Matthew Dowd

I agree!!! Hilary is toast!!

for some reason, the media is really against Hillary. They focused this week on Obama's fundraising (Hillary actually raised more). They focused on Obama's speeches (yet he didn't say one thing about actually DOING anything if elected).

Why are we letting the media decide whom we should vote for?

Obama has yet to say where he stands on many issues (like choice). His website doesn't even say where he stands on issues. He is a fantastic speaker...but we need more than a fancy spokesperson for our President. We need someone who takes a stand on issues and has the experience...and relationships..to get things done.

Let's pray that Hillary wins in spite of the media and the Republican strategists wanting Obama. Hillary is the only one who can clean up the Republican mess and help the little person. Obama is still wet behind the ears.

Let's pray that Hillary wins in spite of the media and the Republican strategists wanting Obama. Hillary is the only one who can clean up the Republican mess and help the little person. Obama is still wet behind the ears.

Come on Terry, i may not yet be a great Obama support but his saturday speech included issues on universal health care, shipping jobs back to the US, ending the Iraq war. Unless ofcourse you did not listen in. I like Hillary

When the inevitable finally hits you in the face like a cool wind in the san francisco night, what will rush in to stop the way you need to go? The SUPREMES??? The colicky republican party??? The super dooper delegatos???? The bush cheeny martial law???? THE FBI??? THE CIA???? Film at eleven...

Hi michaelinphilly,

I agree Obama did not explained his position on issues and policies publicly during his early campaign. But nowdays if you listen to his most of the speeches and debates, he is hitting hard on his policies. Health care,Iraq and economy. Just don't cry saying about his stand on the policies without going through it. His health plan is best of the best. He does not want to mandate the health care but he want to make it affordable so that everyone can buy it. Actually in the sense it is universal health care while Clinton wants it to make mandatory and fine if not bought. Anything which is mandatory is not going to work since if you force someone who is making minimum wage like $7 per hour how can you justify making the health care mandatory. Someone will buy the dinner first and then health insurance. College students are the perfect examples. On Iraq he is very much clear than anyone. He says that he is going to consult with the advisers and bring the troops home within 16 months. Also on economy he wants to give immediate tax relief to the middle class. The retired senior citizens who are making less than $50,000 dont have to pay tax. Isn't this new and extraordinary policies?

Clinton also want to make similar changes in the policies but Obama just wont talk about it but will make it happen since he knows how to bring the people together and get it done. Imagine a President who has all the novel ideas but dont know how to get it passed in the senate, how good those policies will be which can not pass through senate and congress and become law.

So think about it. He is not talker but doer and he knows how to get it done.

Hillary is full of hot air!!! Obama is the man for change,Im tired of the same ole same ole mess,can we have some one other than the Clintons or Bushes running things? OBAMA '08!!!!!

The last sentence of this commentary says the whole thing. The Obama/McCain race is what the media wants to cover.
Think of the drama! And since when do the voters get it right. Remember it was the voters who elected Richard Nixon and George W.twice. Of course, if it comes down to the super delegates, the Clinton's will be accused of being manipulative. It is really a shame how Obama has been shoved down our throats.

Matthew,

We The People of the "United", I repeate, "United" States of America IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION...has found our own Voice...PEOPLE GET READYYYYY......Ain't No Stopping Us Now!!!!!!

Get this: HILLARY CLINTON WILL """NOT""" BE THE PRESIDENT,
IF OBAMA AND JOHN EDWARDS DID NOTTTTTTT RUN!

If, as you suggest in this post, the Democratic party's paramount interest should be in every vote getting counted, Sen. Clinton is the choice. Why? She's won nearly all of the primaries--the only place where every voter has reasonable access and an opportunity to actually cast a vote under conditions that Americans have spilled blood for for over two centuries, the secret ballot. A bunch of upscale elitists speaking out loud about their preference at a caucus is not voting. And its not democratic. In addition, if the will of over 2 million Floridians amd Michganders who actually voted--yep, secret ballot and all--is taken into account, its not even close.

I completely agree with this analysis. If the super delegates end up snubbing the candidate who wins the majority of the elected delegates then the dems will lose in November. After all if ar candidate can't even win the majority (or at least a plurality) of their own party's voters how could they win in a national election.

Whoever gets the most votes ought to win. Isn't that the American way?

Visit barackobama.com and learn the issues , hillary supporters like hillary and bill are all lairs obama has adressed the issues much more than hillary ,visit their websites and see the clear difference(obama plans to form a working majority and move the country forward), if hillary can't manage and take charge of her campaign and finances how will she be able to take care of our country and our economy, hillary is not bill why can't you guys get it.

Terrie...Barack Obama has specific plans on all the same issues as Clinton. He has given details about many of them in speeches, debates, interviews, and on his website (you must not have looked under the "ISSUES" tab). "Choice" is the issue that Hillary falsely attacked him on in NH and IA. I'm from NH and received the false flyer in the mail right before the primary. It claimed he was not pro-choice. In fact, he is 100% pro-choice and has always been. He is an extremely strong proponent of women and women's rights. Because of the false flyers Clinton sent out many of her supporters from the National Organization for Women switched to Obama. His "present" votes in the Illinois Senate relating to "choice" issues were part of a strategy by Planned Parenthood to keep anti-choice legislation from passing. Hillary and he have basically the same amount of experience. She truly cannot count being the first lady of Arkansas and the US as experience. Elected experience working for constituents--Obama actually has more. He may be younger in age but he has far greater judgement and wisdom (and yes, he is a fantastic speaker).

The Hillary supporters are just blind supporters. Look at the number of people Obama is pulling in each primary and caucus states. Each time atleast thrice the number of people are showing up to support Obama than Hillary. What does it say? The people choice is Obama and not Hillary. Can anyone imagine pulling at least 10,000 people in the state line Maine? He is going to Win popular vote. Hillary won the states like NY, NJ, MA and CA. Then what? These are the democratic states. She did not do good in red states at all but lost by 3:1 margin. 47% people dont like her compare to 31% for Obama.

Clintons just like to downgrade the someone efforts saying "Oh we knew that we are not going to win in the states like LA,WA,NE and Maine. What people in those states must be thinking about Clinton. She not only downgrades her opponent but the people in the states she lost. So she is not uniting the country but dividing it and its not going to help her.

If Obama wins and want my vote in November, I want to hear how we are going to change and nothing about movements. Me and most of Hispanic don't get impressed by speeches. So far what we see is a cult not because of the candidate (he has not fault in the fanatism of his followers), but because the biased press and the horrible fanatics! If he cannot do this I prefer 4 more years of Republican nogovernment.

WE THE PEOPLE.....WE TALK TOO MUCH...LISTEN, ESCHUCHENN...

Talking about Obama does not have experience....He is 'not' AFRAID TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE THAT DO NOTTTTTT LOOK LIKE HIM!!! HE WILL BRING THE ""UNITED"" STATES THE
R-E-S-P E-C-T BACK FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WE HAVE LONG LOST BECAUSE BUSH DID NOT COMMUNICATEEEEE!!!

How much experience/knowledge did Bush have....You want Dumb & Dumber???

Obama:
HAS THE RELATIONSHIP/ABILITY TO TALK WITH AFRICA, IRAQ, INDONESIA, CHINA, JAPAN, KENYA, ETC....CHINA & JAPAN MAY NOT WANT TO TALK WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA. HE WILL HAVE SOMEONE IN HIS CABINET TO DO THE BIDDING FOR THE INTEREST OF THE ""UNITED"" STATES OF AMERICA!

WE THE PEOPLE.....WE TALK TOO MUCH...LISTEN, ESCHUCHENN...

Talking about Obama does not have experience....He is 'not' AFRAID TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE THAT DO NOTTTTTT LOOK LIKE HIM!!! HE WILL BRING THE ""UNITED"" STATES THE
R-E-S-P E-C-T BACK FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WE HAVE LONG LOST BECAUSE BUSH DID NOT COMMUNICATEEEEE!!!

How much experience/knowledge did Bush have....You want Dumb & Dumber???

Obama:
HAS THE RELATIONSHIP/ABILITY TO TALK WITH AFRICA, IRAQ, INDONESIA, CHINA, JAPAN, KENYA, ETC....CHINA & JAPAN MAY NOT WANT TO TALK WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA. HE WILL HAVE SOMEONE IN HIS CABINET TO DO THE BIDDING FOR THE INTEREST OF THE ""UNITED"" STATES OF AMERICA!

