Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama Has Already Won

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. People in more than 20 states will vote in large numbers in primaries. More than at any time that I can remember, the drama is high, more non-voters are becoming voters, and everyone is in suspense. I say that regardless of what happens tomorrow, Barack Obama has already won.

Barack Obama entered the race as the man who can produce change, the kind of change that drastically reduces political combat, reduces character vilification, and brings us all together to work for the common good. He has already succeeded.

Only a few months ago, Obama's mantra was change and Clinton's mantra was experience. Lately Clinton talks all the time about change. She says she can more effectively produce change because of her experience. Clinton has adopted Obama's message.

I expected Republican candidates to do more knocking of their opponents. And they started out that way, especially Juiliani. After being on top, Juiliani dropped out of the race. There is some knocking but emphasis is on issues. Republicans are running away from Bush and are seeking change.

Barack Obama has started not merely a campaign, but a movement. He has enlisted all the "little guys" with his emphasis on small donations rather than on big donors, as was commonly done by others in the past. Whether he wins or loses the nomination/election, his movement will remain strong and work actively for the ideals Obama has demonstrated. He will be a famous leader and the president and congress will pay close attention to what he says.

Regardless of who will be elected, U.S. will not be the same. It will become the shining light to other nations it once was. And the credit should and will go to Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has already won!

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 4, 2008 2:52 PM
Comments
Comment #244612

I concur that Barack has more then likley won although I would not rule out Clinton. As a new Democrate, to really ensure a Democratic win, I would really like to see a Clinton / Obama or a Obama / Clinton ticket!!!! I really think that they would make a really great team. My personal preference would be Clinton / Obama to get Barack 8 years of experience and then him be President for 8 years. Just my personal preferance.
Lyle

Posted by: Lyle Nussbaum at February 4, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #244613

Gotta disagree with you, Paul… Hillary is now talking about change? Whoop-dee-doo! Candidates talk about change all the time, this is nothing new.

The only way Obama will win is if he… well… you know… wins!

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 4, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #244624

I think Howard Dean preceded Obama on enlisting the “little guys”, and Tracy Chapman preceded Obama on Change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s2YVFfWP5c
Somebody combined the song with a video with lots of JFK, some MLK, and a little RFK, but the shots of Obama with the Kennedys behind him are a little laughable. Ted Kennedy, his arrogant son, and Caroline, who sounded like she had taken a trip to Agrestic, the last time I heard her speak. Our local Kennedy wants to be the next Donald, and his brother is endorsing Hillary.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 4, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #244625

Change? Would someone please do a posting on what this is. What has Obama won? So everyone is talking about change. Big deal! Talk is cheap. Washington is Washington. It is the way it is and has been since forever. It will still be the same even after President Barack Obama has come and gone. I would love for everyone to join hands in Washington, sing we shall over come, agree on health care, agree on abortion, agree on the war, agree on corporations, and so forth. It ain’t gonna happen. I would love for Washington to set term limits, quit adding expensive garbage to every bill, quit taking money from lobbyists, and the list goes on. It ain’t gonna happen.

It is wonderful to dream but we need to get off that cloud. I have been there and done that. When I was in my twenties I too thought that Washington could be changed. I believed that if we just had the right president everything would be different. I protested and voted but Nixon still got elected. Boy that was a rude awakening. Now I vote for who I think will do the least damage. I have no dream that my party-democratic- will really and truly make a new world. I just hope we can win and do less damage than the last president.

Posted by: Carolina at February 4, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #244635

Change?????? The only thing that’s going to change is the resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. As far as Obama winning, I wouldn’t count my chickens before they hatch Paul.

Posted by: KAP at February 4, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #244637

There were a lot of people who bet on New England yesterday who had the same arrogant attitude about their team.

One thing is for sure, no one knows for sure who is going to win.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at February 4, 2008 9:33 PM
Comment #244644

To all who have posted here:

“I concur that Barack has more then likley won although I would not rule out Clinton.”

