient data: 1. 88% of Americans are willing to vote for a woman, 94% of Americans are willing to vote for an African-American. 2. 48% of Americans disapprove of Hillary Clinton, 32% of Americans disapprove of Barack Obama. 3. Obama wins more independents than Clinton in every primary he contests. 4. And this is the big one: Obama beats John McCain by much larger margins than Clinton in every recent poll taken. Why? Because indepedents don't like Hillary Clinton!

Seriously, this is not hard to grasp. There is not a single person on earth more hated by the Republican base than Hillary Clinton. Nominating her will unite the Republicans, send their fund-raising into overdrive, and forfeit independents to John McCain. The fact that you are incapable of understanding this tells me that you either work for the Clinton campaign or have never met a Republican in your life. And the fact that Clinton supporters have stooped to arguing that white people won't vote for a black man shows just how desperate you folks are.

Posted by asdf | February 9, 2008 2:57 AM

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS (IRAQ): 3952
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED (IRAQ): 28711
IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS (Rprtd-Estd): 71259 - 655000

Posted by Yiannis | February 9, 2008 3:46 AM

Joy,

Thanks for the government tracking website link. I've been searching for something like that for some time.

Cheers,

Chris

Posted by ChrisNBama | February 9, 2008 8:41 AM

These poll results show one thing. Neither Clinton nor Obama are ahead or behind McCain. All have both candidates within the margin of error. Because polls are estimates and not votes, they are tied given the closeness of the estimates (all are within a +/-4 margin of error).

Plus add the undecideds, and it is harder to predict. I'd say both look like strong candidates--or weak candidates depending on your perspective--against McCain given the tie between Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain in these polls once factoring in margin of error.

Posted by John | February 9, 2008 11:08 AM

All have both candidates within the margin of error.

No, they don't. The CNN and Time polls both have Clinton and McCain within the margin of error, but Obama beats McCain by 8 and 7 points, respectively, which is outside the margin of error.

Posted by asdf | February 9, 2008 3:26 PM

Most of the people have spent so many hours masturbating to pundit coverage that they have mistakenly succumbed to the belief that they are a> now pundits themselves and b> have powers of observation and analysis so unbelievably powerful that they can predict the behavior of over 100 million voters in an election that's 9 months away.

Seriously, the blowhard BS that so many of you spout on here is just laughable. That you regurgitate your favorite web stories and media talking points with such fervor is a sad statement on our political system. Go research your candidates, make a decision about who you're going to vote for and then cast that vote. But please, for the love of all that is American, shut the hell up about it.

We no longer care to hear about:

1. Your dislike for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, and your intent to be a party-deserting crybaby should your desired nominee not actually prevail
2. The 'tons of people' who are 'just like you' who will do exactly the same thing.
3. The 'tons of people' you know in the opposing party who will 'vote in numbers previously unforeseen' if Hillary gets the nomination
4. Memory-challenged Democrats who have forgotten that despite zippergate, the first 8 Clinton Years were some of the best in our recent history
4. Ann Coulter and her beliefs/opinions/"thoughts" on this race
5. Rezko or Hillary's $5M loan
6. Polls
7. Any color-assignments (Blue, Red, Purple, Chartreuse)

You all take yourselves and your personal political opinions (yes, personal: despite your overblown opinions of your personal political 'footprint', you speak only for yourselves) WAY too seriously. It's a sad commentary that all of you - regardless of which candidate you support - are such needy followers that you spend your lives trying to slam people you've never met (and never will meet) whether they're running for public office or simply trying to post an opinion/plug for their favorite candidate.

As much as most of you CLEARLY want to beat independent thought into submission (vs meaningful debate and thus meaningful voting) it is truly the hope of THIS voter that people execute their civic responsibility with a fully-informed mind and a Teflon-like resistance to the insipid and aggravating bullshittery that pervades both the media and the blogosphere.

Posted by CMikeT | February 9, 2008 5:12 PM

You've got that exactly backwards. It was Clinton, if you recall, that won NY, CA, MA, and NJ. Obama won ID, KS, MN, IA, ND, CO, NM?, and MO.

No I don't "have it exactly backwards." Obama attains his red/purple state victories via caucus, and Hillary hers via primary. She wins the mass contests, in other words -- the votes with the widest participation. He wins the contests where, like, 8% of a state's eligible voters show up at caucus. The latter are naturally more susceptible to being overwhelmed by smallish cadres of Very Enthusiastic Obamabots. I give him all the credit in the world for building a crack campaign machine staffed by highly effective shock troops. I just think such victories aren't as impressive as Hillary's wins in places like Arizona, Tennessee and Oklahoma. You know, primaries with mass voter participation, and I worry that we're all being lulled into visions of a 43 state Obama win in November, when in reality, as we all know, the November election much more closely resembles a primary than a caucus.

Posted by The Obama Electability Myth: | February 9, 2008 9:05 PM

Asdf;
your need to convince us of every little thing you hold true about the american electorate, obama, hillary and the feeding habits of republicans is pretty astonishing. How could you be right about everything?
republicans in NY state voted for Hillary. They crossed over and or stayed home. she won 70% of the vote. They don't hate her the way they used to in NY state. she listens to them. She serves them. One of the reasons the far right hated the clintons and demonized them was because they were centrists and stole parts of their message.
do you think you are going to switch a single Hillary person or anyone who reads a newspaper?
some of like obama but still won't vote for him.
some of us have slight problems with hillary but still won't not vote for her.
telling us we better vote for someone we don't want because you think it will be best for us in the end is kind of patronizing. But good luck with your little project.

Posted by Michael C. | February 9, 2008 9:56 PM

Obama Memo: I'm Electable, Baby

Comments (173)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives