Political Punch

Thanks for your insight Yoga.

I have to disagree with you Dave. I think the Clinton campiagn is in trouble. Moreover, I don't see where Mrs. Clinton withstood viscous attacks. For the most part, she has been considered a victim. A victim of Bill running his mouth to much in SC. A victim of her hubands shortcommings while in the oval office. A victim of a well run campaign by Obama. She won by narrow vote in NH after tearing up. There, sympathetic women voters rescued her. With the exception of NY and one other state she wom by very thin margins.

Don't get me wrong, Hillary is a fighter however, it appears at this point in the election she's fighting for mere survival in this race. If the firewall she's building in Texas doens't hold up, you can cancel. Christmas b/c it's over for her. If she wins TX narrowly and looses in PN and OH, its over.

I'll be on the edge of my seat.

She put another nail in her coffin yesterday with her comments about Obama's popularity in caucuses being from "activists" that don't represent the electorate.

Add to that the ever so slight racial slur about Obama winning Louisiana because of the African American vote. Those were very, very stupid comments for her to make before her big push in her so called "firewall" states of Ohio and Texas.

There are alot, I mean alot of people in Texas that don't care for the Clintons at all. She's counting on a big Latino vote to win, but I have a very strong feeling it's not going to work.

She is definitely in trouble. Bill started the ball rolling downhill in South Carolina, problems with her campaign finances, reorganizing her campaign for the second time in literally just weeks (first time after New Hampshire), and this weekend's losses.

We'll see what today brings, but yes she is in trouble. She shouldn't be planning on walking away with our state that's for sure.

My guess is McCain and Obama will do extremely well in Texas. Need I say more.

Davide,

Read the comments of Frank, they really speak to the realities of Obama's recent victories. On one hand, you have respect for Hillary. Then in the next sentence you state how she is despised. Everytime this is brought up, it's a Republican talking point. Obama is the one that they want to run against. Also, if she is such a polarizing candidate, how did she win in CA, MA, NY, NJ, TN, AZ, NH, and AK?

This nomination is going to be a street fight. Obama couldn't have withstood all the vicious attacks that Hillary has. He's basically been given a free ride by the press.

Listen to yourself! Do you think Hillary's supporters are going to line up with Obama, after the beating she has taken from his side? It sounds like, if Obama is the nominee, he is planning to win without us.

There are many voters that are just starting to look at these candidates. I know because I make calls to voters, and a good number are undecided.

Barack Obama burst onto the national political scene with a memorable speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Anybody that watched this speech realized Barack Obama is a very gifted young man and talented orator. Obama is a Christian (contrary to the small minds attempting to arouse suspicion) from a bi- racial family. His mother is white his father was black. His dad left when he was very young.
We all realize that it takes more than being an intelligent person that is able to inspire people through the spoken word to be an effective President. , So why is it time to elect Barack Obama ?
Barack Obama will unify our country and be a very effective agent for change. He has the ability to garner support from all factions of the American political process. Our country is in the midst of a very critical period. The last thing we need is more political deadlock based on partisan politics. I respect Hillary Clinton as a great American that has accomplished much in her life. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is despised by many Americans and crucified on daily talk shows across this country. They love to point out her personal and political baggage. It is feared that many, formerly apathetic, Republican, ultra-right wing, voters will be motivated to counter her bid. Very frequently, Barack Obama is receiving meaningful endorsements and gleaning support from Republican and Democratic leaders alike.
Many people bring up the " experience" question. They believe that Barack Obama will be President one day but lacks the experience at this time. This is a fallacy. The President of the United States has access to the best minds in the country; experts in every field possible are available to the President .It is obvious that, with all their experience, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, didn`t fare well in early primaries. They were the most experienced candidates on the stage. The President needs to be able to absorb all the information that he can and make decisions. Judgment is a much more critical attribute. Barack Obama illustrated his judgment when he opposed the war in Iraq. He is not anti -war, he is "anti-dumb war “. Iraq has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. We have accomplished nothing and we are struggling and consuming more American assets just to reach a pre war level of peace.

All I keep hearing from the Obama crew is how great a speaker this man is, and how he moves this one and that one to tears. The IMF is already warning the Caribbean islands of the USA recession and to get ready for it. What is Obama's take on all this, what is his take on immigration giving persons drivers license is not a solution, what is his take on AQ, meeting them is not going to stop their kind of madness. He says nothing but "yes we can" that will not put food on the table when things start to fall apart. Yet he is firing up young people to vote, kids that have their parents picking up their college tabs, who in the end if he does not deliver will suffer the most. All this is like playing Russian roulette with the future, and I do hope that people will sit up and think because it sure looks like a lot of us are not thinking of what tomorrow may bring.