“The only way Obama will win is if he… well… you know… wins!”

“What has Obama won? So everyone is talking about change. Big deal! Talk is cheap. Washington is Washington.”

“As far as Obama winning, I wouldn’t count my chickens before they hatch Paul.”

“There were a lot of people who bet on New England yesterday who had the same arrogant attitude about their team.”

People, GET A GRIP!
I do not think Paul was talking about Obama having won the election or even the nomination. He was talking about a win in the principle catagory. He even acknowledges that he still may lose the nomination, but what he has achieved is a win in the sense that he is blazing a new trail for many to follow.

I do not agree with about 95% of what Paul posts, but even I can see what he was trying to say. Here he is trying to rally his troops with an uplifting and inspiring piece about a truly unique candidacy, and all you can do is try and bring him down. He gives you something that you should be proud of yet you ridicule and denigrate, and you do it with arguments that assume things he did not say,(very common here), or just fill the space with hate and surrender to the notions that nothing can ever be changed. And why, because your life is not what you want it to be? For all the hate and discontent I have seen here, I wonder how many of you have been blessed too many times to be counted. How easy it is to complain. And what, really, do you have to complain about?

“One thing is for sure, no one knows for sure who is going to win.”

He never said who is going to win in the end, but one thing is for sure. The liberal attitude and life is filled with negativity, despair, and a generally miserable attitude. Doubt my words? Go and read all the previous posts again. He tried to help, you should all be ashamed.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at February 4, 2008 11:43 PM
Comment #244646

Well done, Paul! I agree.

Beirut Vet:

The liberal attitude and life is filled with negativity, despair, and a generally miserable attitude.


No sir, it isn’t. Only those who are currently opposing Obama’s candidacy sound so negative and miserable at the moment.
The rest of us liberals are saying: “Yes We Can!” And when we do, we’re actually reaching out our hands to people of every political stripe (except perhaps for the die hard Neocons who have done nothing but spit at all us). We’d really like to see if we could change the political tone and start talking to each other from a position of respect again.
In order to form a more perfect Union, you might say. :^)

Here is a good opinion piece on the differences between these two factions of our Democratic Party going into Super Tuesday.

There are many reasons not to support Barack Obama’s candidacy for president, but every one of them is bad for the same reason.

Because I have come out publicly for the senator from Illinois, I am often called upon to listen as people offer up — with wistfulness and regret, or with a pundit’s show of certainty, or with a well-earned but useless skepticism — their bad reasons for not giving Obama their support. For a long time now, I have listened to these people with forbearance and with a sense of duty — not to some principle of open debate or of the inherent merit in the free exchange of even meritless ideas, but rather out of obligation to the candidate whose cause I champion.

Because Obama appears to be a patient, forbearing man with a gift for listening, I figured I owed it to him to play the thing his way. So I have nodded and looked into their eyes and hummed sympathetically as people gave their reasons and made their excuses and generally offered up, as if they were golden ingots of profound wisdom, the handful of two-penny nails with which they plan to board up the windows of their hopes for themselves, their families, their country and the world.

But now, with everything seeming to come down, at last, to the first Tuesday in February, and in the wake of an all-out, months-long push by the cynicism industry to cook up an entire line of bad reasons ready to heat and serve, I admit that I’m getting tired of listening to rationales from people who know that Obama is a remarkable, even an extraordinary politician, the kind who comes along, in this era of snakes and empty smiles, no more than once a generation.

Oh, sure, most of these people tell me they would like to see Obama become president. No question, he comes off as at once brilliant and sensible, vibrant and measured, engaged and engaging, talented, forthright, quick-witted, passionate, thoughtful and, as with all remarkable people whom experience has taught both the extent and the bitter limits of their gifts, reasonably humble. In a better world, people tell me, in theory, sure, having a president like Barack Obama sounds great. But not, you know, for real. Not in the base, corrupt, morally spent, toxic and reeling rats’ nest that we like to call home. Things are so bad we just can’t afford to waste our votes, people tell me, on some fantasy super-president with magical powers. We need someone electable, someone, as I have been told repeatedly in the past year, who can win.