Bindex, YOu are asking women to reason and use judgment which, let's face it, they're not equipped to do. Obama is a better candidate in EVERY respect than this witch. Actually, even any GOP nominee would be a better choice than Billary.

Be prepared to eat your words.

HILLARY '08

Caucuses are dumb.It disinfranchize voters who can't wait in line too long .Obama is echoing Clinton's issues since he didn't have one's till recently just changing a little bit here and there. I think popular votes mean more than a few thousand votes from caucuses.The success Obama is a direct result of Republican's machine. Why do you think Rep. has fewer votes?

Jose,

Why would Obama (or anyone other than desperate grandma) need your fraudulent vote? Can you even vote? 4/5 of latinos can't even get a driver license so how are their "votes" become so important?

Obama and Clarie McKaskell as Veep
Obama and Jennifer Stenholm as Veep

McCain is toast !

People who post like bindex should be honest instead says people who like hillary or bill are liars what a idiotic post, this obama thing is a joke I cannot imagine this country with someone like him in the white house if that were to happen(god forbid) I suppose he would open the door for all the kenyans in africa to come on over after all that is where his daddy came from?

Obama will be even stronger in the general election than in the primaries, as the results already in clearly show that he gets strong support from Independents and even some Republicans, while Hillary's polarizing character would just provide intense motivation for the Republicans to come out in droves to defeat her (ABC: Anything But Clinton).

I agree that Obama is likely the nominee! It is a historical moment. But, sadly, Whites in middle america and the SOUTH! will not vote for him. You can bet we will have another White Male in the White House. Sorry, but that is the truth. The demographics show that Obama won the south because more than 75% of the Black vote went for him. But, counting the white vote in the South, which is large, he got little. In the end, McCain will likely be our next President and with that no change in the course of policies. Sad. Hillary may have changed that, but she wasn't attracting votes. Obama is clearly a better speaker and visionary, but .... because of his race, he will not get those votes. Hard fact!

Hillary Will Win the nomination!!!you will see...Hillary Rocks!!

I still havn't heard anyone talk about the "early voters" in California. I heard that there was over 3 mill. early voters...and most were for Hillary...Then Obama surged in the polls and lost by only a few hundred thousand votes..????? If ALL the voting had taken place on primary day...I think he would clearly be the winner.

Along Mr. Dowd's same line of argument, wouldn't the superdelegates then also have to consider the delegates and votes of Michigan and Florida? Can we really afford to disenfranchise these two swing states? And if those votes and delegates are considered (correct me I'm wrong), wouldn't Hillary have a plurality of the popular vote and of pledged delegates?

Also, if Obama ends up winning only the small and mid-sized states (most of which are likely to vote republican during the general election) other than Illinois (assuming Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania), does that not show that Hillary is better able to win the big states that the democrats need to win the general election? I think that argument should be of equal sway to the superdelegates.

Well, I guess we can all just fold the tents and go home now that Matthew Dowd has spoken, cause “you’ve done the math” but where is that math? Not so fast. It’s not over til it’s over. The will of the people, majority of delegates, majority of states and the primary process are terms that can be folded to make any number of paper planes but will they fly? Obama takes Alaska – 405 votes - Colorado approx 100,000 voted. Iowa approx 25,000 voted. Washington approx 30,000 voted. Nebraska approx 38,000 voted.

In your wildest calculations and dreams do you think this is a mandate or “the people speaking” or that a carnival like caucus equals a primary with actual electoral process that involves privacy and a lack of intimidation? And how does Obama explain changing the rules so he wins. What about Florida and Michigan? Gonna leave out a couple of million voters and let the 405 in Alaska rule for us. If so, we need to call for UN advisors to oversee this election. Before you and the boys send flowers to the Clinton residence celebrating her demise, stop and yes …. Think! It's far from over.

Please check the number of people voting for Obama compared to republicans. He has got twice the number of votes in the most of the red states than republican candidates. So He will win those states in general election for sure. Also about Michigan and Florida, if Obama would have campaigned there he would have won those states too. The problem with Obama was that he was not well known and popular at the time of Michigan primaries and during Florida he never campaigned. The Clintons are well known from start. Obama had to start from the whether people know him. Once people started knowing more about him then tend to like him more due to his personality and policies.

