Democrats & Liberals Archives

Hillary Clinton and Col. Nicholson

In the classic movie The Bridge on the River Kwai, Col. Nicholson (memorably played by Obi-Wan Kenobe*) commands a group of British soldiers who are captured by the Japanese. Initially just trying to keep up the morale of his troops, he encourages them to work on a bridge for their captors. By the end of the movie, he is so caught up in the bridge-building project that he has completely forgotten that the Japanese are his enemies.

Hillary Clinton has fallen into a similar trap.

Clinton’s immediate objective (analogous to the bridge) is to beat Barack Obama for the nomination. This is a legitimate goal, and she should be given pretty wide latitude in how she chooses to pursue it. Her ultimate political goal, however, should be to put a Democratic president in the White House. Otherwise her dream of universal healthcare, and her other policy aspirations, will be put off for at least another four years. In fact, one could argue that a Democratic loss in this presidential cycle could be so demoralizing that progressive policies like universal healthcare could be off the table for another decade or more (much as the defeat of Hillarycare in 1993 killed the initiative for about 15 years).

Unfortunately, it has become clear that Hillary Clinton has forgotten that John McCain is her real opponent, not Barack Obama.** Her recent anti-Obama rhetoric virtually cedes the notion that McCain would make a better president than Obama, and borders on saying that McCain is more qualified than herself. In the River Kwai analogy, Clinton has reached the stage where she is building the Republicans a really nice bridge, one that may be strong enough to last through November.

Here is a recent Clinton quote that illustrates what I am talking about:

Look, I have said that Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002.

First of all, I feel the need to point out that Clinton’s assertion is complete BS. Obama has more experience in office than she does. More importantly, it is the partisan equivalent of treason. She is handing the GOP a juicy sound bite, heedless of the consequences. Republicans will certainly make similar claims about Obama, but it sounds more credible when it comes from (what is supposedly) his own side.

Here is another morsel where she not only puts down Obama but implicitly puts down herself:

I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.

Clinton is clearly hinting that Obama is unqualified to be President. Even more striking, she is implicitly ceding the national security issue to McCain. On what grounds is it “certain” that McCain would be a good commander-in-chief? Not only did he support that disastrous Iraq War, but he claimed at the time that it would “easy”, we would be “greeted as liberators”, and victory would take a “short period of time”. (Don’t believe it? Let’s go to the video.) He later criticized the conduct of the war, but many Democrats were doing that at the same time. Although he has military experience, he didn’t command anything larger than a squadron.

This is not to say that he hasn’t crossed the imaginary threshold, just that it is far from “certain”. And even if Clinton believes that he has, why would she cede the point? She has seemingly forgotten that if she succeeds in getting the nomination, she is going to have to take on the ''certainly'' qualified McCain.

Her rhetoric is a perverse twist on a ritual during the early Democratic debates when someone would say that anyone on the stage would be a better President than George Bush. This always led to agreement and applause. Now McCain is next to her on the stage, and Obama is the one being put down. I'll leave psychologists to ponder the fact that her new buddy McCain made the same mistake that she did about the Iraq War (albeit more emphatically).

I think I am actually being charitable to Clinton by assuming that she doesn’t realize what she is doing. A less charitable interpretation is that she is intentionally trying to cripple Obama so the superdelegates feel that they have to nominate her. If she defeats Obama this way, and goes on to lose to McCain, then her name will live on in infamy in the Democratic Party.

The bottom line here is that Clinton is entitled to continue chasing the Democratic nomination, even if it is becoming less and less likely that she will succeed. What she is NOT entitled to do, however, is give ammunition to the GOP. Otherwise she is undermining the progressive goals that she claims to have spent 35 years pursuing.

*An oddly Japanese-sounding name, now that I think of it...

**For the record, I do not mean to suggest that the Democrats and Republicans are mortal enemies the way the Allies and the Axis were. It is just an analogy. In the end, we are all Americans.

Posted by Woody Mena at March 7, 2008 8:58 AM
Comments
Comment #247277

I would think that by now that the Democratic supporters that bring up the Iraq war would have understood that there is a diffrence is supporting an action and supporting the IMPLEMENTATION of that action. Many people at the time felt the action was the right one to take and had it been IMPLEMENTED properly it would not be an issue now. That the far left is still trying to pit people against each other for making a tough decision at the time it was made without the benefit of hindsight speaks volumes to the hypocrisy that they exhibit in saying that they want to unite people and then find any possible dividing point that they can to use it as a litmus test.

The general public is tired of Iraq, in more ways than one. And they equally recognize that at the time they too supported the action just as Hillary did. So to try and win votes by alienating the majority of Americans in that way is not the best way, IMO, to differentiate your candidate from the others, especially while at the same time talking about reaching across the aisle…

But, that’s just my opinion, take it for what it is worth I suppose. Seeing the Democratic Party eat itself is perhaps something I would enjoy watching on the sidelines.

As for Hillary, she is doing what she feels is best for the Democratic Party by defeating a less qualified, less experienced candidate that would most likely not be able to win the states that are needed for the Democratic Party to win in the general election to regain the presidency. She is proving now that she has more support in those states than Obama does and will, IMO, continue to do so. If Obama can’t take the challenging race now, and knowing that he has not been in a challenging race yet, how does anyone expect him to fare in the general election against a real opponent not concerned with trying to save face.

If your argument is that she should go easy on him in order to save it for the general, all you are doing is ensuring that the candidate that can’t handle the tough race will be put up against a seasoned and hard-hitting political machine that will do what it has to do to win. I guarantee that McCain will not go lightly on Obama in the fall…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 11:09 AM
Comment #247278

Woody,

Can someone supporting Obama please just answer the question! Instead of asking Hillary to lie down or accusing her of not playing fair just answer the question! What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be commander and chief? What experience does he have with foreign policy? Since he is a freshman senator I believe we as intelligent voters, are entitled to ask. John McCain is most certainly going to ask. The longer he and his supporters put off answering the question the more support he is likely to loose.

His primary claim to fame of not voting for the war is getting weaker and weaker. First, people are starting to recognize that the reason he didn’t vote for the war has more to do with the fact he wasn’t a senator at the time than anything else. He wasn’t part of the voting process. Second, what happens if the troops are coming in September? What happens if McCain is able to spin the surge and the war as a successful? You and I agree that under no circumstances can it be considered a success, but McCain will use this strategy. Does Obama have anything else to run on besides the fact he didn’t vote for the war? Where will he be if McCain neutralizes his primary weapon? I don’t think McCain is simply going to give up, or play fair. Obama needs to toughen up.

By the way, the reason why Hillary doesn’t have to answer the same question is simply because it’s relatively obvious what she has done. While you may hold the opinion that her foreign policy qualifications are weak, they are much more obvious than his. He needs to get it out there and soon.

Stop whining. Stop asking her to quit for the good of the party. Just answer the stinking question!

Posted by: John at March 7, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #247281

Woody, I agree completely.

rhinehold:

The general public is tired of Iraq, in more ways than one. And they equally recognize that at the time they too supported the action just as Hillary did.

Except that general public didn’t have access to the NIE regarding Iraq like Hillary did, even though she didn’t bother to read it before voting YES to go to war. Such willful ignorance has been disastrous and expensive, and we simply can’t afford any more of that.

John:

Can someone supporting Obama please just answer the question! Instead of asking Hillary to lie down or accusing her of not playing fair just answer the question! What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be commander and chief?

You’re framing the question to benefit Hillary and the GOP. The answer is that experience isn’t the issue. Judgment and Intelligence is the issue. And Barack Obama has both. As for experience, Obama has quite a bit more than Hillary’s husband Bill did when he became the president.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 7, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment #247285

VV,

And the NIE supported the evidence to perform the actions taken. I’m not sure why you think that the NIE was clear evidence NOT to vote YES. In face, for example, Wilson’s testimony supported the evidence that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake from Niger, even though they did not succeed.

But, beyond that, if you want to continue down the divisive path you are setting out, that’s fine, we can do that. But wouldn’t it be better for accept that the decision was a hard one to make and it was made in the best of faith by those who voted for it and move on instead of creating a litmus test for those who would run for office, especially considering that the one who you are supporting never had to put their name down in a vote (or vote ‘present’ as it would be expected he would have done by past history)?