Of course this misses the point; it misses all kinds of points. In a better world, if there were such a thing (and so far there never has been), we would not need a president like Obama as badly as we do. If there were less at stake, if our democracy had not been permitted, indeed encouraged, to sink to its present degraded and embattled condition not only by the present administration but by a fair number of those people now seeking to head up the next one, perhaps then we could afford to waste our votes on the candidate who knows best how to jigger, to manipulate and to conform to the vapid specifications of the debased electoral process it has been our unhappy fate to construct for ourselves.

Because ultimately, that is the point of Obama’s candidacy — of the hope, enthusiasm and sense of purpose it inspires, yes, but more crucially, of the very doubts and reservations expressed by those who pronounce, whether in tones of regret, certainty or skepticism, that America is not ready for Obama, or that Obama is not ready for the job, or that nobody of any worth or decency — supposing there even to be such a person left on the American political scene — can be expected to survive for a moment with his idealism and principle intact.

If anyone is interested in reading the rest, here is the link to this excellent Michael Chabon piece from today’s Washington Post:

Obama vs. the Phobocracy

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 12:13 AM
Comment #244650

Obama to Bush: “You do not have our support or authorization for another war” Barack Obama says that instead of rushing to war (with Iran), what is needed is robust leadership, and tough and sustained diplomacy.

Posted by: Emmy at February 5, 2008 7:20 AM
Comment #244654

Well I certainly think you misunderstood my post. I understood perfectly what Paul was saying. However, I disagree that Obama has really won anything. So everyone is talking about change-this has happened before in politics-and nothing changes. “He has started a movement”, “he will be a famous leader and congress will pay close attention to what he says”, “US will not be the same”, “it will become the shining light to other nations it once was”.

Good grief-I find this all very scary. As I have posted before, I don’t understand this anointing him as the second coming. He is a politican. He talks good. But excuse me if I don’t fall under his spell. and since when were we ever the shining light to other nations. Obama could not run on his record so he picked the only thing he could run on-change. If he does not win, he will go back to congress and do what he has done until now and that is work hard and diligently for us. Nothing he has done in congress up to this point has been outstanding. If he wins and becomes president, I think he will be far superior to what we currently have and he may go down in history as one of our better presidents.

Also, let me add that I hope he does win. I think he will make a good president but I don’t think that it will greatly change the way Washington does business. I think Hillary would make a good president not as good as Barack because of the Hillary haters on the right and because of her ties to big business.

I am a liberal democrat and want only the best for my country. I think things can be better but I will admit that I find it naive to think that things in Washington will really be that much different because of Saint Barack.

Posted by: Carolina at February 5, 2008 8:17 AM
Comment #244664

I will admit, I fell under his spell, and will be voting for him today. Do I believe he has a magic wand to fix everything in Washington? No. However, I do believe he has more of an ability to reach across the aisle then Clinton does, and I think he has more diplomacy than Clinton does, in a time where diplomacy is needed. I believe he will have more ability than anyone in the running to open communication with countries around the world. Clinton puts people off with smugness, and quite frankly, I have had enough of smug in the last 8 years to last a lifetime.

Posted by: TheKdd at February 5, 2008 11:40 AM
Comment #244667

Caroline:

Well I certainly think you misunderstood my post. I understood perfectly what Paul was saying. However, I disagree that Obama has really won anything. So everyone is talking about change-this has happened before in politics-and nothing changes.

From the speech Barack Obama gave after his victory in South Carolina:

There are real differences between the candidates.

We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. (Huge cheer.) It’s a status quo that extends beyond any particular party…and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got.

With the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be…easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.

We’re up against the belief that it’s all right for lobbyists to dominate our government. That they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem and this election is our chance to say that we are not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We’re up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington. Or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose. A higher purpose.