Remy

If we have a brokered convention, the Republicans will have the advantage. A divisive primary campaign allows the other party to research, plan, and eventually challenge the crediblity of our candidate. The attacks are relentless. The Democratic races in 1968 and 1980 are good examples of this.

I have read all of the comments. I think the conversation is healthy reguardless of your cannidate of choice. I am a bit confused on an issue, perhaps someone can help me out.

If we have a "brokered convention," who has the advantage? and why?

All of this has been coming down the pike since Iowa. The Landslide victory in Maine was the final chapter in this sad tale of Hillary’s Campaign incompetence. The campaign manager swap, the campaign coffers being empty, and these stories of infighting in Hillaryville are just the “Background” on the real story.

Hillary loses Maine in 20 point landslide. That’s the rub. Let me explain.

It’s now clear that they hand no campaign planed after Super Tuesday, even though in Iowa Mark Penn was saying stuff like, “Its all about the delegates”. Was this just bluster? Didn’t he know it was all about delegates? Or was he banking on a Super Tuesday win?

Team Obama obviously planned a national campaign from day one. After South Carolina Obama’s people fanned out across the country, while Hillary assumed she would blast out of Iowa the winner and march her ass into the white house. In fact, she though she wouldn’t even need to campaign in Iowa (remember that?). This turns to have been a fantasy. Or to say it more plainly, total incompetence.

If you care to look closely, the incompetence is the bi line all over Hillary’s campaign. It has been slipshod and messy since the beginning. It has no message. And no message control, just look at Bill Clinton to understand what I mean.

What is Hillary campaigning for? What are her core beliefs? Why does she want to be president? I keep asking myself that question. And there are no answers forth coming from her campaign. The only thing I can say with confidence about Hillary is she is for woman’s rights, and Health Care. Beyond that… I got no idea what she cares about. That is another mark of her campaign’s incompetence. Look at the clarity of John Edward’s campaign. Even though he never caught fire, he ran a very good stump. Is there any doubt what he stands for?

From Iowa on, every message out of the Clinton Camp has been a garbled reactionary stew devoid of Vision, Leadership or Character. She’s simply been playing catch up with Obama.

In Iowa, “I am the Future Democratic Nominee”. Then oops, “I’ve found my voice”. In Nevada “Culinary Union should not be allowed to vote if they backed Obama!” A bit later, “He only won South Carolina because there are so many black people there.” After that, “Florida and Michigan votes should count because they voted for ME!” On Super Tuesday, she declared that, “Obama is now the Establishment Candidate”. And somewhere along the line Hillary became the candidate for “Change”. Finally her campaign crowed, “We stopped Obama in California”.

~ And then came Maine

I’m not saying this because I want to pile onto Hillary’s unfortunate situation. Her campaign is going down in flames. The next month is going to be painful to watch. I just hope we don’t have to drag her kicking and screaming off the stage at the Democratic Convention, as she flails around trying to rip down the Obama Victory banners.

On the other hand, Obama has run a pitch perfect campaign, probably the best I’ve ever seen. Tight message control, no negative campaigning, cash showing up by the truck load. He took on the Clintons machine, and now it seems clear that he won. To have a campaign that can go national like this, with such ease and sophistication during a primary fight is just unbelievable. This isn’t even the general election for Christ’s sakes!

Hillary on the other hand has been captain on a sinking ship. Pretty strange, since she claims to be the “Experience” candidate. If that where true, this never would have happened.

Joseph,

You are the one that is uninformed about Hillary. In Arkansas, she provided legal aid to the poor, assisted with health care and education issues for children. As first lady, she was an advocate for women's rights around the world, adoption, breast cancer research, veterans with Gulf War Syndrome, health care for children, tackled the drug companies to test drugs for children, and so on.

Hillary has an uphill battle to secure this nomination. However, before you speak about her non accomplishments, you need to have your facts straight.

"The stakes are much to high to hand this election to someone based on charisma."