Clinton broke the rule of democratic party by keeping her name on the ballot but she got around 55% vote compared to no name on ballot 40%

r cahill, Stop hating! are you Native american? if not then you are also an immigrant, so why hate?

KateR:

The party as a whole has already made their decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates because of their decision to move their primary dates up......they should have waited!!!!

Too late for them; the decision was already made....

You are now looking at potentially ruining the democratic party if senator Obama is not nominated......and I can assure you that if he is not on the ticket--nominee or vp slot, I well not vote democratic....I would vote for the other party...which will essentially be a vote against Hillary.......

She comes across to me as if the presidency is owe to her....No!!! let the people decide....and not some super delegates!!!!!

I think everyone is right...whether you like Clinton or Obama. How can this Jerry Springer love-fest be bad for the Dems? I think the problem is in how everyone views leadership. Leadership is an inspirational act, which requires everyone to share a common vision prior to accepting direction from the top. Obama has better motivational skills, whereas Clinton is the techie. That's why her stump speeches are bland and boring. Clinton has great experience, but you have to be able to motivate people to lead them...not just preach at them.

For rcahill,

Did you forget that the United states was created by the immigrants from Europe?

During the general election electoral votes counts so wining small states counts a lot. Thats what Obama can do. Win the red and blue and in between states and leave nothing for Republicans.

To those who keep repeating the Clinton spin that Hillary has more experience than Obama, you need to focus on REVELANT experience. Hillary is older so she has more life experience, but we all know that does not necessarily equate to appropriate experience. Hillary has had one single elected office - that of two-term junior New York Senator. Her husband is the one with legislative experience. If my husband is a doctor and I work in his office, how could I claim to have experience in the practice of medicine? Don't be fooled, that is the type of experience Hillary is claiming. In actual fact she has no more personal experience than Barack Obama in legislative experience. On the other hand, what she undoutedly has more of is the deep-seated hatred of half the country. Do not listen to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter about voting for Hillary over McCain. There is no one alive, with the possible exception of Bill, who has the total Republican party and its supporters against her, in the way they hate her. They would move heaven and earth (though they wouldn't have to try very hard), to get their supporters to the polls to vote against her. That's when the real "Right Wing Conspiracy" would raise its ugly head.

Who is Matthew Dowd ? I've never heard of you or most of the people for whom you have "strategized". Obviously you need to go back to Strategy School and learn how to enhance your personal public profile and well as the profiles of your employers. No excuses like you work behind the scenes - you just are not all that good at your job.

Kate R. wrote:

"Also, if Obama ends up winning only the small and mid-sized states (most of which are likely to vote republican during the general election) other than Illinois (assuming Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania), does that not show that Hillary is better able to win the big states that the democrats need to win the general election?"

No. In the general election, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Michigan will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. Similary, Florida and Texas will go Republican this year regardless of the nominee. The key states are Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Viginia and New Hampshire. These are the states that were close in '04 and could swing in this election. Hillary's big state victories demonstrate that she requires institutional advantages like large unions to succeed. Obama's independent appeal and grass roots support suggest that he will be the stronger candidate for the swing staes of 2008.

Another prime example of the Media trying to sway voters. who cares about this guys opinion. FACTS are important, not opinions.

Hillary did not campaign in florida or michigan. None of the candidates did.

So where do you get that HIllary campaigned in Florida when she didn't.

All the candidates had ads running in the newspapers...just no tv ads.

SO in my estimation, if i am correct, they all took part equally in those two states.

So if they were equal in their representation in those states, why shouldn't hillary get those votes?

How did this turn into a Contest of Blacks VS Whites?? It is not surprising to see the true Racists coming to light in this Obama Rama.
The Blacks are turning out in Record numbers to vote determined it is their time to be in Charge. In my town they are turning things upside down and almost trying to cause trouble! The tension is high and I cannot understand why?? What is going on when the people who once wanted to be treated equal suddenly think they are better than us regular white guys who just want it better than Bush made it!! I see a new divide happening and I don't think its goona be a good thing!
The Blacks are taking the Presidency as a Game. If Barack gets in what will the next challenge be?? Equality is one thing we all deserve but taking on an attitude of bigger and better sounds like us white folks are being Bullied.