We’re up against decades of bitter partisanship that caused politicians to demonize opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable. Or energy cleaner. It’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea. Even if it’s one you never agreed with. That’s the kind of partisanship that is bad for our party, it is bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We’re up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. But we know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics. This is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore. This is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

Lobbyists Give Clinton Most Money, McCain Has Most on Staff

Lobbyist money taken by Clinton in 2007: $823,087
Lobbyist money taken by Obama in in 2007: 0

Nothing changes? I’d say that some change has already taken place - because all that lobbyist money hasn’t bought the Clintons a big lead today.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #244668

TheKdd… although I likely won’t vote for either of the two major party candidates come election time, I am in agreement with you that he is the best choice among the leading four candidates still vying for their party’s nominations…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 5, 2008 12:13 PM
Comment #244671

verita:

“we’re actually reaching out our hands to people of every political stripe (except perhaps for the die hard Neocons who have done nothing but spit at all us)”

So much for reaching out, huh? You will reach out to ANYONE…… except those OTHER people you do not like. I think you are the one spitting, spitting hate and venom all wrapped in a nice warm blanket of “can’t we all just get along?”

Posted by: Beirut Vet at February 5, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #244676
So much for reaching out, huh? You will reach out to ANYONE…… except those OTHER people you do not like. I think you are the one spitting, spitting hate and venom all wrapped in a nice warm blanket of “can’t we all just get along?”

Oh come now, conservatives know exactly who I am talking about when I say “neocons who spit at all of us.” I’m talking about the angry mannerless horde of politicians, people and pundits on the extreme right who have supported all of the Bush administrations Constitution-trashing lawlessness, secrecy, lying and total incompetence, while viciously demonizing everyone on the left. Calling us vitriolic names like “Terrorist Sympathizers”, and “Traitors”, and “Socialists”, etc., etc., etc.
We know we can’t hold out our hands to these people, because they’d only bite it.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 1:58 PM
Comment #244686

Hey, if you want to read a VERY cool blog that also discusses this important matter, visit SavagePolitics.com (not related to Mike Savage) so that you can finally drive away from the horrible pro-Obama media fiasco..

good articles here too!!!

E

http://www.savagepolitics.com

Posted by: elsy at February 5, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #244691

Elsy must think it’s very “cool” to compare Obama and the “horrible pro-Obama fiasco” of the people voting for him, to Hitler’s Germany.

Couple of problems with that little analogy.
1. It stupidly and outrageously trivializes what Hitler did.
2. Obama isn’t scapegoating anyone for the problems this nation faces. Instead, he’s is calling for all Americans to try to change the political tone so that we can then work together on the many problems we do face.

But, this kind of negative crapola is to be expected I suppose. Even from that “straight-talker” John McCain.

NEW YORK CITY — John McCain began Super Tuesday by planning a surge into the general election — with exactly the same rhetoric he uses to talk about the other surge.

“We’re going to take the battle to the enemy,” he said at a morning rally at Rockefeller Center in Midtown Manhattan.

He was referring to us Democrats. That’s right, his own fellow citizens are also to be considered “the enemy”, right along with the enemy of “The War on Terror”, or the “Global War Against Violent Extremism”, or whatever they’re calling the Islamic Fundamentalists of Al Qaeda this week.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #244693


“I am a member of no organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

We Democrats just can’t help but spoil things for ourselves. Obama is the spoiler this time around. The Clinton, Obama clash doesn’t help Democrats. It helps Republicans and they are loving every minute of it.

Many of those who supported Dean never showed up to vote for Kerry. How many of Obama’s supporters will show up to vote for Clinton if he doesn’t get the nomination? How many of the women who felt for sure that their time had come at last will bother to vote for the person that ruined their hopes? The very last thing we needed was a war between the women and tha African American voters in our party.

