Marc Ambinder (March 17, 2008) - Bottom Line: No Florida Revote = Blow to Clinton

Ok, so Hillbilly can't have a do over.

Can she have a makeover instead? Maybe she can come back as a black candidate (applying the one drop rule), and then sweep the Primaries?

Geraldoyenne would approve.

Posted by D | March 17, 2008 8:52 PM

It's looking like neither one will have a revote. A blow to Clinton, but: If she'd taken a stand on this last fall, I'd respect her for it even while disagreeing. As it is, she's just rewriting the rules each week to try and pull closer, and it isn't working. And shouldn't.

Sigh. When the frothing over Wright subsides in a week or two, can we just coalesce around the nominee?

Posted by Deborah | March 17, 2008 8:56 PM

Without a Florida re-vote, it is also hard to see how she overcomes Obama's popular vote margin as well...which though meaningless, the Hillary folks were hoping to use to convince supes to overturn a pledged delegate lead for Obama.

Posted by RKA | March 17, 2008 8:57 PM

The DNC is in trouble if they don't stick to their decision. The candidates and the states were told well in advance what would happen should they move their vote. It's fair to stick with the orginal decision.

Posted by linda | March 17, 2008 8:59 PM

The DNC is in trouble if they don't stick to their decision. The candidates and the states were told well in advance what would happen should they move their vote. It's fair to stick with the orginal decision.

Posted by linda | March 17, 2008 8:59 PM

The DNC is in trouble if they don't stick to their decision. The candidates and the states were told well in advance what would happen should they move their vote. It's fair to stick with the orginal decision.

Posted by linda | March 17, 2008 9:00 PM

Didn't you hear Hillbilly has a solution?

She doesn't want to play anymore with you mean folks . She is going to pick up her toys and go play with her Senate buddy John.

Even if she is not his running mate (Cindy and Vicki might both object), she intend to be in his cabinet.

Imagine her as Secretary of Defense.

Posted by D | March 17, 2008 9:02 PM

I guess Hillary's attempt to keep those black people off her lawn just failed.. poor baby!

Posted by zorro | March 17, 2008 9:07 PM

I agree that the primary is slowly reaching its resolution, so in the perspective of the g-e it is noteworthy that a series of polls released today shows that Obama's position has been weakening since Thursday's Wright controversy, both in primary polls (Gallup, Rasmussen) and in general election surveys (Rasmussen, USA Today, ...).

Posted by Dan | March 17, 2008 9:15 PM

I heard they received at least 1,000 responses from FL supporters of both candidates that didn't want a do-over. They mostly brought up 2000 and their embarrassment about that vote thing happening in their state and they wanted no part of that deja vu all over again.

It would have been a total waste of time and money, not to mention the rule thing. I think his speech tomorrow could be pivotal for him, for us, and for the super delegates to maybe, just maybe get together and move this thing forward. If anyone can give a speech about race it is Obama, being half white and half black.

Posted by clemo | March 17, 2008 9:15 PM

"Bottom Line: No Florida Revote = Blow to Clinton"

Unless the FL delegates are seated (by the credentials committee) to favor Clinton.

PS Kind of important, (isn't it Marc?) that the FL superdelegates will be seated for Hillary. Looks like Dean broke the rules (what does that say about the rest of his MI/FL penalty?). And that puts the lie to the current "Obama is getting all the SDs since blah blah" line. She's ahead in SDs and her lead will grow and they are going to decide this. And now, with Wright, they have excellent cover to 'overrule the will of the people'.

Posted by sbj | March 17, 2008 9:24 PM

Goodness Dan- So Obama dipped in the polls for a few days over the Wright mess. I guess the sky is falling. Check back in a couple weeks will you. Daily tracking polls show us nothing,

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 17, 2008 9:25 PM

Earned delegates? Great to see Marc Ambinder is buying the Obama propaganda.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 9:26 PM

Tim K, I suppose you prefer annoying Clinton catchphrases such as "automatic delegates" for superdelegates. Hilary's people started the propaganda game. (And guess what? Obama HAS earned more delegates.)

Posted by GH | March 17, 2008 9:32 PM

One campaign is downing qualodes and the other is popping the cork off of champagne.

Posted by sonya | March 17, 2008 9:33 PM

Somehow I think this isn't the bottom-line. I'm sure someone, somewhere will find ways to make this an even bigger cluster you-know-what.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 9:34 PM

Tim K = Harold Ickes

Or Mark Penn. I'm not sure which. Probably Penn. Tim K writes like a fat guy.

Posted by Sally | March 17, 2008 9:34 PM

Superdelegates is not an official term. They are PLEOs.