Don’t bother answering, your almost cultlike support for Obama won’t allow you to see beyond that and identify the apparent hypocrisy in your own arguements…

As for Obama having more experience than Bill when he was elected, you’ll have to provide that because from what I’ve seen that is entirely wrong… Perhaps he has not been able to make the point that he has all of this experience, does that speak to his judgement or intelligence?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 12:32 PM
Comment #247287
As for Hillary, she is doing what she feels is best for the Democratic Party by defeating a less qualified, less experienced candidate that would most likely not be able to win the states that are needed for the Democratic Party to win in the general election to regain the presidency…

Whether Obama is “less qualified, less experienced” is debatable. Your claim that Obama cannot win key states is not supported by any evidence. Sure Hillary beat him in New York and California, but so what? Any decent Democrat would win these states. In almost every national head-to-head poll, he doesn’t better than Clinton against McCain.

If your argument is that she should go easy on him in order to save it for the general…

There is line between being a good sparring partner and actually helping the other side.

What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be commander and chief? What experience does he have with foreign policy?

I don’t think anyone has experience to be commander in chief, unless they have led a country or at least an army. Obama has more foreign policy experience than Clinton or Reagan did when they ran (not hard, I admit, since they had zero).

First, people are starting to recognize that the reason he didn’t vote for the war has more to do with the fact he wasn’t a senator at the time than anything else.

He publicly said it was “dumb war”. If it turned out great, his career would have ended.

His appeal depends on far more than his opposition to the war. That said, he is in a better position than Clinton to capitalize on this particular issue.

General comment: “Whining” is in the eye of the beholder. I call it a principled argument.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 7, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #247288

John asked: “What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be commander and chief?”

How about more years in elected office than Hillary Clinton for starters? How about an education in Consitutional Law for another?

How about the experience of having gone upstream on the Iraq invasion when the majority including Hillary were moving downstream in the wrong direction. That is not only experience in being right, but experience in having taken the tough unpopular position of the time with the confidence of knowing he was right and Hillary and others would later come to see that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #247289

being the senator of N.Y. the city the horrendous attack took place i doubt obama would have voted differently. His voting record certainly proves that.
The postings show the naivety of the obama supporters when you consider that the vast majority of democrat and republican senators did just that. I personally think Obama is great and will make a great president in eight years. But to vote for man with less than two years experience as a U.s. senator is ridiculous

Posted by: albert at March 7, 2008 1:11 PM
Comment #247290

now with better formatting

As for Hillary, she is doing what she feels is best for the Democratic Party by defeating a less qualified, less experienced candidate that would most likely not be able to win the states that are needed for the Democratic Party to win in the general election to regain the presidency…

Whether Obama is “less qualified, less experienced” is debatable. Your claim that Obama cannot win key states is not supported by any evidence. Sure Hillary beat him in New York and California, but so what? Any decent Democrat would win these states. In almost every national head-to-head poll, he doesn’t better than Clinton against McCain.

If your argument is that she should go easy on him in order to save it for the general…

There is line between being a good sparring partner and actually helping the other side.

What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be commander and chief? What experience does he have with foreign policy?

I don’t think anyone has experience to be commander in chief, unless they have led a country or at least an army. Obama has more foreign policy experience than Clinton or Reagan did when they ran.

First, people are starting to recognize that the reason he didn’t vote for the war has more to do with the fact he wasn’t a senator at the time than anything else.

He publicly said it was “dumb war”. If it turned out great, his career would have ended.

His appeal depends on far more than his opposition to the war. That said, he is in a better position than Clinton to capitalize on this particular issue.

General comment: “Whining” is in the eye of the beholder. I call it a principled argument.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 7, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #247292
Whether Obama is “less qualified, less experienced” is debatable. Your claim that Obama cannot win key states is not supported by any evidence. Sure Hillary beat him in New York and California, but so what? Any decent Democrat would win these states. In almost every national head-to-head poll, he doesn’t better than Clinton against McCain.

And Ohio, and Texas, and…

Obama has won in states that will most likely not be winnable. Iowa? Do the Democrats think that they are going to win Iowa?

Hillary is beating Obama in the key states. Neither one of them will win enough delegates to avoid the superdelegates entering the fray. If the difference is only a few dozen delegates and Hillary has won the more important states as well as have momentum on her side, while Obama’s lack of judgement in selecting advisors starts to become more clear, it may turn the superdelegates against him and to Hillary.

It is not, at all, unthinkable that Hillary wins the nomination still. If she cuts Obama, it will only be a cut a few months earlier, it is not like McCain will not make the same arguments effectively. Best to get it out now than to wait, don’t you think?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #247293

Woody, you are so right. Hillary is now preferring the experience of John McCain as CIC over Obama. Why doesn’t she just cross over completely and divorce Bill and marry Joe Libermann so she can be the hybrid Neo-Con/Social Policy wonk she wants to be, supporting both Republican and Democratic policies according to her drothers? I can’t believe she endorsed McCain as Commander in Chief over Barack Obama. Can she not see that McCain is a war hawk of the strongest nature and that Obama would be vastly superior as CIC capable of rational assessment without predisposition?

Hillary has lost entirely on this one implying only she and McCain qualify as CIC. It’s absurd on its face, but reflects the same kind of miscalculated decision making Hillary extolled on giving Bush license to invade Iraq. She just can’t seem to see the forest for her short term trees.

Hillary’s judgment capacity is the kind that would direct her to build a fire in a forest because she is chilled while failing to recognize that the entire forest around her is tinder death trap. The ensuing forest fire would kill her but, at least she would die warm.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #247294

As you can probably guess, that should be: In almost every national head-to-head poll, he DOES better than Clinton against McCain.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 7, 2008 1:22 PM
Comment #247295
On Friday, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Hillary Clinton with a six-point national lead over Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s Clinton 49% Obama 43%
The general election is essentially even at this point. McCain now leads Obama 46% to 45% and is tied with Clinton 46% to 46%
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #247298
I’m not sure why you think that the NIE was clear evidence NOT to vote YES.

Maybe because several Democrats who did actually read the NIE (there were very few it turned out) believed there was clear evidence to vote NO. For instance, in 2002 the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was Bob Graham. He read the NIE, and voted against the war. Dennis Kucinich is another example of a Democrat who read the report and voted NO. These Democrats were more cautious and responsible than Hillary Clinton, who didn’t bother to read it before voting YES.

As for Obama having more experience than Bill when he was elected, you’ll have to provide that because from what I’ve seen that is entirely wrong

As a Senator, Obama has more experience in Washington than Bill Clinton did. Obama has been sitting on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Veterans Affairs. He’s clearly got enough experience to lead. In fact, with these committee assignments he’s gained more experience than Hillary has during her time in the Senate.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 7, 2008 1:30 PM
Comment #247300
Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply “red” Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate’s transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton’s victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.

Of course, some states in Clinton’s column — Texas comes most readily to mind — that have a large trove of Electoral College votes are highly unlikely to wind up Democratic in the fall. But the same holds true for Obama, whose strength in southern Democratic primaries has rested on the huge margins he has run up among African-American voters. African-Americans are a crucial constituency for Democrats, but their votes in recent contests haven’t been enough to win such states as Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia.

From : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #247301

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm

Please, VV, after reading this document, how does it prove that inaction is the proper cours to take, unless you are predisposed against the action to begin with? That Graham and Kusinich voted against the action is not much proof of anything, I’m afraid…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #247303

So you are saying that time in Washington is important now? Can the Republicans quote you in November?

Bill was in an executive position for 8 years before running for national office. I believe that most people will say that running a state, even Arkansas, is more CIC type of experience than being a member of a few committees. Just about everyone is on a committee of some sort in the Senate…

Bill most definately has Obama beat in the experience department. And *YOU* are the one who brought it up, not me. I agree that Hillary also got through to the Senate on a cheap election (Both her and Obama’s opponent had to drop out close to the election) and hasn’t been through a tough campaign before, but I don’t support either one of them (or McCain) for president, so I don’t have an axe to grind like others…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 1:46 PM
Comment #247306
So you are saying that time in Washington is important now?

No, I’m not the one saying that, Hillary and the GOP is saying that. And if this Washington experience is all that is necessary, then Bill Clinton was a really poor pick for the presidency, much as they’re now claiming Obama is. Oh but wait, that wasn’t what Hillary was claiming back when Bill first ran was it? No, back then they thought it was time for a change.

Personally, I don’t think experience is what’s important at all. Intelligence and judgment is what truly matters, and clearly Obama has got it all over both Hillary AND McCain on that score.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 7, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #247307

Really? Is it Intelligence or Judgement that has shown that he has a problem picking adequate political advisors so far?