Obama will not chose Clinton as his VP running mate and even if he did, I doubt she would accept the offer. She has already been a quasi VP and I don’t think she cared to much for the job, especially after she was beat down by the Republicans and their health insurance company allies. Therefor, our only hope of keeping McCain out of the Whitehouse is probably Clinton/Obama.

Perhaps the economy and Iraq will combine to insure a Democrat victory no mater who our candidate is but, I woudn’t count on it.

Posted by: jlw at February 5, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #244695


Clinton was the middle of the road candidate.

Obama was the I can get the Republicans to go along candidate.

They both got the I am the candidate of change thing from Edwards.

Posted by: jlw at February 5, 2008 5:58 PM
Comment #244697

jlw:

How many of the women who felt for sure that their time had come at last will bother to vote for the person that ruined their hopes? The very last thing we needed was a war between the women and tha African American voters in our party.


Why the attempt to reduce the race in this way? This isn’t mere tokenism driving this close horserace, but differences that people see, feel, and hear in their personality and character. The truth is, there are African Americans voting for both of these candidates, and there are men voting for Hillary, and women voting for Obama.

In fact, Obama Has More Female Donors Than Hillary

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 6:37 PM
Comment #244698

Folks, it’s time to wake up and understand some basic realities. With the market dropping 350 points today and other economic indicators the next president will have to go into office with business smarts. There will be no time for a learning curve or OJT. Obama, for all his likability and charisma just doesn’t have the business experience or education to manage us out of our financial problems. Hillary, sad to say, doesn’t either and neither does McCain. Only one candidate can claim the experience of actually being successful in turning around floundering companies, and the Olympics as well. Mitt Romney will be working on solving our problems immediately and with the earned self-assurance of having been there, done that. And he won’t rely upon huge additional spending programs being promoted by both Obama and Clinton that simply won’t work and will make matters even worse. People in the past have always voted their pocket book, not some ideology that makes them feel good. Wise up people, your financial future is at stake. When you’re panhandling in the street it won’t make you feel any better knowing that your guy or gal is sitting comfortably in the WH.

Posted by: Jim M at February 5, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #244699
especially after she was beat down by the Republicans and their health insurance company allies.

But then she bounced back, and has now taken a lot of money from those same health insurance companies to run her campaign. I guess she figured if she couldn’t beat ‘em she, might as well join ‘em.

Jim M,
Yes, that’s just what we need. A freemarket loving billionaire to dig us out of the hole caused by freemarket loving billionaires.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #244701

Jim M,
Yes, that’s just what we need. A freemarket loving billionaire to dig us out of the hole caused by freemarket loving billionaires.
Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 06:54 PM

VV, to bad you have forsaken free markets to be replaced by what? You analogy is about as rational as blaming the brain surgeon for the infection in the maternity ward. If your plumbing is leaking do you call for a T.V. repairman? Blaming every wealthy person for our economic woes is foolish and extremely short-sighted. Romney earned his millions the hard way, he earned it by being smart and efficient. Now, you are telling me that this is not the American ideal. Can you please explain how Obama or Clinton would be more effective? Thanks!

Posted by: Jim M at February 5, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #244705


“I guess she figured if she couldn’t beat em she, might as well join em.”

If that’s her excuse, what’s Obama’s?

I’m well aware that they are both professional politicians, that they both take money from corporations and shady characters, that they both say what they think will get us on their side.

I wanted to vote for Edwards. Now that I don’t have the opportunity to vote for him, I am going to vote for Clinton. If Obama get’s the nomination, I will vote for him.

I am a Democrat that is loyal to his party. There are some Democrats who will, if they don’t like the nominee, vote for a Republican, vote for Nader, or not vote at all. Perhaps I said it badly but, what I was trying to say was that I believe that sometimes our infighting weakens our eventual candidate to the point that we can’t win the general election.

Perhaps that is not going to happen this time. Perhaps our disdain for Bush and the Republicans will unite our coalition no matter who our candidate is. Perhaps the economy and the war will get us the support we need from the independents. Perhaps the infight in the Republican party will damage their coalition.