Obama has won more delegates. I'm not sure what "earned" is supposed to imply. Do we talk about Bush having "earned" electoral votes in Texas in 2004? Considering how convoluted these delegate allocation rules are I wouldn't use the word earned.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 9:35 PM

Sally:

How exactly does a "fat guy" write?

And I take the Harold Ickes comparison as a compliment.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 9:38 PM

She's ahead in SDs and her lead will grow and they are going to decide this. And now, with Wright, they have excellent cover to 'overrule the will of the people'.

Does anyone seriously think that politicians will override the will of voters? From my view, this is political suicide, and politicians tend to want to get re-elected.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 9:38 PM

I agree that the primary is slowly reaching its resolution, so in the perspective of the g-e it is noteworthy that a series of polls released today shows that Obama's position has been weakening since Thursday's Wright controversy, both in primary polls (Gallup, Rasmussen) and in general election surveys (Rasmussen, USA Today, ...).-Dan

And yet a CNN poll of Democrats (Democrats!) conducted over the weekend shows Obama with a sizable lead over Hillary.

You might as well throw some leaves in the lake and try to read them Dan, you'd have better luck being convincing.

Posted by Jake | March 17, 2008 9:41 PM

Jake:

You're cherry-picking the one poll that has good news for Obama.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 9:43 PM

This is really only a pseudo-blow. There is no such thing as the popular vote, but given any reasonable attempt to estimate it anyway, a Florida revote would not have been nearly enough to put Clinton ahead. So, the only real blow would be not having Florida on the calendar somewhere to buy her more time among those whose math skills are not great (e.g., 99.99% of the media, the remainder being Chuck Todd).

Posted by DTM | March 17, 2008 9:44 PM

Can we end this now. With no re-vote in Florida this thing is over, and i am getting soooo tired of the Clintons. End our misery...please

Posted by Nadeem | March 17, 2008 9:47 PM

Can we end this now. With no re-vote in Florida this thing is over, and i am getting soooo tired of the Clintons. End our misery...please

Posted by Nadeem | March 17, 2008 9:47 PM

Well, I guess now it's time for Clinton to step into the whole Wright mess. Her only rationale is that Obama isn't electable. But Clinton better be careful, she has been tone deaf when it comes to racial/gender issues. Who would of tought, Pelosi was right. Now, Obama has to put this Wright thing to bed and start his two front war against Clinton/McCain. He has to watch his poll numbers vs. McCain. They are going to take a beating in the next week or two but Obama has two good weapons Petreatus saying the Iraqi politicans are not doing anything, sadly the increase in violence this month and the economy is tanking and McCain has no plan for either the war (except staying) nor the economy (more Bush tax cuts.

But I do have a bone to pick with the media, when are they going to start calling Clinton the Huckabee of the campaign. Her group is older women voters, latinos and men only when she throws in be very afraid of the black guy tactic.

Obama needs to go back to what he did right in Vir, DC, Maryland and Wis. He needs to get his male voters backs, become par to Clinton on the women voters and pull in around 32% of the latino vote like he did in TX.

The older women voters will come back to him in the general when they realize that a McCain presidency has a chance of stacking the Supreme Court with 3 or 4 more justices thus overturning Roe. vs. Wade. Roe vs. Wade is the real last accomplishment of the feminist movement and they will die on their swords to save it.

Posted by sonya | March 17, 2008 9:48 PM

I have to disagree that this is a blow to Clinton. In an odd way, it helps her.

Were Florida to schedule a revote, Clinton would "lose" the delegates and popular votes she claims to have "won." She'd have to earn them back in the revote. And she'd almost certainly do worse in the revote than she did originally.

But without a revote, Clinton can claim that those Florida delegates and votes are rightfully hers. Heck, that's what a site such as Real Clear Politics does when it lists the "Popular Vote (w/FL)". Were Florida to revote, Real Clear Politics would have to remove that line and eventually replace it with new vote totals. That will almost certainly hurt Clinton.

A simple analogy: Clinton is in a much better position when she can complain that the refs blew the call and robbed her team of a touchdown. "That play should have counted! The score should be 24-21!!!" But as soon as the refs call the play back and replay the down, she's in trouble. Now she actually has to make the play. And the defense is pretty good...

Posted by JCB | March 17, 2008 9:48 PM

DTM--Clinton has a very real chance to overcome Obama in the popular vote and if he is ahead in delegates, but she is ahead in the popular, don't be sure he is getting the nomination, especially after the next few primaries are blow outs for her after the Wright controversy. America will stand up and defend this country over the remarks made by the hatemonger Wright. I'm a democrat, not some crazy right winger, and I'm sickened by the comments and Obama's association with such a man and his church. Handing him the whitehouse, handing his associates like Wright access to the most precious part of our democracy is an appalling thought now. So don't be so smug. the media keeps harping on delegates, but there is more to it than that. Florida was a win for Hillary and would have been again. But she can still surpass Obama.