In fact, other than your assertion that his view on Iraq was right, what ELSE displays that Obama has any sense of judgement at all? Or are you pinning it all on this one thing?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 2:04 PM
Comment #247308

Rhinehold,

Obama is beating the Clintons. If he has bad political advisors, he must be the smartest political of all time to overcome that kind of handicap.

Back to your point about whether Obama is winning in crucial states — he has won 25 states now. That includes Red states (Utah), Blue States (Vermont), and swing states (Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia, and yes Iowa).

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 7, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #247309

“You’re framing the question to benefit Hillary and the GOP. The answer is that experience isn’t the issue. Judgment and Intelligence is the issue. And Barack Obama has both. As for experience, Obama has quite a bit more than Hillary’s husband Bill did when he became the president.”

Once again you haven’t answered the question. Heck I’m not even saying it’s a fairly framed question, but it’s one he’ll probably have to answer over and over again. He needs to get used to it. While he may have the intelligence I don’t see the evidence for Judgment. Other than the a few sound bites about the war; Where does his track record show he can make a stand? Past performance is the best predictor for future success.

How about more years in elected office than Hillary Clinton for starters? How about an education in Constitutional Law for another?

So time as first lady doesn’t count in your eyes? Hmmm…not sure I agree with you, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

How about the experience of having gone upstream on the Iraq invasion when the majority including Hillary were moving downstream in the wrong direction. That is not only experience in being right, but experience in having taken the tough unpopular position of the time with the confidence of knowing he was right and Hillary and others would later come to see that.

Upstream? I think you may be over estimating his contribution to anti war effort. He didn’t vote and he didn’t protest all that strongly. I think he’ll have to do a little better than a few choice sound bites. Seems to me like he more or less stayed below the radar on the war issue until the dust settled.

In the end it might not matter all the much anyway. The war issue is fading fast with a recession looming. Does Obama have anything else up his sleeve to differentiate himself? It sure doesn’t look like it.

Out of curiosity, how different is this argument going to be when and when Florida and Michigan votes get counted? It seems pretty likely there will be a do-over soon. For the sake of the party the sooner the better.

In summary, the idea that Hillary ought to back off at this point seems ludicrous. I think we could easily be making an argument in the other direction. I think Barak Obama will make a fine president some day, but he needs more experience. I want to see him take a real stand on an issue. I want to see him face a real challenge in politics. Say what you want about Hillary, she has had to deal with a lot of political challenges. The reason why he’s still walking on water is because he hasn’t taken much of a political risk. In politics if you haven’t pissed someone off you’re not doing very much.

Posted by: John at March 7, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #247311
He didn’t vote and he didn’t protest all that strongly. Seems to me like he more or less stayed below the radar on the war issue until the dust settled.

You say “he didn’t vote” as if he had a choice. What he did was give a speech at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago. Please take a look his speech, and you will see that his words were both unequivocal and prophetic:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama’s_Iraq_Speech

And if you are looking for risk-taking, there you go.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 7, 2008 2:58 PM
Comment #247312

David Reemer

I don’t know how it is in Texas, but here in Massachusetts, every single member in the Massachusetts legislature is a complete lightweight, and couldn’t compete in the real world. Every hear of the term “hack”? ALL stae pols are hack, David.

Plus the Con. Law professor professor comment made me smile. Most of the Con. Law profs I know (and being in legal education for 2 decades and having taught in some of New England’s best law schools qualifies me to say this), are air-headed theorists who couldn’t try their own shoes.

Was he a law lecturer in Con. Law…or a tenure-track professor?

If he is simply a Con. Law lecturer, then those guys know less.

Certainly, he was not dipped in the blood of acedemia…especially in that area. Has he written any scholarly books on that subject to qualify him as such?

Please.

This guy is an empty suit. All sizzle, no steak.

Guys like me are waiting in the wings to eat him up.

Hillary is vastly…vastly ..more qualified..and would make a far more difficult..perhaps unbeatable… opponent. She is a knife fighter.

The object is to get elected. This guy is like a lamb being led to the slaughter….

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 7, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #247313

First of all rest in peace Tunky Riley, a true Democrat and wife of the former Sec. of Ed.

As for this race, if I were a Democrat I’d look to who could best carry Florida and Ohio. Either will carry the rest of the the 2004 Blue States.

In Fla and Ohio gun control could become a real big issue. I didn’t know that Obama had such a record on guns until it was pointed out over in another blog by Veritas. And I’m sure the NRA is holding their fire until after the nominee gets settled.

Posted by: George in SC at March 7, 2008 3:34 PM
Comment #247317

Woody et al

I find it so strange defending Hilary, but she has a point. You all are saying she should bow out before she is beaten because you assume Obama is best for your party. Hilary probably thinks she is the best.

She is also right to show the distinctions between herself and Obama. Obama is just not very experienced. He points to his speech in 2002.

BTW - A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity. It would also damage America’s international prestige and amount to a slap in the face’ to the troops fighting there.

Most of you would recognize this as something I might say. But you would probably be surprised to learn that this is what Obama said in 2004. For the math challenged among us, that is two years AFTER his anti-Iraq speech. (Hillary’s folks found the AP article, another reason for lefty Dems call her a monster).

Obama will find that even his short record doesn’t protect him from his own contradictions.

Posted by: Jack at March 7, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #247320
this is what Obama said in 2004

Oops, and there goes the single issue that he has used to try to differentiate himself from Hillary… Does he have anything else other than an unfunded mandate healthcare proposal that will cost us double being implemented during a possible recession and with the national debt being so high?

BTW, I did have a small question. I heard a progressive calling for the creation of more jobs. How do they intend to accomplish this? I am genuinely curious as the only way I know for the federal government to do this is to cut the cost of doing business, ie tax cuts or incentives for business, which amounts to ‘trickle down economics’ which I thought they said didn’t work? Do they intend to just hire more people in government? Do they think that is really the solution?

Please, someone tell me how Hillary or Obama intend to ‘create more jobs’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 5:12 PM
Comment #247321
You say “he didn’t vote” as if he had a choice.

Seems to me that when presented with a tough choice that he has to vote on, he uses ‘present’ as his vote to avoid the chance it will come back to bite him in the future. Why do you expect he would have done different in this case?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #247323
Obama is beating the Clintons.

Is he? I would say that he has a slim lead that he may carry into the convention but he is not going to win outright and could end up walking away from the convention with at best a shot at VP… In fact, if he keeps bumbling like he has the past few weeks the 60% + needed for Hillary, along with Florida and Michigan voting, may put her on top easily…

If he has bad political advisors, he must be the smartest political of all time to overcome that kind of handicap.

Or he hasn’t had to answer the tough questions yet, that will change soon. BTW, what I was talking about were the loss of one adivsor today and another who should have been fired two weeks ago.

Back to your point about whether Obama is winning in crucial states — he has won 25 states now. That includes Red states (Utah), Blue States (Vermont), and swing states (Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia, and yes Iowa).

And you ignored the quote I presented already:

Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply “red” Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate’s transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton’s victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.

You may not think it important to consider electoral votes and the states the wins are coming in, but I can guarantee that the superdelegates are keeping an eye out…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #247327

I love hearing the praises of Hillary sung by those who are (rightly) scared to face the charismatic obama, who is SO much less divisive than Hillary. And all this talk of Obama not being able to win states that Hillary prevailed in during the primary? Sheesh! You are not serious, are you? Many things about Hillary bother me, primarily her shrill voice and self-centered approach to victory at all costs; even if it means the election of her Republican counterpart. Whom she openly endorses as more qualified than Barack! However, I will vote for her in a heartbeat if she, and not Obama, wins the nomination.

Anyone with half a brain can see that Obama will bring many more independents and, yes, republicans into the fold for the election if he wins the nomination than Clinton. Hillary’s base is tried and true Democrats. Forget the independent and republican vote if she is the nominee. So if you are a Republican and think Hillary is a more credible or worthy candidate than Barack, you should be lionizing Obama! You know, doing what you can so that your party prevails in November! Right?

Many of us Democrats feel that leaving Iraq will only help the prestige of the U.S.A. The same prestige that Bush squandered when he blundered into Iraq in the first place. And as for terrorists……the giant overkill that was the Bush response to 9/11(exluding Afghanistan where al queda was based) gave them much more credibility than they ever deserved. Blunder, blunder, blunder! We will be accorded esteem and prestige when our actions are esteemable, not before.