Obama/McCain race will be the perfect race. It will bring the really sense of Competition and Opposition especially when it will come to debate on Iraq issue.

Here is where Obama and Hillary differ highly.

Amazon,

I gladly voted for Clinton in 2000 and 2006 for Senate and will vote for her if she gets the nomination. In regards to changing the rules, Michigan and Florida tried to change the rules, they broke the rules and were penalized for it. All the candidates agreed that Washington and Michigan would not count, even Clinton when campaigning in New Hampshire said it doesn't matter that her name is still on the ballot in MI since the reuslts won't count.

About the vote totals in Colorado, Washington, etc, those totals you mentioned were state delegates, NOT total votes.

In the primarry states at this poitn Obama actually has more ovtes and he has manymore votes in the caucus states,

Tony:

The party as a whole has already made their decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates because of their decision to move their primary dates up......they should have waited!!!!

Too late for them; the decision was already made....

My point with regard to the Michigan and Florida votes is that if Mr. Dowd is going to argue that superdelegates should vote according to who has the most pledged delegates at the end of the day rather than exercise independent judgment (which by design is what their supposed to do), the superdelegates cannot ignore the votes and delegates of Michigan and Florida? My point is also that the path to the nomination is not as clear cut as Mr. Dowd presents it to be.

The only way that I see the superdelegates voting in favour of who has the most pledged delegates is if the margin between the two candidates exceeds the Michigan and Florida delegate count.

I agree with Mr. Dowd. I'd like to add however that he's discounted the possibility that the Clintons will insist on FL and Michigan delegates being seated even though Mr. Obama didn't campaign in FL and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Billary will stop at nothing to regain power. The Clintons will fight until the last dog dies. The only question is, will the take the Democratic party down with them ?

Well- Why shudnt the African Americns have a chance to be in If we don't band together and help each one anothur then we do not have a voice! ARE people have been steppe on for hundreds of years by whites and maybe we need a right to makke the decisions and make the rules!! We can make fair ways but we aren't sitting back it is are time to have a chance!!!

Hillary is toast because she and her husband have resorted to dirty tacticts against Barack Obama.
Speak the truth and the truth will prevail.
Have you noticed how similiar Hillary's speeches have become to Barack Obama's.
She will bring home the troops in 60 days? Please.
When the Clintons realized they were on a slippery slope, they started to 'change' their tunes.
They had their time in office. They did not resolve the health care issues and now they want to be given another chance. Enough already.
Give it up for Barack Obama!!

Despite the powers to be. The so called "superdelegates" which some media is wrongfully adding to Hillary total delegate count and the establishment conventional wisdom and decision to back Hillary. Senator Obama has triuphed because we the people believe that we can. Yes we can!!!!

Samyr wrote: Clinton broke the rule of democratic party by keeping her name on the ballot but she got around 55% vote compared to no name on ballot 40%

FYI Clinton did not break the rules when she kept her name on the ballot. It was a perfectly valid thing to do...check the rules. Obama could have kept his name on the ballot but chose to remove it for whatever reason. Personally, I think he removed his name because he figured he was unlikely to win the state.

Steven

Hillary actually did stump in Florida right before that primary. however, when every state was trying to one up each other by moving its primaries up and up (which I think we can both agree was getting out of hand) the DNC laid down some rules (which were always there in the 1st place) and stated if any states move their primaries prior to South Carolina they would lose their delegates. Michigan and Florida decided to move their primaries ahead anyway despite the threat, snd suffereed the consequences as a result. Something all the candidates agreed to. it was too late to remove their names from the Florida ballot, but both Edwards and Obama removed their names from the Michigan ballot as a result of this. Clinton when asked about it, said it doesn't matter her name is the only major candidate on the ballot because the reuslts would not count anyway. So this was something beforehand Clinton agreed with, and only wanted to change it after the fact.

Kate R

Hillary's explanation for keeping her name on the ballot is to keep the GOp of getting a stronger hold on the state, but it didn't matter hers was the only major candidate on the ballot since the results would not count anyway. This was a comment she made while campaigning in New hampshire when questioned why her name was still on the ballot when Edwards and Obama remoed their names. All candidates agreed that Florida and Michigan's results would not count because the states broke party rules.