Posted by: jlw at February 5, 2008 8:46 PM
Comment #244707


Jim M: Romney is a successful businessman but, let’s not pretend that he is a self-made millionaire that pulled himself up by his own boot straps. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he used that spoon effectively. Also, let’s not pretend that that he was successful because of a free-market economy. I am sure that he took advantage of government policies whenever possible.

Romney saved the olympics for a bunch of Mormons who spent a lot of money bribing olympic officials to get those olympics. They didn’t deserve to get the olympics. Did any of that bribe money come from Romney?

Posted by: jlw at February 5, 2008 9:06 PM
Comment #244709

I am not too impressed by early returns reported by the media, but it looks like Huckabee is not dead yet, and will continue to divide the Rpblcns if he does not kill Romney’s candidacy. McCain is being proclaimed as a winner in states that will most likely vote Democratic. On our side, the polling indicates that the Democrats will remain divided after tonight, due to proportional awarding of delegates.

Huckabee is basically an old fashioned southern democrat. The Rpblcns, in claiming ownership of the red states, are stuck with him. The religious aspect does not bother me, many democrats have those same views, but do not believe they should impose their views on others. The most disturbing thing about him is that idiotic flat tax, which he would probably drop if he gets anywhere, or McCain may beat him to death with it, unless he offers the VP spot to him.

On Hillary, people who are seeing anything negative in her, are seeing something that is not there. It has been placed in your head by media brainwashing. What toilet tissue is squeezably soft? What are the names of the 3 characters on the Rice Krispies box? Drink some liquid antacid sweetened with corn syrup, and hum the tune in the latest commercial.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 5, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #244715

JimM:

VV, to bad you have forsaken free markets to be replaced by what?

Good business practices that are actually fair and honest. Bringing back the idea that American businesses should stay in the US and pay decent wages to hard working Americans in exchange for their profits. Rather than keep promoting global “freemarket” businesses the way the GOP has, when all they’ve done is take jobs out of this country while still depending on being able to make an enormous profit off of US consumers.
Where we do deal in trade with other countries, this means we would promote Fair Market practices within the Third World, so that global businesses don’t simply take advantage of poor people in order to make wealthy businessmen even more extravagantly rich than they already are.

You analogy is about as rational as blaming the brain surgeon for the infection in the maternity ward. If your plumbing is leaking do you call for a T.V. repairman? Blaming every wealthy person for our economic woes is foolish and extremely short-sighted.

My views on our economy are rational and well thought out, I assure you. The fact is, the wealthy with the aid of the GOP continue to pursue anti-worker, anti-poor policies in America and around the world. They’ve also pursued things like speculative investing, which has totally decoupled workers well-being from their profits, and has no relationship to real production, consumption or value. Basically these people have been gambling, and it is destroying our economy and people’s lives both here and in other countries.
The big spender, tax cuts for the wealthy, anti-worker, no-regulation, freemarket loving Grand Old Party’s preferred way of doing business is exactly what has caused the mortgage crisis and the current recession.

Romney earned his millions the hard way, he earned it by being smart and efficient.

Maybe some think so. Quite obviously he has done well for himself, but from my own personal standpoint I guess I just don’t think that being the head of a company that made their money pursuing leveraged buyouts of other companies using junk bonds can truly be considered earning money the hard way.
That’s just my opinion.

Now, you are telling me that this is not the American ideal. Can you please explain how Obama or Clinton would be more effective?

Well the GOP just wants to keep propping up the stock market for their wealthy base and giving nothing to the middle class and the poor. All I can do is hope that either of the Democratic candidates will stop worrying about how the wealthy are doing (they’re doing fine and dandy, as usual), and start making a strong commitment to some truly fundamental repairs that will help the working class and rebuild our economy. I say this because I think it’s obvious that the Trickle Down Theory doesn’t work at all, and actually never has worked.