Posted by: steve miller at March 7, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #247328

Obama definitely has more experience being indecisive than Hillary, and also more experience vacationing instead of voting. If Hillary drops out, or after the convention anyway, Obama’s advisors will be the Clinton advisors.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 7, 2008 5:30 PM
Comment #247331

Steve,

Too bad you are hooking up your wagon to the guy who has stated many times between 2004 and 2007 that the troops should not be brought home immediately then…

You should have supported Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich if that is what you wanted and why you were voting.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #247333
Seems to me that when presented with a tough choice that he has to vote on, he uses ‘present’ as his vote to avoid the chance it will come back to bite him in the future. Why do you expect he would have done different in this case?

For pete’s sake, you guys keep bringing up hypotheticals instead of dealing with what actually happened. He OPPOSED THE WAR, PUBLICLY, BEFORE IT STARTED. No hypothetical game-playing can erase that.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 7, 2008 6:04 PM
Comment #247335

And he publically supported keeping troops in Iraq until the moment he decided to run for president, as recently as 2006. Seems you guys keep forgetting that part as well.

And his history of voting ‘present’ on votes that can cost him politically makes the ‘hypothetical’ very believable, don’t you think?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #247336

Rhinehold,
I do not advocate immediate withdrawal. We can’t just pull up stakes overnight and skedaddle. But seeing how more Iraqis want us to leave than to stay, and seeing as how military might is not going to effect a needed political solution, we need to leave.

I am hitching my wagon to Obama because he seems to have the ability to rise above the kind of behavior we are observing from Clinton. Because I trust him to keep his cool and not run off half-cocked. Because I feel that this country would derive an enormous benefit (and more than a little prestige regained) from his leadership. Because I, and perhaps many like me, have a deep thirst for something we have not had for a while. A belief that we’re all on the same side, in a common endeavor. Bush killed that, and both Clinton and McCain seem determined to continue.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Go on, make fun of me, I don’t care.

Posted by: steve miller at March 7, 2008 6:11 PM
Comment #247338

Steve,

You are being duplicitous. Obama speaks unity and then preaches division by speaking to his single identifiable difference between himself and his opponent is the Iraq War. As if only he was smart enough to see the truth, therefore the fact that a tough decision had to be made (not by him, btw) with the information presented at hand, was not valid either way.

Instead of proving his ‘unity’ stance and stating that the time in question was a difficult one and decisions were made, making it clear that no one should deride another for having to make that tough decision at the time, he uses it as a means to divide.

How that speaks to his wanting to unite makes no sense to me, it seems that he is just more of the same. Only less so, just a lot of hot air and less substance than the other hot air politicians running…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #247341

Rhinehold,
Nobody, especially not Obama, is saying that this is their only difference. I think it is the smartest thing for him to do in order to delineate their differences.

He is markedly devoid of ill will or acrimony towards her if you ask me. Doesn’t seem to divisive.

Posted by: steve miller at March 7, 2008 6:28 PM
Comment #247342

Except one of his main advisors calls her a Monster?

Please, Steve… I understand the desire to latch on to what you think is there, but you really need to take a harder look, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2008 6:43 PM
Comment #247351

Rhinehold

Perhaps it is you who is not taking a hard enough look. Maybe you should try looking for the good for a change. I know it is a foreign concept when speaking about politicians. But suppose he is the real thing. There comes a time when we all have to trust our instincts. This is imo one of those times. Of course our instincts will vary. Mine say go for it. The chances of him being the real thing are much better than the chances of Clinton or McCain being any good for this country.

All Obama haters

All this argument is already getting old. It is getting old because there is so little available to argue about. How many different ways can you analyze his stance on Iraq and just how he denounced it. How many ways can you explore his lack of experience and shape it into something horribly deficient. How many ways can you twist his liberalism into something to shudder at. How many ways can you twist his association with Rezko. How many unsubstantiated news stories can you support as clear indication of character, etc.

We as voters and citizens of this country have become so used to the notion of corruption and politicians that mere association with a less than honest person automatically earns a brand of guilt and forever places that person under the stigma of corruption. I do not see how it can be possible in this day and age to remain totally free of association with the corrupt and be a politician. McCain is a great example of this. He has directly surrounded himself with high power insider lobbyists. A sure brand of corruption if there ever was one.

If this election cycle turns into a dirt filled one and Obama gets the nomination it will be very hard for McCain who has decades of dirt to uncover. Obama will seem like a new born baby in comparison. I suspect his character and decency will allow him to prevail. Now if Hillary gets the nod. Look out. It will be months of day after day of trying to figure out whose dirt is cleanest. I am already getting a headache just thinking about it.

Posted by: RickIL at March 7, 2008 9:25 PM
Comment #247355

rhinehold:

Really? Is it Intelligence or Judgement that has shown that he has a problem picking adequate political advisors so far?

Yes, really. It has to be intelligence and sound judgment that made Obama choose political advisors who have gotten him this far in beating the candidate who at the start of this race was considered “inevitable.” He and his people have run one of the best campaigns I think this country has ever seen.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s people have been constantly at war with each other during the entire primary season — even after the big meltdown occurred and her new choice of Maggie Williams there has been news that they’re are all still at each others throats. Really, the way that Clinton has run her campaign thus far is a perfect example of why she doesn’t have the management skills to be our Commander in Chief.
Actually, the same thing could be said about McCain and the way his campaign has been run, as well.

In fact, other than your assertion that his view on Iraq was right, what ELSE displays that Obama has any sense of judgement at all? Or are you pinning it all on this one thing?

There are a lot of reasons, but two of the biggest for me are the fact that he did not support the Kyl-Lieberman Let’s-Start-War-With-Iran Bill, and his views on trade, including NAFTA. But his coming out against the war from the beginning (when it wasn’t politically easy), and his intention to remove our troops from Iraq as soon as is feasible, I must admit are things that have made the most impression on me. Perhaps because like Obama, I too am no fool, and came out against the war from the very beginning. During that time, I was listening closely to what Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter was to saying to the American people in the run up to the war. Not only did I realize that Ritter was being absolutely truthful and sincere, but everything he said turned out to be 100% correct.

Except one of his main advisors calls her a Monster?

Powers wasn’t his main advisor, indeed she wasn’t even a paid advisor to his campaign. But your supposed point is moot, since: Obama Rejects Adviser’s Comments

Obama is just being his gallant self again, but personally, I have to say that I think that Powers was spot-on with that comment. Hillary Clinton IS a monster — because she knows damn well she’s hurting Obama for good no reason, and hurting our party for the general election, but because she’s such an angry crank with a gigantic ego, she obviously doesn’t care at all.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 7, 2008 10:04 PM
Comment #247356

Woody,

Excellent article. I tried to make the same point in my article below. Making this election about experience plays directly into Republican hands in the general election. John McCain has more experience than Hillary and Obama put together. But what has he learned from that experience? Has it informed his judgment? I think not. This campaign needs to be about judgment. Hillary should be saying that and attacking McCain’s poor judgment. That would help the Democratic cause and allow her rise above the fight between her and Barrack and appear Presidential. Instead, she is doing McCain’s work for him. Admittedly, at times I am a cynic and am critical of the motives of others. I am inclined to assume the worst of all politicians. One can never know the motives of others, none the less, where politicians are concerned, it is reasonable to question their motives. The most cynical view of what Hillary is doing is that, knowing she has lost, she is trying to throw the election to McCain knowing that he will be a disaster for four years so that she can have her shot four years from now… I hope that is not what she is doing. If it is, she is going to have some really bad Karma to burn off. The majority of people who seek the Presidency have at least a tendency toward megalomania, but I don’t want to believe that Hillary would deliberately throw the election in order to gain power. What I do believe is that she is desperate and thinks she can beat Barrack this way and will deal with McCain when the time comes. She is playing with fire though and could very well throw the election for herself or Barrack and Democrats need to come together and politically punish her for that.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 7, 2008 10:08 PM
Comment #247357

RickIL, looking for the good in things is a wonderful thing and we all should do it.

But what I wonder is this: how much of Obama’s message actually consists of asking us to look at the bad in things except when it comes to him? To only look at his good traits and overlook anything questionable?

I feel like Obama and his followers hold the entire country to one standard and then ask to be judged by a different standard themselves.