The mistake you Clinton supporters make again and again is to assume everyone is as ill-informed as you are. I usually don't like education elitism, but since you're calling me naive or a fool who votes based on "charisma", I have to respond. All voter data shows that support for Obama rises with education levels. I promise you that well educated people are not more likely to be suckered in by con-men than less educated people. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Aside from Hillary Clinton's time in the NY senate, her main experience is as first lady and working for a corporate law firm. Let's face it, her husband's name and political network is the only reason Hillary Clinton was the 'inevitable' nominee, and it's the only reason she's still in this race. There are 15 other women in the US senate who worked much harder than Hillary Clinton to get to where they are.

I think the stakes are much to high to hand the nomination to the lesser candidate just because uninformed people are more familiar with her name.

It's true that only a fool would count Clinton out. But that doesn't change the fact that she's run a poor campaign. Before Iowa, her odds to win were about 98%. After Feb. 5th, her odds to win about 50%. After Washinton, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine, her odds to win are about 35%. Her strategy was based entirely on a few big states and the fame and political network of Bill Clinton's presidency. It's like she is running to be President of just New York and California. She belittles the electorate in every state she loses by saying they don't reflect the "real electorate". Americans everywhere should be insulted.

Obama, on the other hand, has run a campaign focussed on EVERY state and he has come from near 0% to 70% in 8 weeks. He is running to be President of the entire USA, not just a few big states.

If the way Clinton has run her campaign is any indication, she would make a really poor president.

What I think is I think I love you for this last part:

"Only a fool would say it's over for Sen. Clinton -- she is, in fact, ready to do well in the primaries in three weeks in Ohio and Texas, as well as Pennsylvania. She's a strong fighter, she has a tenacious campaign."

And you're also right, my friend.

If we exclude FL and MI and the superdelgates the delegate count is:

Earned delegates
Clinton - 896
Obama - 925

Obama is ahead by 29.

Clinton gains 42 from Florida giving the total earned delegates lead to Clinton by 13.

There are 30 other Florida delegates that were *awarded* to those that voted for other than Clinton.

Does Obama get those 30 delegates automatically? If not, how do you allocate delegates that chose not to vote for Clinton at the time to Clinton?

If we award those *other* delegates to Obama, he takes back the overall earned delegate lead by 17.

In short, Clinton is raising all this ruckus over 12 delegates...hardly seems worth it, does it?

Of course that assumes the Clintons aren't trying to get all the *other* delegate votes as well as those actually awarded them in the discredited primary.

If that's the case, how do the Clintons justify taking votes that originally didn't vote for them?

The same thing holds true of Michigan. The delegates *awarded* in their discredited primary:

Clinton 81
Other 75

Again, where do these 75 *other* delegates go? They obviously voted against the Clintons as HRC was the only name on the ballot.

Does Obama automatically get those? We don't want to disenfranchise anyone, do we?

To create this much kerfuffle over 18 delegates is fairly desperate, especially under the worst case scenario, Obama still comes out ahead in earned delegates.

Now recall that without FL and MI, Obama led the earned delegate count by 29. The net gain of earned delegates if we add the discredited FL and MI primaries is 18 for Clinton.

Obama still leads earned delegates by 11 under the worst case scenario.

The superdelegates are allowed to change their votes at any time up through the convention, so I don't see a reason to track them yet. They will definately shift to whomever is winning overall, so their totals now are extraneous.

But for the sake of the HilBots here, include them. Clinton leads there 224-132 or a + 92 according to the DNC. Take away the worst case scenario earned delegates lead for Obama of 11 and the Clintons are *ahead* in overall delegate count of 81.

Can Obama win those 81 tomorrow in the Potomac Primary round?

****
The infamous popular vote...

Overall primary vote
Clinton 9,077,984 - 870,303 (FL) - 327,419 (MI) = 7,880,262
Obama 8,662,315 - 575,794 (FL) = 8,086,521

Obama wins the popular vote by 206,259 if we exclude the Florida and Michigan discredited primaries.

If the HilBots want to include the discredited Florida primary popular vote:

Florida popular vote
Clinton 870,303
Obama 575,794
= 294,509

291,100 other Florida primary voters will be disenfranchised if we don't include them somewhere so where do they go?

We know above all the Clintons are worried sick about disenfranchising voters...that's all they've talked about since the close call of NH started their war to include these discredited primaries. So do you think they'll say these poor souls votes should go to the only remaining Dem standing besides the Clintons?

Amended for HilBots popular vote variance:
Clinton 294,509 discredited FL primary
Obama 206,259 real popular vote lead

88,250 Clinton overall lead popular vote once the Clintons get their discredited primaries included again.