Posted by Mary J | March 17, 2008 9:50 PM

Great news that Florida will not revote and that Michigan may well not either.

DNC, grow a spine. Rules are rules.

They knew the consequences of their actions. So, here come the consequences.

Seat the delegates, half to each candidate.

And let's move forward with due speed and pick a nominee, whomever it is.

Posted by kim | March 17, 2008 9:53 PM

JCB--I live in Florida and Obama lost here in January and would lose here again. The jewish community here in South Florida alone would insure a loss after the anti-jewish Wright mess. Florida is Clinton country all the way. We are the 4th largest state and we have a brain. We don't caucus. 1.7 million of us voted. Take that SC and Iowa and oh yeah, Wyoming. Obama is a balloon and the air is slowing leaking out.

Posted by FloridaGirl | March 17, 2008 9:54 PM

Mary J, Florida was not a win for Clinton, there was not meaningful contest held in Florida. The same goes for Michigan. Clinton agreed that these contests would not count, therefore she did not win them. Why is this such a difficult concept. And as for the 1.7 million that you are going to claim were disenfranchised, what about the thousands that stayed home because they knew their votes would not count? Or is one vote more "significant" than others?

Posted by Brian | March 17, 2008 9:58 PM

Good point about Petraeus, Sonya. Violence is increasing again over the last 2 months. And while the surge did help suppress violence, the whole point of that suppression--giving the Iraqi government breathing room to get its act together--hasn't happened. (As Petraeus admits.) So count on Iraq and the economy to move into major news coverage as we move into summer.

Could we make the economy horseracey? It's the rare writer who can make the economy gripping, but it's clearly the upcoming story.

Posted by Deborah | March 17, 2008 9:59 PM

America will stand up and defend this country over the remarks made by the hatemonger Wright. Handing him the whitehouse, handing his associates like Wright access to the most precious part of our democracy is an appalling thought now.

Hysteria.

There's no evidence to support any claim that Wright would have access to any part of our democracy aside from continuing to horrify us by exercising his right to free speech.

I'm pretty sure we'll all survive him.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 10:00 PM

Sorry Mary, she doesn't have a chance of winning the popular vote with out Florida. Unless she wins every state by 65% -70% which is highly unlikely. So you rather see Roger Clinton and March Rich in the White House than Wright. Guilt by association doesn't work unless you are the driver of a car during a robbery. So Mary, please take a simple math course and chill.

Posted by sonya | March 17, 2008 10:00 PM

Mary J,

RealClearPolitics has done the math (including estimates for the non-reporting states), and even including Florida as it stands (her best case scenario in Florida) she is behind by over 519,000 votes. She has virtually no chance to make up that sort of deficit given the remaining states, even assuming a solid win in Pennsylvania.

Posted by DTM | March 17, 2008 10:02 PM

This is a really terrible time for Obama. He has to explain his church and his relationship with the pastor in great detail. I am seeing it on these message boards; the very people who voted for him are starting to lose faith in what he offers the country. In case you didn't know it, this is OBAMA's SWIFTBOAT- this attack came directly from the Republicans and it is a good one with the ability to SINK his campaign. The thing you have to focus on IS because the Republicans have said this does it make it TRUE- does it make Obama a different candidate from the one you knew before. Was John Kerry different in his being after they ran the swiftboat ads? No, he was the SAME patriot he has always been. This country fell for Republican dirty tricks and lost the election in 2004. Are you going to fall for them again? Are you going to think that Obama HATES his WHITE MOTHER who gave him life and his WHITE GRANDPARENTS who raised him? Take out his pastor's inflammatory language and get to the core TRUTHS he is espousing. America has made foreign policy decision that have maimed and killed people living outside of this country (this is FACT). We are doing this right now in IRAQ. His pastor believes us being attacked on 9/11 was retaliation for our foreign policy decisions that have killed and maimed- think about it for a second- IS that assertion really so out of the ball park? Don't we WANT a foreign policy that is JUST for all of humankind? One that WILL ENSURE we are not hated enough to be attacked in the outrageous way we were on 9/11? If you as a white person can truly think for a second and try to join your black brothers and sisters (we are ALL HUMAN BEINGS) in this journey and I KNOW you have the decency in you to understand- BLACK AMERICANS have had to LOVE this country when it DID NOT LOVE US. This is the ULTIMATE ACT of love for your country. THAT is the BLACK EXPERIENCE. WHITE People do not have that UNIQUE experience. In the pastor's words WHITES hear HATRED because that has been your experience- to hate and terrorize black americans from slavery to Jim Crow. If you listen closer, you will find what you ACTUALLY hear is ANGER at being SOUGHT OUT for the bad things in country and being EXCLUDED from the good things in the United States. ANGER comes from injustices. If you dig deep into your souls, you know that we can address these SOCIAL INJUSTICES so we can become the HUMAN FAMILY. Whites seems to think Obama sat there day after day and absorbed HATRED or even ANGER- Have you EVER thought he sat there day after day and said I WILL REPAIR this breach of TRUST that has occured between America and its citizens AND Americans of different races. Obama has said his presidency could bring about racial reconciliation and he is abosolutely RIGHT but do you think it will be easy? Of course not, we as Americans will have to face some UGLY truths about America and then seek to stamp them out. This is our chance to make a MORE PERFECT UNION- one where Pastor Wright can ONLY say GOD BLESS AMERICA for the way she has served her citizens. Are you going to let the REPUGNICANS take this away from you? They WILL you saw it in 2004!!!!!!!!!!! OBAMA 08!!!!!!!