For example, why shouldn’t issues about Rezko be raised when Obama himself and his followers allege guilt by association when it comes to questionable people McCain and Hillary have had contacts with?

You asked,”How many unsubstantiated news stories can you support as clear indication of character, etc.”

But you could ask the same question about allegations against Hillary or McCain. For some reason you want Obama to be treated one way while you treat everybody else with a totally different standard.

Posted by: Liam at March 7, 2008 10:22 PM
Comment #247364

Liam,

I suspect the worst in all politicians, but the standard should be that there is a reasonable reason to suspect wrong doing on the part of the politician. When Clinton pardoned the husband of a major campaign contributor, you could see the possible conflict of interest and suspicion was reasonable. But you can’t just do guilt by association. Just because someone knows someone who was involved in wrong doing is not reason for suspicion. So I think that it reasonable to question Obama on this lot deal, but it sounds to me like he has been pretty forthcoming so far. Rezko might have done him a favor in the hopes of gaining influence, but what did he ever do for Rezko. Without that smoking gun you got nothin…

We do know that McCain has done favors for lobbyist - enough so, that they staff his campaign…

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 8, 2008 12:04 AM
Comment #247367

RickIl

“All this argument is already getting old. It is getting old because there is so little available to argue about.” Yes. Yes. Yes.

That is the problem we all have with Obama. We have so little to go on because he has done very little. We are forced to analyze the few things that are written on that otherwise blank slate. He is indeed, as you say, like a newborn baby.

Woody

Take a look at my link to Obama’s 2004 statements that a surge would be a good thing in Iraq. I could have written what he said. He was right, BTW.

As I wrote other places, the saving grace of Obama is that he is not telling the truth about NAFTA & Iraq. His policy as president will probably be more pragmatic (and “bushlike”) than he is telling his fans today.

Posted by: Jack at March 8, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #247377

IMO The problem I see from Obama supporters is that things are either/or. Either you LOVE Obama and hate Hillary or vice versa. It can’t be middle of the road.

Obama preaches being positive reaching across the aisle-changing things. Whose supporters are demonstrating this message better-Hillary supporters. In my community from Hillary supporters I have heard questions regarding Obama but not character assassination. They have said that they like them both. From Obama supporters it is politics as usual trash the opposition and anyone that defends or supports Hillary. Just on this message board, I have been told that I must have a pitiful life and how sad that is because I have defended Hillary. I have been told that I just don’t get it which suggests to me that I am being judged as not smart and not well informed because I choose to view things differently and these of some of the nicer things that have been said to me.

After voting for John Edwards, I looked long and hard at both candidates. I decided I could live with either one but have been leaning toward Obama not because of his message but because if he doesn’t win I am afraid his supporters will insure a McCain win by refusing to vote for Hillary out of spite or trying to paint her as a monster.

To all the posters here that are 100% behind Barack, I ask, “What will you do if Hillary gets the nomination?” I think this is a serious question because I have read on this board where people have said she is no different that bush or rove. If Barack supporters truly believe this, then we are in serious trouble come November if Barack isn’t the nominee.

Posted by: Carolina at March 8, 2008 8:41 AM
Comment #247381

Carolina,

I will support Clinton if she gets the nomination. Moreover, I would be upset with Obama if he said that McCain would be a better president than Clinton.

It is hard to argue that Clinton’s supporters are more civil when she herself is waging total war.

Rhinehold,

It is not a flip-flop to oppose a war before it started, and to want to end it in a responsible manner after it starts.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 8, 2008 9:28 AM
Comment #247382

Liam

I am not holding Obama to a different standard. It is logical, natural and necessary to inspect his ability and character. You are taking my thoughts out of context. I am indeed literally growing tired of going over time again what is mostly nothing more than speculation on so few issues. All this speculation I am reading about him is the result of the lack of a resume of corruption. Unlike his opponents he simply has not had time to build one. Since as Woody points out he does indeed have more service time than Hillary then perhaps we need to assume that he is a relatively clean politician. The last assumption lends credence to a character not in keeping with that of most modern day politicians. I personally find much more value in supporting a person I suspect of having high character than one of circumspect character.

As far as Rezko goes Ray covered that area nicely. All that has been shown in the matter is that he had an association with him. Not that he was plotting or doing major deals with the guy. Many with underhanded motives are instantly claiming guilt and placing blame simply by that association. Of course this serves their motivations. Until Obama does indeed have a clear track record of corruption and direct dealings with less than honorable people it is not fair to place him at the same level as his peers.

Posted by: RickIL at March 8, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment #247383

Jack

“All this argument is already getting old. It is getting old because there is so little available to argue about.” Yes. Yes. Yes.

That is the problem we all have with Obama. We have so little to go on because he has done very little. We are forced to analyze the few things that are written on that otherwise blank slate. He is indeed, as you say, like a newborn baby

Yes Jack, a highly intelligent well educated new born baby of significant character, sound judgment and insight well beyond his years.

Posted by: RickIL at March 8, 2008 9:55 AM
Comment #247384

Carolina

I will vote for Hillary if I have to. I think she is a capable candidate. My main objection is that I feel she would not genuinely pursue an avenue of change in the way our governmental entities do business. As a result we will mostly have a continuation of the last seven years only in the form of a liberal format. I do not see that as a particularly healthy direction.

I will admit to being taken aback by her comment about McCain being a better candidate than Obama. I do not think it served her well in the context of the party. I feel it showed just how low she might sink to satisfy her personal agenda and just where that agenda is placed as opposed to her commitment to the party. I think it was a very big mistake and will come back to haunt her when this thing comes down to the super delegates. This is a competition of the highest sort and some people do not handle losing well. She obviously is feeling desperation and displaying a vindictive nature in handling it. I have to wonder if this is testament to her true character. At the other end we saw McCain blow up in the face of a NY Times reporter yesterday when questioned about an association with Kerry. These imo are the sorts of traits that one needs to look for when assessing the character of candidates. It is a direct reflection on just how they will handle adversity, of which there will be more than enough to go around in the big house.

Posted by: RickIL at March 8, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #247386

“Hillary Clinton IS a monster” ???

RickIL, vote early and often today.

Carolina, it looks a lot like the Obamites will take their marbles and go home if they don’t get what they want, so we are bascially stuck with them. You beat me yesterday on “baking cookies”, although I was going to say baking pies.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 8, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #247387

RickIL,

“Yes Jack, a highly intelligent well educated new born baby of significant character, sound judgment and insight well beyond his years.”

I am reminded that when I was five my parents were confidently told I was the smartest kindergartener in Shreveport, LA. I wasn’t ready, as a five-year-old, for the first grade, though, and the only reason I wasn’t put back was everyone agreed I would be mortified with embarrassment.

Of course, if he is not ready, we won’t be able to put Obama back either.


Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 8, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment #247395

Carolina:

To all the posters here that are 100% behind Barack, I ask, “What will you do if Hillary gets the nomination?”

I don’t think it’s ever going to come to this, Carolina. Hillary has now said this primary will have to come down to the Super Delegates. This means she’s aware that she can’t beat the numbers and score a legitimate win. The only way she can get the nomination now is by ripping off the true delegate winner of the Democratic primary.

What she should do is be a good sport, bow out gracefully, and be loyal to the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, it appears she doesn’t have such character or grace, and with her remarks about McCain being a better choice than Obama, clearly she holds no loyalty to our liberal principles.

I predict that the Super Delegates aren’t going to hand this nomination to Hillary. Not after she’s endorsed McCain over Obama, and not when she’s got Rush Limbaugh working for her campaign, and most importantly, not when she doesn’t have any coattails to offer to Congressional Democrats.

But, to turn the question around: What will Hillary’s supporters do if Obama gets the nomination?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 8, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment #247399

Hillary’s “Red Phone at 3AM” Ad featured a child who grew up to become a young woman who wants to vote for Obama when she votes for the first time this November!

The political ad that sparked nationwide controversy turns out to have a surprising local connection.

One of the actors in the Hillary Clinton ad was shocked to see herself, especially because she’s a fierce supporter of Barack Obama.

The so-called “red-phone ad” was played all over the country and helped turn the tide for Hillary Clinton leading up to her big win in Ohio. The commercial suggested Barack Obama was too inexperienced to handle a national crisis.

But the young girl starring in the ad will actually be voting age next month and says she’s no fan of Hillary Clinton.