Now let's add the Michigan discredited popular vote just to ease the Clintons mind about voter disenfranchisement:

Total vote 592,261
Clinton 327,419
= 264,842 voted for other than Clinton

Again, since we're not disenfranchising, where do those other 264,842 votes go?

Assume for the moment we disenfranchise those *other* votes:

88,250 Clinton lead after their FL votes added
327,419 Michigan votes FOR the Clintons

Total 415,669 Clinton lead if we add only discredited votes FOR the Clintons

291,100 Florida *other than Clinton* votes
264,842 Michigan *other than Clinton* votes
TOTAL 555,942

SO...if the Clintons insist on not disenfranchising FL and MI voters, they actually LOSE 140,273 popular votes.

So let's get serious, shall we? We need to redo the Florida and Michigan primaries AFTER Puerto Rico votes. Since the states pay for primaries, they will have to be caucuses as the party pays for those and the state will not support shelling out 10 million because of party politics.

It's the only fair way to handle those two states and not punish the voters there.

Which makes the REAL numbers as of 2/11:

206,259 real popular vote lead by Obama

29 real delegate vote lead by Obama

81 overall delegate lead by Clinton if you include superdelegates...

Again I ask, can Obama make up those 81 superdelegate votes tomorrow with real delegates from the people?

Speradsheets with predictions of who will win the democratic nomination are all over the blogs. Hillary loses unless something happens with superdelegates, the US territories,the trend changes or the DNC changes rules. If she wins, it will be because she can dramatically change the Obama trend and or the rules change in the middle of the game. Should be a fun three weeks. Mud, drama or both.

Will,

If you are on a forum like this, it is your job to explain Obama's position. Aren't you an advocate for him? You can't just say read his position papers.

I'm disappointed you stated that only a fool would say it's over for Sen. Clinton. Not that you asked, but....

Clinton says "I am absolutely looking to Ohio". Why isn't she looking to Wisconsin? Can someone tell me why Clinton chooses to mention Ohio and not Wisconsin. Why is Ohio considered more winnable than Wisconsin for Clinton?

CUBA 1959... USA 2008... The Messiah and the people’s collective hysteria. Obama will take United States in the same path that Castro took the Cuban people. We are re-living the same messianic madness we experienced in Cuba in January 1959 at the triumph of the Cuban revolution that delivered the Cuban people to the threshold of hell.”

Do you really think he is better becuase a poll says it???
He also was better in CA MA NH NJ AR
and got smashed there.
A poll is some hundred poeple even a thousnad. That hardly reflects the country. If you think poeple concerned with the war and our National security will vote for Obama your nuts. He says he can get clinton voters? I doubt that.
Millions of women who voted for Hillary and are praying for her to win.
If she loses you can bet they vote Mccain. Latino's and women and Catholics were the key to the last two elections. ALL OF THEM HE DOES VERY BAD WITH.
Latino's are swing voters. I also say again, what qualifys him in anyway to handle a war and withdrawal of troops?
Nothing. If he wins, i vote for McCain.
Despite what he says, he won't get her voters.
None of us are willing to throw our future down the drain and the life of those brave young men and women who are fighting. WHo Obama has never met ONCE.
Unlike Hillary.

about florida, Obama ran ads in Florida for 2 weeks.
HE BROKE THE PLEDGE. Not her.
YES Hillary has met with several foriegn leaders. She has been to Iraq on a few different occasions. She fought for womens rights and childrens rights in Beijing, she stood up to their leaders and told them it was cruel and inhumane to murder babies for being born girls. She has traveled to 82 different countries. She has been to Afghanistan several times.
Obama, has never met with a foriegn leader and has no National security experience or foriegn policy. Hillary stumps herself. She does not have to pander with Oprah and the Kennedys.
If he is so for the future why he is he using poeple who have been part of the "broken system" for decades to campaign???? You can say you are going to change things, that will not happen with a fancy speech. His "ethics" bill, was a bill that said who poeple could eat lunch with. WOW, that stops nothing.
He recieved over 250,000 dollars from Exxelon the biggest Nuclear power company in america.
Obama once he was in the senate NEVER voted to oppose the war. This guy is a walking contradiction.
He says poeple do not vote for him because were cynical??? Like it has nothing to do with not wanting to hand our country over to some guy with no experience in anything, being a community organiser does not mean you can lead and change a country. He has taken lobbyist money and in carolina had a pac running ads. Please read between the Glitz. These workers he says he helped in Chicago say he did not do much of anything. Except buy land with Rezko and have his political career funded by the guy.
Poeple can dog the clintons fact of the matter is, they have done more positive things for this country and around the world than any pundit or critics ever will. That is why Blue collar voters go for her. We are in reality. What happens next matters to us. We are not priveleged to make it through more bad days. I am not stuck in a fantasy where everyone plays nice and thinks your god becuase gifted writers pen your speeches. Obama supporters think they are going to unite the country? How do you do that by bad mouthing poeple for believing in someone other than him????