It's the purple states that count the most in this election. Senator Clinton has the majority of them, better positioning her to win the general. It's simple, the media has hyped this no name, needs more time to prove himself up so much that people are thinking that what they report is reality. You all will see. Caucuses disenfranchise, primaries speak for the majority. HRC will be the democratic nominee... this isn't over yet.

Even media seems to have a wierd role in this election ignoring the fact.

By making such remarks, it seems to me that we disrespect our parents just becausse they don't represent our generation. The wisdom comes only with the experience even if you are intelligent. for example: you don't understand the depth of parenthood unless you have the child of your own or you have significant attachment to any child at that level. The point is experience does count.

only few years back, I used to think the same way the young voters think nowadays. It's not a game of gamble that we can afford to loose, your children may suffer the consequences.

So be careful, media is not always right. Most of the time it is driven by profit. Considering gone through so many difficult situations politically and at personal level and showing the strength which is needed and having the experience,Clinton makes the best candidate for this post.

I don't even have the right to vote but I feel strogly about it.

Thanks.

Chris

Clinton won most of the purple states?? What??

She won Nevada, yes. New Mexico is extremely close still, not sure who won at this point. New Hampshire she won, but it really isn't a purple state anymore. Obama won Missouri, he won Iowa, he won Colorado, he is going to win Virginia

If the Obama party people will put down their Kool-Aid for a moment...Obama is a great speaker, a rock star for politicians, he is like a viral UTube video. Is that what we need for a President? He always talks about change and getting away from the 'Washington establishment'. Can you get more 'establishment' than Ted Kennedy? He sought for years the endorsement and support of him...how is that for change? He will not beat McCain, the only thing he is winning is black states and caucus states. The caucus wins are because all of the white people have had political correctness shoved down their throats so long that making a public statement in caucus form looks like prejudice. I am not prejudice, I am gay, I have my own problems with prejudicial attitudes.
Hillary can win the whole race. She is prepared and proven. If people are honest about the war vote, most of us would have done the same thing she did with the information presented to her. Can you imagine a senator from NEW YORK not voting for war?

Guess What? Obamas delegate count is approximately 100 more than Clintons. If you remove the super delegates and just count the pledged ones he is in fact leading. These superdelegates will change their position anytime they want but not the pledged delegates. Before the end of the Feb. he will have the lead of around 250 pledged delegate and 150 total delegate over clinton that she wont be able to match. Also there is solid two weeks gap before OH and TX primaries and that will favor Obama. After March 4th we will have clear democratic nominee and that will be BARACK OBAMA!!!!!!!! Thank GOD!!!

Um, for those of you complaining about Dowd's opinion not being important and just wanting the facts....how about NOT reading an OPINION column then, k? This is the kind of stuff that scares me...people not READING what they are reading. Get a grip. Use your head. Think for yourself. Dowd is. I give him credit for that. Regardless of whether I agree with him or not.

Contrary to what people are saying on this thread, the media has actually been on Hillary's side. Whenever she does something, like cries, they make a big deal about it and play it over and over again. Also, whenever Bill is making racist remarks, they play them over and over again, causing the election to be a race issue, which benefits Hillary. Obama has yet to gian from anything the media has done.

Contrary to what people are saying on this thread, the media has actually been on Hillary's side. Whenever she does something, like cries, they make a big deal about it and play it over and over again. Also, whenever Bill is making racist remarks, they play them over and over again, causing the election to be a race issue, which benefits Hillary. Obama has yet to gian from anything the media has done.

I am a die hard Republican. Let me get out in the open. But this year, if Obama is the nominee for the Democrats, I will vote for him.

Hillary is willing to do and say anything to win the election. 35 years expeirence??? Where?? Oh as first lady! Oh as a private sector attorney taking an occasional pro-bono case? Being on the Board of Wal Mart? She will have had 8 years in the Senate doing nothing but planning to run for President.

How about the "Iron my Shirts" guy. A Clinton campaign worker? I read that somewhere.

Obama for some reason inspires me. I have never voted for any Democrat except Diane Fienstien. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, and Bush2 twice. (Sorry about the last one people) But now Obama has me feeling like this country can truly be great again with the right choice.

Finally, some media on Obama's side. Go Obama go!!!