Thursday night, the Knowles family of Bonney Lake, Wash., watched the Jon Stewart Show and saw the ad for the first time.

“I looked and saw a girl that looked like my sister and we rewound it and sure enough it was my sister,” said Brady Knowles.

The first girl in the ad is young Casey Knowles. It’s stock footage from eight years ago when she worked as a TV extra - footage owned now by Getty Images and used by the Clinton campaign.

But they couldn’t have picked a more unwilling star.

“It’s really sort of ironic that my image would be used to advocate for Hillary when I myself do not,” said Casey.

Hilarious! No wait, make that Hillary-ous! :^D

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 8, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #247400

Hillary’s supporters are actual Democrats, who will support the nominee of the Democratic party. They didn’t just wake up to find the Democratic party because there is a new kid on the block. Obama can also only win with the superdelegates, so I do not understand how this is even raised as a real issue.

I expect a big victory for Obamawan in the WY caucuses, another of many victories in states that will only be in the Democratic column in November if McCain is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 8, 2008 3:47 PM
Comment #247401

ohrealy:

Obama can also only win with the superdelegates, so I do not understand how this is even raised as a real issue.

That’s right, more states won and a much higher pledged delegate count doesn’t matter at all, and the super delegates could totally ignore those facts if they want to, and Bill did not have sex with that woman. ;^)

I expect a big victory for Obamawan in the WY caucuses, another of many victories in states that will only be in the Democratic column in November if McCain is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

That’s the spirit, ohrealy. It’s just what our party needs more of - those who keep repeating: “No We Can’t!” :^/

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 8, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #247408

Ohrealy

It is nice to have someone else post here that doesn’t keep spouting the same lame crap about Hillary.

It is tiring.

Woody

I tried to respond to you this morning but it wouldn’t go through. I don’t know if everyone was blocked for awhile or just me. Although I think my stuff has been much less offensive.
I have had a LONG day and am no longer in the mood to continue this debate. It would not matter if I presented a dozen things that Barack has said or inferred regarding Hillary that I think were just as ugly as anything Hillary has said. You would not buy into it anymore than I am going to buy into trashing Hillary. With that said I am out of here until another topic comes up-hopefully not one about Hillary. If I could suggest a new topic maybe about someone we both hate-bush and the fact he just vetoed a bill making waterboarding illegal.

Posted by: Carolina at March 8, 2008 6:29 PM
Comment #247410

I think people have to stop thinking that how well someone does in a state in a primary election reflect how well they will do in the general. You need to look at the voting demographics. Hilary tends to get the hard core blue collar older voters who are going to vote Democratic in the general anyway. Obama gets the poor lower socioeconomic voters who may not vote in the general if he doesn’t run and the independent more highly educated voters who might vote for McCain against Hilary but would vote for Obama. Three other points - Obama won Texas; McCain said the war would be easy (so much for experience); Obama has been in public office longer than Hilary. The only reason Hilary is Senator is because her husband is President. And but the way, she has almost no foreign policy experience.

Posted by: TomD at March 8, 2008 9:06 PM
Comment #247413

TomD,

Are we voting our conscience, or are we only voting for “winners”?

Posted by: Rocky at March 8, 2008 9:54 PM
Comment #247414

TomD, I’m no fan of Hillary but I’m willing to give the devil his (her?) due.

Although the job of First Lady is an unelected position and has no formal duties assigned to it under the Constitution, those who have held it—like Hillary—nevertheless have an extremely high profile job when it comes to foreign diplomacy.

They travel the world, meet with foreign leaders and serve informally as an ambassador for our country. They certainly have a lot more experience in this area than any state congressman.

And yes, you’re absolutely right that Hillary wouldn’t have been able to become a Senator if her husband hadn’t been President.

But Bush wouldn’t have become President—or for that matter even a governor—if his father hadn’t been President.

Just like Ted Kennedy probably wouldn’t have become a Senator if his brother hadn’t been the President. And for that matter, his brother wouldn’t have become President without their father’s deep connections in the Democratic establishment of the time from serving in the Roosevelt administration. I don’t like the whole “dynasty” factor when it comes to selecting our leaders, but it’s really only one of many senseless reasons we use for promoting people to high office.

While it’s true that Hillary wouldn’t be taken seriously as a presidential candidate if her last name weren’t Clinton, there are equally shallow reasons for taking Obama seriously as a candidate. Is it really worse to vote for an experienced candidate because she’s a woman and a Clinton than it is to vote for another inexperienced candidate because he’s black and a good inspirational speaker?


Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 8, 2008 11:00 PM
Comment #247415

Ohrealy

I voted early and often. I see it paid off. I just read that Foster got the bid. I take that as meaning that our region is in the same boat as the rest of the country. I never thought I would see the day. I am anxious though to see how the votes were spread out.

Posted by: RickIL at March 8, 2008 11:04 PM
Comment #247417

Ohrealy

I am also reading that the RNCC spent as much as a third of their cash on hand supporting Oberweis. Now they have to turn around and support a four time loser all over again in November against an incumbent. The republican congressional leaders must be shaking their heads in bewilderment. This is an historically very red portion of the state. Oberweis even lost in Hasterts home county. I think you are correct, a win for an Obama supported dem in this district will definitely demand the attention of the super delegates.

Posted by: RickIL at March 8, 2008 11:34 PM
Comment #247431
It is nice to have someone else post here that doesn’t keep spouting the same lame crap about Hillary.

It is tiring.

I think it must be very lonely and exhausting to be a Hillary supporter at this point. She’s been alienating so many people with her recent comments. Even those who have long supported and voted for her are starting to become disgusted by her attack mode negativity.

It is amazing how even those elitist, liberal cowboys in Wyoming decided to join all the black folks, and the educated people, and the young people that are voting for Obama. But according to her campaign, those people don’t really matter, and those “small states” where she can’t seem to find anyone excited enough to get out and caucus for her, don’t really count as losses.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 9, 2008 3:28 AM
Comment #247451

VV I will repeat again what I have said under this topic and under other topics where people are beating up on Hillary-I AM NOT A HILLARY SUPPORTER-defending her does not make me a supporter.

Posted by: Carolina at March 9, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #247452
I think it must be very lonely and exhausting to be a Hillary supporter at this point.

Delusion much?

On Sunday, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show a very tight race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s Clinton 47% Obama 45%

Hillary Clinton is expected to win upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. The former First Lady is very slightly favored in Indiana.

She is also favored in both Florida and Michigan as those states are expected to hold new primaries.

The Clinton supporters seem to be in the majority, according to the current polling data…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 9, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #247454
It is amazing how even those elitist, liberal cowboys in Wyoming decided to join all the black folks, and the educated people, and the young people that are voting for Obama.

VV, have you happened to look at the vote totals in Wyoming?

5,378 people voted for Barack Obama. This was enough to win the Democratic primary in decisive fashion, but also shows how few Democrats there are there. It illustrates perfectly how Obama has been running up his delegate count in states the Democrats have no chance of carrying in November.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 9, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #247460

RickIl, Thanks to you, “Foster’s victory against the very conservative Oberweis is viewed as a harbinger of trouble for the Republicans in November” from http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/03/09/002508.php ,

Carolina, if you are getting the spam comments control message, you need to spend less time reading on the actual site before posting. If you want to respond in depth to someone’s comments, you can copy the page to a blank wordpad page, go off the site, write your comments, and then go back to the page and post them. If you still get the delay, just wait a couple of minutes and click post again.

The Florida and Michigan issue exhibits Obama’s naivety more than anything else. He should just tell Dean that he will accept the results, and go on from there. The worst possible thing for Obama would be to have a do over, and end up with exactly the same results as the first time. The amount of money being wasted on both campaigns at this time is ridiculous.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 9, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #247464
Hillary Clinton is expected to win upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. The former First Lady is very slightly favored in Indiana.

Rhinehold,

I assume they are going by current polls. The problem with this analysis is that Obama hasn’t campaigned yet in those states. If you look at the states polls over time, Clinton always starts out with lead but Obama wins converts as he campaigns (and usually catches up).

The Florida and Michigan issue exhibits Obama’s naivety more than anything else.

Geez, cynical much? The guy is just playing by the rules. If that is naivete, give me more of it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 9, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #247467

“The guy is just playing by the rules.”

The rules are stupid. If Obama is the nominee of the Democratic party , and loses to McCain, IA should go last in the primaries next time around, and SC second last. Those 2 states should not be making decisions for the whole Democratic party. FL and MI were right. The DNC is wrong.