After this weekend is added in, Clinton is behind in pledged delegates, total delegates, states won, and the popular vote. Others who have done the math suggest she needs to carry PA, OH, and TX by >10% to get more pledged delegates assuming Obama takes the Potomac primaries by >5% and WI and HI are close. She is not done by any means, but she needs a spark in VA, WI, or the one of the two debates between OH and TX. BTW, delegates awared in NE+WA+LA+VI+ME+VA+MD+DC > OH+TX.

I agree with you Matt, but do you really think Obama can do all he says he can? I don't think so.

HILLARY IS THE REAL DEAL. She is a strong fighter. Obama is one of those YOUNG, and NEW faces. He only says what people WANT to hear. None of the candidates for this election don't have any skeletons in their closets.

HILLARY IS UNSTOP-ABLE! She is a strong fighter yes, and Obama is one of those YOUNG, and NEW faces. He only says what people WANT to hear. None of the candidates for this election don't have any skeletons in their closets.

To all those people out there that think Obama has no real substance I say again go to his site. You all probably don't remember that when this whole thing began he was giving detailed speeches on his issues. People didn't like that so he changed. Also, have you listened to his last several speeches. He clearly outlines what he intends to do with the economy, education and the environment to name a few.

I do think that it is just wrong and plain jaded to call all Obama supporters a cult. I also agree that calling all Hillary supporters idiots is wrong as well. Personally, I am excited about Obama because of those position papers on his site and what he talks about (the issues) in his speeches. He does represent change in the way he brings post-partisan language to the biggest political stage. He is also of the rare political ilk that can admit when they are wrong, learn from the mistakes and grow stronger and better for future decisions. Obama is an intensely enlightened gentleman who will bring a needed tidal shift to the current trends in presidential politics. Have you noticed that he has run a well oiled machine of a campaign? It is truly impressive.

Hillary's critiqued a lot because her husband was embroiled in a sex scandal, and she blamed it all on a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." I'm just sick of the Clintons. They bring this on themselves. Bill's impeachment froze government duing his last two years in office. And lets not forget, Hillary's failed healthcare plan gave the House and Senate back to the Republicans. No more Clintons! I'd rather vote McCain.

So many commentators have had different stories about Patti Solis Doyle leaving than Hillary told you. And although I don't expect her to air her campaign's dirty linen in public, I also don't expect her to LIE to me. These fabrications slip from her lips as if she almost believes them herself, but I honestly don't know how she looks in the mirror each morning.

I read these comments and it makes me fear that people are being lulled into a popularity contest, without a full debateof real issues.
Folks in this discussion should focus on that and the right candidate will emerge.
when common folks ague over the topics
I read in this forum it makes me glad that after all it is a republic.

Why is it that Obama supporters tell us to go to his website. Why can't Obama articulate his positions himself? Don't question why you are compared to a cult when you operate the same way.

yoga2y,

My comments were exactly about the fact that Obama has just as strong a grasp of the issues as any other candidate, which people like you seem to keep trying to deny.

Do you even read his positions?

Obama Supporters,

You have all made my point! All your comments are about the horserace aspect and nothing on the issues. Obama won big this weekend. However, there are many voters that are just starting to focus on this election. The issues matter!

For a group that has a winning candidate, most of you sound like sour grapes. Why is it necessary to attack Hillary if Obama won? This race is not over. No one has answered my question about the debates. He doesn't have to agree to anything. But, if he is so great, the extra debates with Hillary should solidify his candidacy.

Vote by Race In Lousiana acording to CNN Exit Polls:
Clinton: White:68%Obama:30%
African-American Clinton:13% Obama:86%

Can someone really say that we are united?

Noah the cats out of the box. Now they won't vote for him and they will blame HRC. Obama needs to win so we have someone black to blame other then Oprah.

Kate says:

"I think she's critiqued more than other candidates just because she's female."