Those who say white southerners will not vote for Obama are so wrong! I'm a white, very southern grandmother (registered Republican). The Republican party I grew up with no longer exists; its become the party of special interest elitist. Maybe it always was, but I was too busy trying to survive to notice. Hillary is a Bush clone. If she wins, I'll sit this one out. If Obama is the nominee, I'll be voting for him.

Senator Obama so far can only win the small states which he will be defeat by John McCain in this November. It’s a bad news for DEM if he wins the DEM nomination after all, GOP will again control the White House for another 4 years.

Sooner Dem

I am from NY, born and raised (still live) on long Island, work in manhattan, and I can imagine a NY Senator voting against a WAR with a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Some of NY's Congressman did. I personally like Clintona nd have voted for her twice for Senate, but Obama was theone right on that the one who can bring changed and the stronger overall candidate. He matches up stronger than Clinton against McCain, the only states where he has struggled with the white vote is the south. If winning the southern states comes down to the southern white vote 9which vote 85% GOP as it is) than we already have it in the bag.

Senator Obama so far can only win the small states which he will be defeat by John McCain in this November. It’s a bad news for DEM if he wins the DEM nomination after all, GOP will again control the White House for another 4 years.

Looks like Obama is the Democratic nominee! HELLary has lost. But president Obama better watch his back because the clinton mafia is ARROGANT, VINDICTIVE, and KNIVING, they still have control of the democratic party by giving their "buddies" payofffs with our tax money. Yes, they pimped out Chelsea(who looks like a combination of HELLary and Vince Foster) and Bill actually pimped out HELLary so he can get power and our money. Pray for Obama, for protection from the clinton mafia!
GO OBAMA! (the real first Black President)

You may be right, but if the Dem's nomiate Obama, they will surely lose.
The GOP will turn to fear of national security inexperience fears, and then we're toast.
Obama would be better to wait his turn.

I would be very upset if the super delegates go against the voters. So many are concerned with voter apathy and poor voter turn out in many elecctions. If the party establishment (super delegates) go against the voters it raises many questions.

Why should I vote?
Why do you not respect our decision?
Why should I support the democratic party when they don't trust me?
WHY SHOULD I CARE?

For me it's not about the two candidates it's about the principal.

Originally I thought I would vote for which ever candidate got the nomination. But if the super deleagates over rule the voters I'm not sure what I'll do. I may not vote, I may vote for an alternate party (never republican), or I may write in the person who should have gotten the nomination.

You may say in doing so I'll help the republican candidate win. But why should I care if the democratic leadership doesn't care about me and respect my vote?

Attached was an interesting fact find by another individual.

I think that Clinton should be questioned about her experience, and how providing a bunch of earmarks for her state gives her the right to claim that she is ready from day one and Obama is not. When people talk about Clinton's "experience", consider the facts of their voting record below:

Obama

During the first 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 included:
- 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

Clinton

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.
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. www.thomas.loc.gov

Stockcraft

Obama will be able to take all the strong Dem states as well. Clinton won the primariesin NY, NJ, MA & CA, but to hink Obama won't strongly take all of those states is just silly. I live in NY, it will strongly go for Obama in November. In regards to the smaller states, Obama helps bring in some of the purplish or red leaning states such as Virginia, Colroado and a few others more so than Clinton would.

No matter who wins it won't matter. The democratic party is split. One side will be crushed when their canadiate loses and their core voters will blane the winner. Obama can not bring the hard core clintons back into the fold no matter what. We need every vote come November. I'm also afraid what the Rebublican attack machine will find on Obama.. drug stories and back door deals to buy his current house.

No matter who wins it won't matter. The democratic party is split. One side will be crushed when their canadiate loses and their core voters will blane the winner. Obama can not bring the hard core clintons back into the fold no matter what. We need every vote come November. I'm also afraid what the Rebublican attack machine will find on Obama.. drug stories and back door deals to buy his current house.

Challenge this guys . . .

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Behind Obama and Clinton Who's whispering in their ears says a lot By Stephen Zunes

From Information Clearing House
08/02/08 - Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.

The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they’ll be likely to face as president?

Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor and her likely choice for Secretary of State is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power, author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

Contrasting Issues
While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.

While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States, the country is the most pressing problem nation, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.

Iraq as Key Indicator
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer rel