Real stimulus for our economy has always depended upon decent jobs, higher wages, a functioning safety net for everyone, and a return to progressive taxation so that everyone pays their fair share. With these things, everyone can benefit from the profits that American business brings - both economically for our citizens, and by helping to raise the standard of living in any country we choose to do business with.

There is a diplomatic benefit to pursuing fair markets, rather than free markets, too. Because such responsible practices also foster goodwill and respect with those we do business with around the world.

I would also like to see “Made in America” become reality once more, as it used to be. Maybe it’ll never happen, but I’d love to see higher tariffs placed upon goods coming from other countries. Additionally, I’d want the the highest tariffs of all to be placed upon goods made overseas on behalf of American owned corporations. These entities should not continue to be so richly rewarded for taking advantage of both cheap labor in the Third World, and of American consumers who they have been steadily putting out of work.

Thanks!

You’re welcome. Really, I could go on and on here about my views on our economy, but since this article topic isn’t about that, I’d better not.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 11:16 PM
Comment #244736

“I would also like to see “Made in America” become reality once more, as it used to be. Maybe it’ll never happen, but I’d love to see higher tariffs placed upon goods coming from other countries. Additionally, I’d want the the highest tariffs of all to be placed upon goods made overseas on behalf of American owned corporations. These entities should not continue to be so richly rewarded for taking advantage of both cheap labor in the Third World, and of American consumers who they have been steadily putting out of work.”

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 5, 2008 11:16 PM

VV, I agree with your statement about more “Made in America” products. Raising tariffs is not the answer as we have seen the financial devastation of tarriff wars in our history. We do need equal treatment by our trading partners and the President, in his SOTU message, demanded just that. Will Congress act to put some teeth into fair trading, we will see. Cheap labor in the 3rd world is a cause for concern just as cheap labor from illegals here in the U.S. is causing our wages to stagnate. While there is little we can do to raise wages in foreign countries, there is much we can do to raise wages in this country. And, we have the technology to produce more and cheaper goods if we take the shackles off our corporations and provide the tax incentives to keep production in America. My understanding of both Clinton and Obama is that they would place even higher taxes and more regulation on our engines of commerce and cause more of our jobs and money to flow overseas. We both perceive the problem and we certainly disagree as to the remedy. Higher corporate taxes, more government regulation, penalties for a conjured up “man-made” global warming theory, denying us the use of our own natural resources of coal and oil, prevention of new nuclear power plants, burning food for fuel, and much more backward thinking are exactly the wrong direction

Posted by: Jim M at February 6, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #244737

So, Obama won more delegates, and 13 states!
While Clinton won 8 states including delegate heavy NY and CA.
(Although, I understand that because of a bad ballot design, there are problems that will be contested with counting the ballots of the undeclared voters in CA.)

New Mexico is still a toss up with only a few precincts not yet reporting, and Clinton ahead by only 117 votes.

The race for this nomination is not over yet.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 6, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #244898

I disagree with you. I don’t think that Obama will bring about the change that we need if he is elected. I don’t think that Clinton will either. I am studying economics, and tax cuts across the board are the answer. They both want to cut taxes for citizens, but they don’t want to cut taxes for big corporations. That is a big problem. They only way we can strengthen our economy and keep corporations from sending their jobs overseas is to cut taxes, so it levels the playing field for them to stay at home. Be aware when a candidate says they want less government…study their position on the issues. Obama and Clinton want to start more government funded programs to temporarily help stimulate the economy and give relief to those in need. That is actually creating more government, and it only putting a band aid on the problem. We need tax cuts across the board to stimulate the economy and create a long lasting effect.