Some sources say that Kucinich was on the ballot in Michigan. Can someone from there please verify if that is a fact? Everyone is stating that Hillary was the only name on the ballot, besides undecided. Is this a fact or another lie?

On Florida, is there any reason to believe that a do over will produce different results? Do the Obamites want a 48 state nominating convention, or just want a result that gives them more delegates in 2 states where they were not as competitive as Hillary when the primaries occurred?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 9, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #247472

Rhinehold, as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t put too much weight on polls, aside from exit polls. I look at who is winning and at the margins of the victories.

Loyal Opposition,
After Obama’s blowout of a win in Wyoming yesterday it gave him seven more delegates. Hillary now has to win by a margin of approximately 70% in the remaining races. I don’t think she can pull that off, do you?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 9, 2008 5:53 PM
Comment #247485
Loyal Opposition, After Obama’s blowout of a win in Wyoming yesterday it gave him seven more delegates. Hillary now has to win by a margin of approximately 70% in the remaining races. I don’t think she can pull that off, do you?

Blowout win? Obama won 7 delegates and Hillary won 5. That’s a net gain of 2 delegates for Obama, which doesn’t change the dynamics of the race at all.

Hillary would only have to win 70% of the remaining races to catch Obama in the pledged delegates. Obviously, that’s not going to happen. But Obama isn’t going to get enough delegates to go over the top either, and everybody already knows that this is all coming down to the superdelegates.

What I look forward to is the inevitable series of stories in the media about the promises, threats, and backroom bribes both candidates will be forced to make to the superdelegates for their votes. The potential for lethal damage to both candidate’s November prospects is far greater with this eventuality than all of the attacks they’re currently launching at each other combined.

What we will see, literally, is vote-buying and manipulation, and a whole series of promises made to these superdelegates. It’s inevitable at this point. Whoever ends up winning will be the one who covers themselves the most in the stench of corruption. Don’t doubt for a second that Republican campaign officials will be taking careful notes in preparation for a whole series of ads. And no matter how far in the tank for the Democrats the media might be, these will be stories far too juicy to ignore.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 9, 2008 8:42 PM
Comment #247505

LO:

Blowout win?

Yes, blowout win: Obama 61%, Clinton 38%

Hillary would only have to win 70% of the remaining races to catch Obama in the pledged delegates.

Hillary has to win 63% of the remaining pledged delegates, or approximately 70% of the vote everywhere else.

Obviously, that’s not going to happen. But Obama isn’t going to get enough delegates to go over the top either, and everybody already knows that this is all coming down to the superdelegates.

He’s going to be ahead in pledged delegates, so if the superdelegates actually choose to vote against him, all hell is going to break loose — and don’t think that those folks and the DNC don’t fully realize that. If they do actually decide this, it means they’re consciously voting for the end of the Democratic Party, and would automatically be waving goodbye to all those enthusiastic young new voters who have come out in droves for Obama.
Are they truly that stupid? Only time will tell.

But, according to Dick Morris, who was a former adviser to Bill Clinton, It’s Over.

The real message of Tuesday’s primaries is not that Hillary won. It’s that she didn’t win by enough.

The race is over.

The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then? But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.

Hillary wants the bloodbath though. Now she’s talking about going after Obama’s pledged delegates.
She’s a big bucket of desperation, with no dignity or class.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 10, 2008 4:10 AM
Comment #247506

I’m confused.

Why have superdelegates with no requirement on who they are to vote for if they are only supposed to vote for the person with the most delegates…?

Doesn’t that seem like an awful lot of unnecessary beauracracy for no reason?

What is the point of superdelegates if they are not supposed to vote against the pledged delegates if they feel it is best for the party.

You may make the case that it is NOT best for the party to have Hillary win, but that should be up to them to decide, shouldn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 4:38 AM
Comment #247507


With the ‘kitchen zink’ approach of the Clintons, it is very appropriate for Obama to start snipping at her credentials, above the belt.

Ir is professional, in his character, and his key staff and advisors can leak out the stories.

All the grass roots effort goes for not, unless the ‘big picture’ strategic tactics become a part of Obama’s major campaign theme!

Posted by: Stephan G, Kouzomis at March 10, 2008 6:04 AM
Comment #247508

With the ‘kitchen zink’ approach of the Clintons
With the ‘kitchen zink’ approach of the Clintons

Ir is professional, in his character, and his key staff and advisors can leak out the stories.

All the grass roots effort goes for not, unless the ‘big picture’ strategic tactics become a part of Obama’s major campaign theme!

Posted by: sTEPHAN g. kOUZOMIS at March 10, 2008 6:44 AM
Comment #247513

Rhinehold,

The superdelegates will have to decide for themselves, but I think it would be extremely bad for them to override the pledged delegate count without a very good reason.

I refer you to Jack on this point:

The Democratic party has set up a system whereby the party apparatchiks get to tip the balance… We Republicans are simpler people. Our candidate is the one with the most support. We don’t give such a powerful role to the party bosses, as Dems do.
Posted by: Woody Mena at March 10, 2008 10:26 AM
Comment #247522

Get over yourselves. Clinton has much more experience and has voted when it counted. Obama is the person who keep stating that he was against the Iraq war. He is the person who keeps forgetting to state that he was not a Senator at the time and thus unable to vote for or against.
He is the person who is all gab and no gas. Words do not make the man, actions do. Obama has no action except, voting present. Explain to me what “present” means. Does it mean that he was there but afraid to take a stand? Does it mean that his voice is enough to be heard without taking any action? Obama is unable to make decisions that count.
A President needs to be able to take action, not just make speeches.

Posted by: Free Voice at March 10, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #247528
Do the Obamites want a 48 state nominating convention, or just want a result that gives them more delegates in 2 states where they were not as competitive as Hillary when the primaries occurred?

Obama isn’t asking for any kind of favor from the DNC. The DNC has said for months that the primaries wouldn’t count. From the point of view of the DNC, it isn’t even a do-over, because the first set of primaries weren’t legit.

It is Clinton that is asking for DNC to change the rules. You can side with her if you want, but don’t pretend that Obama is asking for some kind of favor.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 10, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #247530

Insomniacs, the real story should be the amount of money already spent in the primaries, and how much more will be spent. Since most of this money goes to the employers of the people reporting on the campaign, we here little about it, except for the amounts. The entire school budget for the 3 Maine Township High schools, where Hillary attended, is about 120 million $. This is what we are spending on the primaries:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

On Michigan, CNN shows figures for Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, Clinton, and uncommitted. Apparently Hillary was not the only name on the ballot. Only 2 counties had a majority uncommited, the larger being Washentaw (Ann Arbor).

Posted by: ohrealy at March 10, 2008 11:49 AM
Comment #247534

In response to all of the Obama-bashers out there, I wrote a little speech for him to give:

My dear supporters, I want to announce today that I am going to tell the DNC to ignore the rules and count the results from Michigan and Florida. I’m sure some of you are disappointed, especially since if you lived in Michigan you were not able to vote for me. You shouldn’t be mad though, because it is really my fault. I was not smart enough to realize that DNC would not enforce its own rules. I guess this is what Hillary means when she says I don’t have the experience to be President.

By the way, I am going to stop giving speeches and rallies. Just look at my resume and Hillary’s, and decide who is more qualified. Be sure to give Hillary credit for being First Lady, because that is a very difficult job. And I have decided to stop telling people that I opposed the Iraq War. That isn’t fair because I wasn’t in the Senate. As it says in the Constitution, only members of Congress get to express opinions on things. People should stop quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., too, because he was not in Congress. All of his support for civil rights was just hypothetical because he couldn’t vote for the legislation.

So, you guys happy now?

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 10, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #247538

LOL, I love how people point out flaws or question a candidate are now labelled as ‘bashers’…

Truely, the cult of Obama has spoken! Why, I’ve written a speech for Hillary to give too!

My dear supporters, I am announcing today that I am withdrawing from the race to become your next president. While the majority of the Democrats in the country may be disappointed now, you will come in time to see my actions are really the best for the party. The press has annointed my opponent as the candidate and therefore you really do not need to be consulted as they know best and really decide who runs anyway. As for Michigan and Florida, it makes more sense to let the rules disenfranchise the voters than to work towards an equitable way to allow those in our party in those states be able to voice their opinion. Even though it wasn’t THEIR fault, or even the State Democratic Party leadership’s fault, as the Republicans were in control of Florida’s decision to move up the primary dates in defiance of the DNC, we shouldn’t think that leadership means trying to work out solutions instead of steadfastly and without thought following the rules that are before us in all situations. Isn’t that the lesson we learned in Florida in 2000 after all? That it just doesn’t matter if everyone’s vote gets counted or not?