Barack Obama have the strength of character to weather this storm and CREATE A MORE PERECT UNION in the vein of the GREAT AMERICAN Presidents that have come before you- Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy....

Posted by Sidmore | March 17, 2008 10:37 PM

Hillary already knows she lost. Her plan now is to make sure that she "poisons the well" so that Obama does not win in November. That way she can run again in 4 years. If Obama won the presidency, she would have to wait 8 years for the nomination because Obama would automatically get the nomination as an incumbent in 2012.

Posted by Chris | March 17, 2008 10:47 PM

Hillary had her big donors threaten the DNC "demanding" their money back.

Obama'a supporters will replace the Clinton donor money for the DNC.

One email from Obama could raise the DNC $1,000,000… and another, and another. His donor list would also raise millions for close Congressional elections where the Dems could pick up many new seats.

It’s not just electability that compels an immediate Hillary withdrawal, but also major cash for the Democrats coffers.

The Superdelegates and Democratic professionals should understand that Obama’s coattails includes major cash for their elections.

Do the Superdelegates have the eye on the prize-- a Democratic Presidency AND Congress where a solid majority will ensure Judiciary appointments that can counter the toxic effects of the last 8 years.

It is time for the Party leaders to insist that Hillary end her failed and increasingly destructive endeavor.

Posted by gerry | March 17, 2008 10:48 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 17, 2008 11:07 PM

A legitimate primary moves logically to
its conclusion...NOT in a party that has
protected and nurtured the Clintons thru
thick and thin. They OWN the Democrat party.
Their deft infighting has wounded Barack.
When the coup de grace is administered...some
of you that still claim a conscience might find
old man Nader as a viable candidate. I wouldn't
expect you'd defect to the Hillary faction...but then, even when slapped by her...some of you
weak-principled zealots might offer the other cheek and ask for more humiliation. You don't
have a party...you have a plantation. The Clintons live in the Tara you built for them.

Posted by interferon | March 17, 2008 11:21 PM

A blow to Clinton? Another blow? How many
blows can a Clinton take? How many Monicas
can dance on the head of a pin?

Posted by interferon | March 18, 2008 12:02 AM

Hillary has a good chance to win this nomination.
Hopefully the states remaining will finally get this right and vote for Hillary and vote against
Obama, our messiah who thinks he will save the world, learns his sermons from Wright the hate monger and who has just about a lick of experience to run this free world, which by the way is going down the sink. Yes Obama...you've got the answers all right.

Posted by Kenny | March 18, 2008 12:25 AM

Some facts about the polls over the weekend:

Obama up 7 against in a CNN Poll

Obama up two--and improvment from last month--over McCain in the aforementioned USA Today Poll

Just because some desperately want to believe that the Wright thing makes Obama unelectable doesn't make it true. Both of these polls were taken the 14-16, the height of the storm. And Obama IMPROVED his performance over the last time these polls were taken.

People care about their jobs and the economy, not a pastor. The only people who really care about this are the well-fed media types who have nothing else to talk about. They don't have to worry about their home being foreclosed or losing their job. These are the same people who laughed at the Bush's awful gridiron dinner performance. There's a gigantic disconnect between the media and the people this year. And I mean gigantic. This is why pundits are always wrong--tears, plagiargate, this. It's phony scandals. Americans care about high gas prices and higher food prices.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | March 18, 2008 12:35 AM

One of the memes that has been appearing in many corners of the web the past few days is the accusation that Sen. Barack Obama's controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is an anti-Semite, and/or that he has made anti-Semitic remarks.