More government funded spending and government hand outs leads to bigger government. They say they want less, but read about the billions they want to give away to help the people that are currently in need. Reagan fixed our economy and he didn’t increase government handouts. Eventually his plan worked. He was responsible for the deregulation of many things and free trade. We were basically a socialist country up until he was in office. Our country is “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Obama and Clinton want more government regulations. Our forefathers thought that the government should be left to the people, not just the government. I personally don’t want more government hand outs. I am from West Virginia; which is one of the, and possibly the #1, welfare state. I have seen too many lazy people that would rather sit on their butt and receive a welfare check (that barely pays the bills), rather than go out and get a job. I am technically in the poor bracket so you would think I would be for more government handouts, but I’m not. I am in college and when I graduate I want to have better healthcare benefits and more options than someone who just sits on their butt and receives a government check. Why should things like healthcare be government regulated? There should just be major tax cuts and insurance should be affordable.

To anyone who thinks that Obama or Clinton is the change we need because we need to just get a Democrat in office, and not a Republican need to study the issues more, as well as some history. I know a lot of people that think the last Democrat in office, Bill Clintons, had such a huge success rate on balancing the budget and creating a surplus…do research, research, and research more. Bill Clinton didn’t really do anything to stimulate our economy. The same thing happened to our economy while he was in office that happened to in the 1920’s while Coolidge was in office. The enormous increase in technology made the economy thrive, not the current President. During the roaring 20’s it was the invention of cars, spreading of electricity across the nation, telephone, radio, and refrigerator. These were all new inventions so everyone was buying them, but that eventually those sales dropped dramatically because already owned these items and there was no longer the huge demand. The same thing happened to Bill Clinton. He was not a miracle worker, and if he did what people give him credit for, he would have to be. While he was in office we once again saw a huge surge in technology. The internet age began; computers were more advanced and affordable, dot.com businesses, cell phones, and DVD and CD players. These were all new, improved and more affordable, but sales eventually dropped as more and more people already owned these items. By the end of Bill Clinton’s term the booming economy was falling at a fast rate. He happened to be in office at a really good time for technology.

Posted by: Danielle Salazar at February 8, 2008 2:28 PM
Comment #245006

Danielle:

BRAVO!
At last, someone here gets it absolutely right. But beware. You have now posted some facts about economics that are spot on. You are now going to get an earful from the class warfare left who post here and just do not get it. Do not despair, you have it right and keep shouting it from the rooftops.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at February 10, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #245018

As a third party voter, you’d think I’m not an expert on strategic voting. Except now I made a spreadsheet to answer a question that I have not seen answered.

Which of the two Senators can get enough NEW voters in RED states to win the general election?

So I totaled the turnout for each party in each state. (voter counts from nyt.)
There were over a dozen RED states (in 2004) where more Democrats than Republicans voted in the primary. Just comparing turnout party to party, not looking at whether CLinton or Obama won the state.

There were a lot of them. In most of those states, Obama won by a large margin and the pundits say turnout was record-breaking.

SO it seems that if we have Obama as the Democratic candidate, this should increase in time. Clinton’s winning states are not showing the huge turnout that Obama’s are.

Elderly and middle-aged Dems will vote for any Dem. And among “likely voters”, Obama’s fans will still probably vote for Hillary. She has no appeal to the independents and Greens who are tempted to vote for Obama, like me, but there are so few of us after all…

No, my friends. Who matters most? It’s THE NEW VOTERS, including young people (18 to 22 who never could vote before), adult non-voter (50% of the population!).

Who is getting the most new voters? Obama. That’s why he should be the candidate.

Besides, isn’t the best place for a policy wonk somewhere in the administration? Secretary of State?

Posted by: amy at February 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #245020

FYI, the 11 states where Bush won in 2004, but in 2008 more dems than republicans showed up to vote in the primary. I didn’t count delegates and caucuses, just primary votes.

Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Kansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee

Posted by: amy at February 10, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #246956

When and if Obama wins this election there will be change alright but it won’t be the change you were expecting..then again some of you were wise enough to expect the truth to come forth sooner or later..hopefully sooner!!We must consider all the facts and do overall research instead of just accepting what one says and promises that are made in the emotion of the moment.Without strong,honest,committed leadership our country will continue on a downward spiral.Don’t be surprised when the idol falls.

Posted by: Snowbird at March 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Post a comment