Yea that's it. Couldn't be because her last name is .... uh.... I don't know ......... um Clinton? Maybe?

You go Girl.

Go HILL Go!

Reasons why a black men will NOT vote for Obama.

1.Obama candidacy is being used to claim that racism in America is essentially dead, killing the need for programs such as Affirmative Action and along with it civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If you Google Obama and Race or if you listen to analyst on News programs, it’s obvious that Obama's strong showing is being used to slam the door on the issue of race in America. Some entities want you to believe a fallacy of composition by suggesting to you that because some whites vote or support Obama that such serves as vouchers for the remainder of whites. Thus, if 20% of voting age white America is willing to vote for Obama, how does that logically imply that the remaining 80% who don’t are not potentially or in fact racist? How does a white person voting for Obama mean that I will not be racially profiled and pulled over by a white cop? How does that mean that I will not get denied a job by the hiring manager of a company, due to the fact that I am black? How does that mean I will not be charged a higher interest rate for a loan than an equally qualified white? How does that mean I will not be followed around and watched at an upscale store? How does that mean that I will not have a noose hung at my office? To suggest that because some whites are not racist it demonstrates that all whites are not racist is as absurd as suggesting that because some whites are racist that all are.

2. There is a high possibility that America will sink into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression in the next 5 years. If there is a black President in office, it will be seen subconsciously or consciously as the fault of the President. There are so many ominous economic signs such as a falling dollar, rising consumer and government debt, trade deficits, the loss of comparative advantage, outsourcing, high oil prices; inflation….the list goes on and on. There is no monetary of fiscal policy which will solve these problems. Our nation simply consumes more than it produces via our borrowing growth far exceeding our income growth. The American economy or GDP needs a downward correction so that consumption falls in line with production and our spending is based upon what we have earned and not what we borrow. Attempting to hold this off via monetary and fiscal policy, especially the former, makes the correction that much worse when it is forced upon us in the form of a deep recession or depression. As a Michigander, I witnessed the Decline of Detroit proper nearly totally blamed on Black leadership, and not the declining fortunes of the Auto Industry that gave it life.

3. His platform of “change” has little substance. Obama is popular because he gives great speeches about a vision for a different America. Yet, he has not explained how he has the power to essentially change the “System”. The only thing that he really has the power to change is the perception that a black people are hindered by race in America and or its corollary that whites in America are racist. Obama has not been asked many tough questions, especially questions with racial overtones. Such questions and his response to those questions will have a seesaw effect. His response will increase his support among blacks, but lower it among whites or increase it among whites but lower it among blacks. The only answer that will have a neutral effect is to avoid answering the question and simply use a slogan such as “Change” or “Working together” or “Getting along”. That way each side can interpret it as getting the other side to see things their way. In reality, however, in a representative republic such as our, the interest or side that will be favored is the majority rule, which is the side of whites.

4. John Edwards was the best choice for the Democrats based upon empirical evidence. Southern white males have been the formula for defeating the “Southern Strength” of the Republican Party. Johnson, Carter and Clinton were the only democrats to win office since Kennedy. Politics changed drastically after the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 60’s and many Southern whites left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party as a result of democratic support for desegregation. Every since then, it has taken a Southern white male Democrat to win the presidency. Also, the best candidate for Democrats should be in sync with the Democratic candidate that Republicans despise the most, which is Clinton. I cannot help but use the analogy of how much Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were hated by whites in their time. The blacks that whites hated and feared the most were the blacks that were the best for our struggle. It may be true, following the same reasoning, that the Democrat most hated by Republicans is the Democrat best for liberals.

5. It’s easier for a white person in power to do the right thing towards blacks than it will be for a black person to do so. Unfortunately, it is often the case that when a black person is elevated to a position of power from a predominantly white source, they become harder on blacks. It maybe the case that they do not want to appear that they are showing favoritism towards blacks when their position of power is by virtue of whites. They may subconsciously feel that they must not only represent the white way of thinking, but must over compensate to demonstrate that way of thinking. They don’t want to risk alienating or angering the hand that is feeding their political viability. Consequently, a black person put in power by the white majority can often be the least likely to fight for policies that help the black masses. It’s tempting to fantasize that a black candidate can sneak into office by telling whites what they want to hear and then get into office and become a zealous advocate of black causes. However, there are to many checks and balances for that and power is so addictive that the office holder will not want to risk it, lest they or their party not be reelected.