However, despite extension web searching, I have not been able to come across a single statement by the man saying anything against Jewish, or otherwise Semitic, people. I'm not saying these statements aren't out there—I'm saying that I am coming across a lot of online journalists, columnists, pundits and reader comments calling Wright an "anti-Semite", without reference to a quote of any kind to back such a serious accusation up. And I can't locate one either.

The absolutest closest statement I have found is one in his Wikipedia entry, as well as dozens of other places around the web: a claim by Wright that Zionism has an element of "white racism" in it.

An interesting feature of this "quote" is that no one posts the whole sentence. Everyone "quoting" it writes the exact same thing: "Wright said that Zionism has an element of 'white racism' in it." I can't locate the whole sentence in its entirety anywhere—all anyone offers is the "white racism" part as a quote. So it's extremely difficult to pinpoint this phrase's original context, other than that which these other writers have placed it in on their own.

It's even possible that the "white racism" phrase is just some random blogger's analysis of Wright's views on Zionism, repeated ad nauseum by lazy bloggers around the globe, until it morphed into a "quote" of Wright's. I see this kind of thing happen all the time in online "journalism". If I'm wrong in my theory, I will certainly post a correction.

That said, if it is his, it's hardly an anti-Semitic statement of any sort. Those who question Israeli occupation and settlement policy are not anti-Semites, no matter what neoconservative dogma dictates, or American mainstream media, for that matter. For what it's worth, Wright's Wikipedia entry also states that "the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Wright."

There is no question Jeremiah Wright has made "controversial" statements about America's racial and military history, though I think almost all of them deserve more discussion that denouncement. But I have not come across any statements by him that are attacking Jewish or other Semitic peoples in any way. If any reader comes across specifically anti-Semitic statements by the reverend, I would sincerely like to see them, and I will post them on this site, and condemn them and the man who uttered them.

That said, if there really aren't any out there, it is our duty as truth-tellers to prevent a rapidly multiplying lie from being solidified in the media as the truth. That's what's happening right now.

Posted by Will | March 18, 2008 12:44 AM

Also, don't believe everything you read on the message boards. Hillary has a history of using sock puppets. Given that there were 84 diaries on Wright over a 2 day period before it became news at DailyKos, I suspect they're out in force now.

I was in PA this weekend. No one cared about Wright.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | March 18, 2008 12:49 AM

First off, if Obama gets the nomination and loses to McCain because he was never in it, Clinton is going to get the blame.

She's not running in 2012. If she were, she'd be running an attack strategy that's a hell of a lot more competent and more subtle than what she's done so far. Plus, pissing off virtually all of the party's activists, getting a good percentage to think you're a race-baiter, and validating most of the right wing's talking points about the Clintons all point to one thing: it's now or never. Which means it's never.

For all the talk about Obama's Messianism, I tend to think that it's Clinton who sees herself more in that light. Why else stay in a losing campaign like this? Why else run down the likely nominee? She could have left earlier in the race with her dignity and influence actually enhanced...but a VP slot, or the cabinet or Chief of Staff aren't enough for her. She's not driven by things like pragmatism and expediency, and evidently she can't take less than the whole enchilada. I think Clinton sees herself as a leader of destiny. I've had my fill of those, thank you.

Posted by Lev | March 18, 2008 12:50 AM

Lev:

I'm actually considered that she DOES think she has a shot at 2012, against a very old McCain, and that she wants to poison the nomination for Obama now, since she has already realized (especially in the wake of today's Florida news) that she cannot win the nom in '08.

Posted by Will | March 18, 2008 12:56 AM

Lev:

I'm actually concerned that she DOES think she has a shot at 2012, against a very old McCain, and that she wants to poison the nomination for Obama now, since she has already realized (especially in the wake of today's Florida news) that she cannot win the nom in '08.

Posted by Will | March 18, 2008 12:57 AM

Thank goodness idiotic showed up. This opportunity was too good to pass up.