My failing is seeing that the rules that the DNC have put out for our party’s nomination has more than one single step should be ignored. The superdelegates, entrusted with making their own decision as to who should be the nominee in close races like this one, must not use their own minds and should obviously just vote in lockstep with those who voted months before the convention. After all, once someone gets a lead they should be left alone so as to not appear to create strife. Nevermind that there were more than two candidates in many of the early elections that gave my candidate his lead and that I have been winning in states that really matter in hoping to win the presidency and nevermind that neither my opponent or I are going to have enough delegates going into the convention to claim victory, those are just sour grapes on my part. I should acquiesce to the Obama supporters, who call me a monster, and hand him the nomination even though I still feel that I would make a better candidate and provide our party with the best chance to win in November.

I wish my opponent will in the general election. I have a feeling that he will need it as he seemed to have a lot of trouble in the friendly but tough race we have had, he will no doubt be torn a new one between now and November. Best to let that start now instead of waiting more time to allow his advisors to devise a strategy to survive it.

Is the cult happy now?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 12:55 PM
Comment #247539

Maybe the Democrats should just do what they did in Florida before and send in teams of soothsayers to inspect the votes for hanging and dimpled chads. Certainly some of these votes could be divined as votes for Obama.

Every vote must count! Isn’t that the Democratic position? The rules? Why this sudden interest in the rules? When has that ever stopped you guys before?

Start with the result you want, and then work backwards from there!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 10, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #247548

Rhinehold,

You are arguing with a straw man here. I never said that Clinton should drop out. I WANT Michigan and Florida to be represented. Your argument about the states Clinton has been winning in is bogus. Moreover, your motivation for making any of these arguments is highly suspect because you want them both to lose. OF COURSE you want Hillary to be ruthless with Obama - they will both look worse.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 10, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #247550

Of course I want them both to lose, just as I want McCain to lose. I am just enjoying the show at this point.

But it does seem disengenuous to me that people are saying that she should drop or not be as hard on Obama as she has been, as if the Republicans won’t be, when she hasn’t lost yet. The argument that the superdelegates must vote in lockstep as the primary voters goes against the very reason that they were created for and people like Daschle, who is a shining example of how Democrats should NOT govern, either don’t get that or are focused on winning over all else. That Obama speaks of change and a different way and has Daschle and so many of his former associates in his camp is telling as well, but we’ll chalk that up to ‘inexperience’.

(more on the Obama - Daschle connection, even before he was named co-chairman: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/12/the_obamadaschle_connection.html)

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #247556

Do you really think that the uncommited delegates from Ann Arbor and other places in Michigan will not be voting for Obama? How many additional delegates does he think he can get in a do over? The DNC won’t pay for it. Dean says that he wants to spend their money on Congressional races, but Obama and Clinton continue to raise millions. If Obama wants do-overs, let him pay for it. He has more money.

Astronaut/Senator Bill Nelson was on FTN yesterday talking about a mail-in primary in FL for $5 or $6 million as opposed to a $20 million revote. Does Obama really think he is going to get enough additional votes to make this into something not completely pointless?

McCain was on 60 Minutes last night, and they are playing softball with him. I kept waiting for them to ask what kinds of medication he takes, or anything tough and nothing happened. If Obama is our nominee, he is going to have to go after McCain with a hatchet. If he doesn’t have the stomach for it, he should concede to Grrrrl Monster Hillary, who might have the guts to actually win the election.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 10, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #247562

The media and/or Obama are not going to start demanding to know what medications McCain might take. You think that the media is playing softball with McCain for not asking THAT?

Candidates should disclose summaries of their medical records, and the public certainly has the right to know about any candidate’s medical conditions which might affect their job performance (or potential longevity in the job, in McCain’s case). But there’s still a certain amount of privacy that candidates are entitled to just on the basis of being human beings.

Things like heart conditions and cancer should be disclosed, but other stuff is nobody’s business. We don’t need to know, for instance, all about our candidate’s fungus toes and hemroids.

I remember when this came up with Dole and Clinton, with Dole insisting that Clinton should match his full disclosure of medical records. Clinton appropriately refused.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 10, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #247564

Medications are the first thing that comes to my mind when the candidate is over 70. Painkillers and muscle relaxants are probabilities with McCain, which can be argued to affect the individuals judgement.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 10, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #247634

Obama just picked up four more delegates in California after they finally finished counting all the ballots.

Also since Rhinehold is so fond of Rassmussen, he might want to know that the March 8th poll reported: Obama 53%, Clinton 39%

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 11, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #247640

I wonder how many former Clinton supporters have switched to Obama for this reason?

I voluntarily left the Hillary Finance Committee after I discovered more than $3,000 in unauthorized charges from HRC campaign on my own VISA card! And that set off a wave of overdrafts and $400 in bank charges that I was stuck with. And the compliance officer Allison Wright at Hillary VA headquarters refused to reimburse me for the charges. And the senior finance reps who I notified about more than $3,000 in unauthorized Visa Charges never once aplogized or empathized with my plight, much less sent me a “sorry for all the trouble” note and a check!

Unbelievably, it took me more than a month of pleading and begging via email to get the money back. I was told verbatim:

“Kathy Callahan, you are going to be with us all the way to the White House…So let’s leave the money where it is and we’ll save time on inevitable future donations and transactions!”

I went into a state of abject shock, disbelief and later anger! Heartbroken. I didn’t want to report this entirely correctable problem to anyone outside the Hillary campaign! One long month later, and at the behest of a bank executive who said to me a few days before Christmas Eve, “You are way way way over the legal donor limit, Kathy! What are they thinking? Are they thinking at all?”

So I followed his direction and filed a police report in Ridgefield. I then notified Allison Wright and Cc’ed senior finance reps (who I met many times) via email again about the police report and said, “Enough is Enough, already! Christmas is coming!”

It was then and only then and within a matter of seconds that I got a cell phone call and email from Allison Wright imploring me, “Kathy, please don’t do anything, formally! I will send you whatever you want back, immediately!” I told her, “You can send all of my money back!”

Finally, $5,300 large came back to me but not the $400 in overdraft charges. And to think that the legal limit during the primary is $2,300 and I had already generously and enthusiastically donated $2,000 to Hillary legitimately! I don’t know why so much chaos and stalling ensued when $5, 800 on their books is a huge red flag…and certainly not my fault!

The Hillary Finance Director knew how much I earned as I was fully VETTED. And I talked to her every other day about the sacrifices that I was making for a year and a once in a lifetime opportunity providing counseling and life saving Psychological-CPR self care strategies to HIV Positive kids, teens, parents and adults at a Catholic Healthcare Institution! My motto is: Yes You Can Access Your Own Hidden Abilities! And they did!

I had no other choice but to walk away from the Hillary campaign! And I am so glad that I did. Every cloud has a green, gold and silver lining. And in my case it’s Barack Obama. When one door closes (or slams shut) another door opens!

“Ready on Day One”? Ready for what?! Meeting the “threshold of Commander in Chief”? More like meeting her fund-raising threshold at any and all costs! The way Clinton and her people have been running her campaign certainly doesn’t lend much credibility to her grandiose assertions.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 11, 2008 1:33 PM
Comment #247690

Why didn’t you quote today’s numbers? Oh, they weren’t that large…

Obama now attracts 48% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Clinton earns support from 41%

And, let’s not forget:

The General Election is a pure toss-up at this time—McCain and Obama are tied at 44% each while McCain and Clinton are tied at 45% each

And, further:

A recent Pew Research Center survey … has 20 percent of white Clinton voters saying that if their candidate does not get the Democratic nomination, they might vote for McCain. Older, lower-income and less-educated Democrats also indicated some willingness to support McCain if Obama is the candidate. These are your Reagan Democrats — blue-collar voters who responded to the broad appeal of Ronald Reagan.

Gilbert Ray, a Democrat from Fayetteville, N.C., describes this inner conflict as follows: “There’s a lot that he (McCain) believes in that I disagree with, but unfortunately Sen. Obama doesn’t appear to me to have any answers to anything.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2008 11:18 PM
Post a comment