I'm also getting sick of people calling Obama supporters a cult. It is a disservice to millions of Americans, and does nothing to raise the level of discourse.

READ HIS POSITION papers on his website, watch the interview called "Afternoon with Barack Obama", which I found at

This is a very smart man who has a substantive grasp of many critical issues, and IMO is a just a better candidate than Hillary Clinton.

What happens when Obama gets a chance for people in Ohio, Texas, and Pensylvania to familiarize with him and her big lead vanishes? How does she triangulate then??

She's not ahead in the popular vote. Only for super tuesday is she; but if you add SC, NV, IA and NH, she's slightly down. This weekends romp adds to that deficit.

You got to love it - The dems are trying to squash the vote in view of the people. They have always tried to squash the vote before when it benefited them!

I am a black female who at one time was going to vote for Hillary, that IS----until I saw Obama speak and Bill Clinton try to trivialize his candicy, and even subtly tried to inject the race card. JUST like she and him are doing with the States Obama is winning by large magins. It looks to me like Bill is getting desperate and it is showing but I think Hillary knows. Also, How many times can you trivialize ALL of these States Obama has won Sounds like Julianne to me, and I don't think it is going to work.

It's time for the Clintons to retire and travel. I think people are pretty tired of the Bushes, AND the Clintons,and their supposedly inheritence of the office of President..

Kate's response is a plant. That quote has appeared verbatim on other blogs. Yoga82y, you say that Obama hasn't even been to Iraq. Well, I must have missed Ms. Slick's visit. The thought of her opposite another world leader and, Heaven forbid, she tears up, God help us. And I'm laughing at Bill - he not only screwed up his marriage, he's now screwed up his wife's campaign. Keep it up Mr. Slick, I appreciate it every time you open your mouth. Just more votes against Mr. and Mrs. Slick.

Jake - why did you just call your respected colleague Matthew Dowd a fool?

Matthew took a position and expressed an opinion that Obama will win the nomination:

I have huge respect for Matthew Dowd's judgment and perspectives.

Nor should they count Florida or Michigan! There was no campaign in Florida, and in Michigan, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot! Both states have time, right now, to do processes that comply with DNC rules. If they don't, they can't be counted. We will not permit this nomination to be stolen by changing the rules after the game has been played.

Peace,

The reality is the country is starting to look closely at Obama. He is sitting on his lead and has only agreed to a few debates. That is his choice. But, what is he afraid of? If he is going to be the nominee, shouldn't the country get a third, fifth, and twenty-fifth look at him? Folks, we are talking about someone having the codes to our nuclear arsenal and making life and death decisions.

Again, these posts are focusing on the horserace and not the important issues. This election isn't over by any means.

People who think Hillary is over are
so naive, believing everything they read.They have a very naive attitude toward politics.

I continue to be dismayed at the spin being generated about FLA and MI. Yes, it would be appropriate if these votes can be counted, but these two states went ahead with their primaries against CLEARLY expressed rules.
ALL of the candidates agreed not to allow these delegates to be seated, until one of them decided to change her mind. Obama has NEVER said that these votes don't count, he has only maintained the same pledge he started with.
If the candidates and the DNC agree to a process to renegotiate this, then fine. Anything else is changing the facts in mid-game.
The DNC needs to get it's act together, and do it soon.

Russert has come down, he is lying , and he changes the facts. In the past I considered him a good reporter, but now he has lost his position. I think Oprah has something to do with what happens in NBC, she took them all down, to bring Obama up.

I am not sure a candidate who has trouble financing his/her campaing is ready to handle the economy/finance of the country, specially at this critital time of dire economic situtaion.

Please think hard before voting. It will only work to you advantage if you don't look either at the gender or the race of the candidate and vote for the true leader who not only can improve the current situation but change the direction of the nation radically toward a much better direction.

Well said, Kate. I hope all Democrats keep that in mind.

The primarys comeing up do not represent America, How could anyone expect Obama to win in Texas, to many hispanics, the same holds true in D.C. and Maryland to many blacks, Ohio and Penn. are the way America realy looks. What happens there will say something.

Thank Your yoga82. I thought I was the only one seeing the bias of JPT. Shame on You ABC News.

Hillary 9,077,984 47.50%
Obama 8,662,315 45.33%

Is this a losing campaign's vote total?
Russert is lying as usual. I suppose he did not count Florida and Michigan.