Posted by Kraz | March 18, 2008 2:10 AM

After the Clintons were severely criticized for falsely trying to characterize Obama's position against the war as "a fairy tale," they began desperately trying to denigrate Senator Obama in every conceivable way which even included the ridiculous charge that he is somehow unfit to be Commander in Chief as President of the United States, but, of course, he is imminently qualified to be vice president and could take over in a moment’s notice. On March 12, 2008 10 distinguished retired Admirals, and Generals from the U.S. Navy, Army, and Air Force endorsed Barack Obama for president and to become the Commander in Chief of All United States Military Forces.
Perhaps the most widespread misconception about Barack Obama that has been forcefully expounded by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is that because he is younger than both of them he therefore must be too inexperienced to be president.
Senator John McCain is 71 years old, Senator Hillary Clinton is age 60 and Senator Barak Obama is 46 years of age. But America has had both younger and older individuals who have served with great distinction as president such as Theodore Roosevelt who became president at age 42, John Kennedy who assumed the presidency at age 43, and Ronald Regan who was sworn in as the Commander in Chief on January 20, 1981 at age 69.
Bill Clinton became president at age 46 after having served 12 years as the governor of Arkansas, but without having had any experience whatsoever in Washington. Before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in 1860 to become our 16th president he had previously served 8 years as an Illinois state legislator and 4 years in the U.S. Congress, which incidentally just happens to have been precisely Barack Obama’s experience. If Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009 he will have served 12 years as an elected legislator which include 8 years as an Illinois State Senator and 4 years as a U.S. Senator and he will be 47 years old.
In the 1960 Democratic primary election Senator John Kennedy was also told he was too young and inexperienced to be president, then by such notable members of the "old guard" as Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy was told to wait his turn! But, of course JFK won the 1960 Democratic primary and went on to defeat Richard Nixon in the general election despite Nixon's protest that "Kennedy is too young and inexperienced to be President." It wasn't true then about John F. Kennedy and it isn't true now about Barack Obama.
Voters should evaluate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not simply on the basis of their respective ages of 60 and 46 but look closely at how each of them approaches politics and consider their individual life experience, compare their respective judgment, character, vision, intelligence, imagination and creativity, and assess each one’s ability to unify America and actually bring about significant changes in Washington.
Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude in 1991 and served as the President of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials he could have joined any number of prestigious law firms but instead felt compelled to give back to his local community, so he returned to his home in Chicago to direct a voter registration drive and work as an attorney representing community organizers working on voting rights and civil rights cases. In 1993 he became a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served 8 years prior to his landslide election to the US Senate in November 2004. With his combined service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator as mentioned earlier, Barack Obama is currently serving in his 12th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.
Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale law school in 1973 and has been a very active spouse of the governor of Arkansas and as the First lady of the United States before being elected to the US Senate from her adopted state of New York in 2000. She is currently serving in her 8th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.
On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama’s judgment told him that starting a war in Iraq would be a big mistake and he forcefully said so. Much to the contrary later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for funds authorizing President Bush to begin the Iraq war.
When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike his opponents Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists and political action committees for his presidential campaign. It was Barack Obama’s judgment that the next President of the United States should be elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington or anywhere else.
Barack Obama’s opponents ridicule his inspirational rhetoric, such as his belief that together ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things. “Just high sounding words” and “big talk from a pied piper” they say. But when 1 million ordinary Americans use their credit cards and each gives $25-50 dollars with the click of a mouse to raise $25-50 million dollars for Obama’s campaign without the help of, special interests, political action committees, lobbyists, $1000 a plate dinners, or huge contributions from American billionaires most of us think that’s pretty extraordinary.
Suppose Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president at the Democratic National Convention in August, and suppose on November 4, 2008 the majority of Americans decide to vote for Barack Obama, the presidential candidate who among many other things has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.
Furthermore suppose this idea of raising money for a political campaign directly from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected or reelected? Would that help or hurt democracy in America?
That’s the kind of change that Barack Obama represents and which seems to concern so many in Washington who don’t seem very eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of money peddlers in Washington and elsewhere who currently provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning and whom they can then “work with” later.
We are at a historic moment in America when ordinary Americans can begin reclaiming their democracy. Don’t let the “politics as usual” politicians or anyone else fool you or do your thinking for you. Barack Obama is the candidate for president who can help Americans bring about the changes we need in Washington. It’s up to each us as citizens and as voters to stand up and be counted.

Posted by Robert65 | March 18, 2008 2:40 AM

Will she please quit and go away now? Perhaps, after Senator Obama's brilliant speech today, she will finally realize that the future is here and that she, I am afraid, will not be the Democratic nominee. Get ready for President Obama.

Posted by John | March 18, 2008 3:12 AM

The purpose of the superdelegates was to intervene should for some reason or another the apparent nominee was found to be unelectable because of some late revelation, i.e such as lack of moral judgement. Otherwise, why give the superdelegates a vote at all if they were just going to add onto the votes of the delegates. There are a lot of people out there who have 'buyers remorse' for voting for Barak Obama once they heard Rev Jeremiah Wright, they decided they don't feel Barak Obama is electable, that the Republicans will swiftboat him and McCain will have an easy win to the White House. And, they are right. So, in steps the superdelegates and votes for the most electable. In a sense, if delegates were figured for the democrats in the same manner as the Republicans, she would be way ahead of Obama. If you added up the electoral votes for states she has won compared to Obama, she will be ahead. So, I think superdelegates need to do a secret ballot and let the winner be the nominee.