Hillary 9,077,984 47.50%
Obama 8,662,315 45.33%

Is this a losing campaign's vote total?
Russert is lying as usual. I suppose he did not count Florida and Michigan.

Hillary is an experienced leader who would make an effective President. I think she's critiqued more than other candidates just because she's female. At the end of the day - we will elect either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as the Democratic party nominee and both are intelligent and compassionate to issues that affect all Americans. We are fortunate to have two good candidates as evidenced by the neck to neck campaign results so far.

The reality is people rally towards the winner and not the opposite.

Hillary is optimistic the way Guilliani was. But after he lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, his support started to shrink until it collapsed.

Its like one brick after the other falling from the wall. I the end the whole wall eventually goes down.

Jake- I see that Clinton said again she is ahead in the popular vote. Can you please sort out this conflicting fact? Yesterday on "This Week", George Stephanopolous displayed numbers showing Clinton somewhat ahead in the popular vote. But over on "Meet the Press", Russert showed a virtual tie with Obama slightly ahead. Why the dispute?

Obama Supporters,

This is going to be a street fight for the nomination. Most of Obama supporters do not talk about the issues and how he will govern. How does he plan to handle both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? What are his views on use of nuclear weapons? Let's get real. His victories on the weekend and probably tomorrow look impressive. But, the election season isn't over.

Clinton is clearly good at spinning what amounts to an enormous set of losses, as she continues to alter her criteria for success. She is in fact NOT ahead in the delegate count even before tomorrow's voting.
Her big state strategy is a failure, leading to arguments that imply states other than Texas and Ohio, (or NY and CA) are somehow less relevant!
This video interview with Obama really undermines her 'experience' argument:

I certainly don't count Clinton out by any means. She is a tenacious campaigner, especially in managing expectations, but the more I actually read Obama's policy positions the less I believe Clinton's shifting arguments.

My bad. Of course, it was band manager Ian Faith explaining away Spinal Tap's diminishing audience. . .

Do successful campaigns have to be self-financed, at least in part? Do successful campaigns need managerial reorganizations if they're doing well? Do successful campaigns have the candidate's spouse distorting history, spinning the truth, and generally making an embarrassment of himself to whoever will listen? Do successful campaigns put the best possible face on untenable scenarios? As I previously wrote, it seems that "inevitability" doesn't mean what it used to.

America has grown, you would think that after the black voters supporting Obama by 80% that the whites would be outraged. But no, they have demostrated that they are beyond the attitude of TIT-for-TAT. This makes me proud that we permit this without taking a stance. We have surpassed the gang attitude.

Again, sounds like Sir Dennis Eton-Hogg's explaining why Spinal Tap's playing 3,000 seat venues is not evidence of their decreasing popularity.

As expected, 'ole Hill has an excuse for every negative indication of her ever evident losing path. I don't believe she will ever go down with grace. Hill first; party last! I just hope that the super delagates will play fair, and if called upon will chose which is best for the party. Bama is Best!

Look for the Clinton campaign to advance this storyline: don't rob the so far "silent majority" of voters in Ohio, Texas and Penn. Marginalize the caucuses because Clinton's working class voters can't do appointment civics (expect to hear a lot more about Bill Clinton's nurses) and ignore primary states with large Black populations because as Bill says we all know how proud Black voters are of Sen. Obama. But if Sen. Obama sweeps the Feb contests will this be enough to keep his big mo at bay? Or will Sen. Obama use his wins and his winning ways to seal the deal?

Hillary shoul now that Guliani's strategy of ignoring voters waiting for the big one does not work.

Take the party down with her??? Um Obama does not have a hope if he denies Florida and Michigan their delegates. Most of the states he won will never vote Democrat and Florida certainly won't if he keeps campaigning to disenfranchise 1.5 million democrats there.

Hey if it comes down to Peurto Rico, then it comes down to Puerto Rico. I can't wait for the racist howls from the Obama cult about how they aren't America and how dare they vote for Clinton and how we can't let this race be decided by Puerto Rico. Just like we can't let Michigan or Florida decide, just like we can't let duely elected Demorctic Party representatives and executives excercise the rights they have had for 30 years under the Constitution of the DNC.

Who is it that's taking the Party down??? Seems like Obama's camp to me.

Why is it everytime Obama wins somewhere the media is ready to pronounce Hillary finished? The large black populations make Obama unbeatable tomorrow. The weirdo college crowd in Wisconsin make him the favorite. Then on to states where blacks and students will not carry the cult to victory.