Posted by gorgegirl | March 18, 2008 5:12 AM

And I think Hillary aids might want to begin whispering names in reporters ears about who she would have as a running mate. I think General Wesley Clark would be an excellent choice. He graduated top of his class at WestPoint, NATO commander, wounded in Vietnam, degree in Economics, a very smart guy and a supporter of Hillary's.

Posted by gorgegirl | March 18, 2008 5:16 AM

And I think Hillary aids might want to begin whispering names in reporters ears about who she would have as a running mate. I think General Wesley Clark would be an excellent choice. He graduated top of his class at WestPoint, NATO commander, wounded in Vietnam, degree in Economics, a very smart guy and a supporter of Hillary's.

Posted by gorgegirl | March 18, 2008 5:16 AM

Obama enjoyed these racist rantings for 20 years, now he thinks America will believe he had no idea his preacher was a racist? The Dems will lose in Nov. Blacks and far-left Liberals will not be enough to save the "Unity" candidate from his 20 year involvement in a seperatist church.

Posted by Who cares what he says? | March 18, 2008 8:08 AM

I strongly condemned the DNC for its stupidly disenfranchising Florida and Michigan. It's undemocratic and unfair. However, Edwards, Richardson, Obama et al. should be praised for their party loyalty, while Clinton should be punished for her tactics which really amount to cheating.

She didn't really care about Michigan or Florida until on February 6th, she realized that not only was she not going to have a cakewalk, she was going to lose. Suddenly, she found religion on these two states, but only if it advanced her cause. She certainly didn't care if she damaged the party; that's something to worry about after the nomination is secured.

This decision will have marginal impact on the elections in the Fall. Michigan, probably the hardest hit state economically in the US, will not vote for McCain. The large black population will turn out in droves for Obama, and the working whites, many of whom are not working, will not vote for Bush's clone.

Florida has been trending Republican since 1950 and should now be considered a marginal Republican state, not a swing state. Democrats have lost the last 3 governors races, control of the legislature, a senate seat and only have 9 of 25 House seats. The only way Democrats win Florida is in a nationwide sweep, so relying on Florida to tip the balance in the Fall would be foolish in any case (see John Kerry).

Posted by AxelDC | March 18, 2008 8:10 AM

Mar-15, 2008, OBAMA STANDS BEHIND SPIRITAL ADVISOR WRIGHT!
“Wright is like an uncle you love and respect”
IT’S WAY TOO LATE OBAMA, NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR LIES AND EXCUSES OR A SPEECH SOMEONE WROTE OR STOLE FOR YOU! YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO BE A MEMBER FOR 20 YEARS, YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT THIS RACIST ANTI-AMERICAN PREACHES EACH WEEK, YOU CAN BUY THE DVDS ON THE WEBSITE, and THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU’RE RASING YOUR YOUNG DAUGHTERS? YOU ARE MOST CERTINALLY NOT THE LEADER FOR THIS GREAT COUNTRY!

How does Obama consider someone a Mentor and friend for 20 years and not know their hateful racist values and character? Obama said he had no plans to leave the South Side church. Wright is like an uncle you love and respect! he highly respects the opinions of Rev. Wright said Obama, who brings hope to many and agrees with giving the man of year award to the notorious Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam Minister who said we are witnessing the phenomenal rise of a man of color in a country that has persecuted us! Obama hasn't distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe. A number of Jewish and pro-Israel voters have concerns and raised questions about Barack Obama. In case you haven't followed this ongoing issue, here's a brief summary of the complaints:Obama has called for engaging Iran. Daniel Ayalon, Israel's former ambassador to the United States, told the New York Sun he is concerned Obama would want to negotiate with a "Hitler-like" regime. Some of Obama's policy advisors of various stripes, such as Samantha Power, Robert Malley, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, have come under attack for their views on Israel. World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder fears, it's only a matter of time before the president becomes anti-Israel Howard Friedman, the president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said the leading presidential candidate are all interested in continuing close ties with Israel. Obama in traditional muslim garb brought these questions back to the fore Obama is a closet Muslim. Obama hasn't distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe, Obamas and his church said Farrakhan "epitomized greatness. For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans. Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small. He talks of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Obama and Rev Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. He applauds his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These words of the black man who touts change and claims to be a uniter of all people? DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMANATION!

Posted by mali | March 18, 2008 8:13 AM

mali:

"By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable."

Given that you attribute statements to Senator Obama that he clearly did not make, I would submit that you have strayed over the "defamatory" part of the quoted agreement.

If you can point to any anti-semitic statements by Senator Obama, I would love to hear about it. If not, could you please let the grown-ups get back to a realistic discussion about the candidates?

Posted by WolverineSM | March 18, 2008 8:55 AM

Wow...Obama supporters just don't get it.

Hillary Clinton has supporters who believe in here just as much as they do him. And most of them have identified with the Democratic party for decades. Therefore, why should she quit? He can't mathematically get the nomination by earning 2025 delegates either. And he's not getting the tried and true Democrats who built the party when he was a young boy.

She's inspirational to millions--just as he is. Are you SOOOOOO closed minded Obamites? Her appeal is genuine even if you don't "get it"?

More and more, I think a Dream Ticket is the only way, and everyone--Pelosi, Dean, etc.--better get used to the idea.

Posted by JWinnebago | March 18, 2008 12:55 PM

Wow...Obama supporters just don't get it.

Hillary Clinton has supporters who believe in here just as much as they do him. And most of them have identified with the Democratic party for decades. Therefore, why should she quit? He can't mathematically get the nomination by earning 2025 delegates either. And he's not getting the tried and true Democrats who built the party when he was a young boy.

She's inspirational to millions--just as he is. Are you SOOOOOO closed minded Obamites? Her appeal is genuine even if you don't "get it"?

More and more, I think a Dream Ticket is the only way, and everyone--Pelosi, Dean, etc.--better get used to the idea.

Posted by JWinnebago | March 18, 2008 12:55 PM

Seat FL delgates AS VOTED. Do MI again since it was obviously unfair to Obama.

If the Dems dont seat FL as voted then they are going to have hell to pay in November. Am I the only Democrat that remembers 2000???

Posted by Jackie | March 18, 2008 1:55 PM

As a 76 white male independent may I offer my insight to this whole charade.

1. When John Kennedy was running as the nominee the greatest "knock" on him was that he was Catholic. At that time the Protestant majority of the nation had the great fear that should JFK become president that Rome and the Pope would run the United States. Of course that did not come to reality.

Obama's relationship with his pastor is somewhat on a more fragile foundation. There is what appears to have been very vitriolic rhetoric from Wright whether he said it once or on numerous occasions. Should Obama not distance himself from those statements he is going to have a very difficult time convincing the American voter that he is the right man for the task.

Should he be elected he would remain under very close scrutiny of both the American people and the Congress and should he act in a radical manner not within the best interests of America the Articles of Impeachment could be instituted and he would be stripped of his office. I don't believe the man is that dumb.

2. There is racism in this process. No matter how one attempts to rationalize the figures when 90% of one race votes for the candidate of that race there is "racism." That does not make the black voter dumb, it is their choice to do so and we should not critisize them for that action. By the same token if 90% of the white voters vote for a white candidate there is also a "racism" conotation. The one large difference here is that should that occur one can bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be outraged and condemning it to death. It is course, all in one's perception.

3. HRC entered into this race with the preconceived notion that she was the "annointed" one and the party would simply fall in behind her. She has been arrogant, vicious and underhanded in her campaign tactics and they have simply backfired on her. If someone in the press truly vetted her (and Bill) all the way back to Arkansas they would soon discover that they have always utilized the "scorch and burn" tactic when the result was not in their favor. For all of you women out there the time has arrived that we can elect a woman president but you have at least 100 more qualified that HRC. Her only real concern is her (and Bill's) legacy and their personal ambition for power. She is very simply a shallow charade of what constitutes a responsible woman.

4. The Democrat Party is rapidly tearing itself to pieces with it's own internal indecision and strife. They continue to be the party which will provide everything to everyone in order to acquire the elected office to which they subscribe and once elected nothing positive ever occurs. This has been their mantra since FDR was first elected in '32.

As for those of you who may argue that FDR pulled us out of one of worst depressions in history I suggest you go back and read your history books. We were so deeply into the depression in '37-'39 that the only thing that pulled us out of it was WWII. That initiated the greatest manufacturing revolution that this nation has ever experienced and it continue to this day but in a different format (IT - computers,etc.

5. And in finality I would add this: when politicians run wars there never is a concrete resolution. We ended WWII by completely bringing Germany, Japan and Italy to their knees. From Korea to the present not one concrete solution has been attained by any confrontation. Had Truman allowed us to run the North Koreans and the Chinese back across the Yalu River in 1949-50 we would not have to be having a confrontation with North Korea at this time over nuclear weapons. Politicians do not end conflicts, their actions only exacerbate them and in so doing they expend the lives of our young people, Old men make wars, young men die attempting to validate the decisions of the old men.

To all you young people, please vote with reason and don't just be a "follower."

Posted by racing56 | March 18, 2008 3:00 PM