Hilary Unites Pennsylvania – Against Obama

Obama has the money and the media give him the momentum. Nevertheless, Hilary kicked his butt by 9%+. This calls into question assumptions about Obama (and Hilary). Obama’s supporters claim that he is a uniter & the inevitable winner. But facts are stubborn things and the facts are that Hilary beat Obama by a big margin AMONG DEMOCRATS even though Obama spent three times as much money. Who united? Who won? What gives?

There is simple bottom line that people seem to forget. If you win a majority of the vote, it means a majority support you. If you do not achieve this, it means a majority of the people preferred someone else. It is possible to be elected president w/o winning a majority (i.e. win with less than half the total votes. Bill Clinton did it twice and GW Bush did it too, since in the elections of 1992, 1996 & 2000 no candidate managed to win more than half the votes. ) but if they do win like that, a candidate cannot claim that a majority preferred him/her.

Maybe Obama will be the first Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority since Jimmy Carter did it in 1976, but before that he has to win among Democrats and for the time being he has not managed to win a majority among Democratic voters. In fact, if you choose not to disenfranchise voters in Michigan and Florida, Hilary actually has more votes than Obama at this time. If you include the Michigan and Florida, Hilary leads the popular vote by 113,000 votes out of 29,914,356 cast. If you exclude the voters of Michigan and Florida, Obama is ahead by a little bit, but no matter how you count, neither Democratic candidate can win on won delegates alone and there is no Obama landslide either among voters or delegates. Anyway, Democratic insiders, not Democratic voters, will decide who wins the nomination.

Obama is a liberal of the kind we have not seen in a long time. He inspires liberal students on college campuses and there are many, until experience sets in. Liberals in the media and on the Internet love him. He has something like 1.5 million donors, many of them small donors. That is given as evidence of his popularity and it is impressive that so many people are willing to cough up the cash, but when you recall that there are more than 300 million people in the U.S., and 121,068,721 people voted in the last election, you see that Obama has an impressive and energized small group, mostly on loan from moveon.org, Oprah & George Soros.

Obama clearly has the coin. He will go back on his promise to run a publicly funded election, so he will use that money as an offensive weapon. If money can buy elections, Obama will certainly win. However, Hilary and Pennsylvania have shown that the big bucks don’t always translate into victory. Obama got every vote his money could buy and he still came up more than 9% short.

The bottom line is that Obama has so far failed to unite even Democrats. Dems still have not chosen their nominee and a lot can happen before November. Maybe all those bitter guys clinging to God and guns are more important than Obama thinks. Maybe moveon.org cannot help Obama keep in touch with ordinary people. Maybe nothing is inevitiable. Maybe we should get used to the sound of "President McCain."

Posted by Jack at April 24, 2008 2:11 AM
Comments
Comment #251314

Jack,

I’ll take our two party candidates so loved we can’t decide between them over one candidate most in his own party at best are ambivalent about and at worst hate. Mc Cain had NO respect in his party a year ago and Rove and company cannibalized him to a far greater degree then anything we’re seeing the democratic party do.


We will have a candidate we love and will unite behind and if you haven’t noticed we are amassing by incredible numbers to vote for which ever candidate we choose.

Your Republican leadership has stirred up a tempest with it’s unconstitutional, cronyistic secretive incompetent and arrogant administration that McCain has done little to distance himself from.

I’m no worried in the least I just hope we can get 60 senators so we can get some real change.

Posted by: muirgeo at April 24, 2008 2:43 AM
Comment #251316

muirego

You may indeed learn to love the winner. But there is clearly NOT an Obama landslide and the Democratic voters will NOT decide the outcome. That is up to the super delegates, inside politicians all. As of today, more Dems cast votes for Hilary than for Obama. Yet Obama has more delegates. Neither has a majority and neither can “win” one. The party insiders will decide which one you can learn to love.

Yes, the voters in the 48 states will have their votes counted and then the fat cats will tell you who the Dem candidate will be.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2008 2:53 AM
Comment #251327

Jack

Obama is a liberal of the kind we have not seen in a long time. He inspires liberal students on college campuses and there are many, until experience sets in. Liberals in the media and on the Internet love him.

It really was no surprise that he did not win Pennsylvania. I don’t believe anyone had any expectations of that. We have all been well aware for some time now that it will come down to the super delegates in the end. A format I am not particularly fond of. But we must live with what is current policy.

I have said in the past that I can live with Clinton as the candidate. But I feel that another Clinton in office will insure that business in Washington continues as usual. The lobbyist industry will continue to thrive and corporate rule will continue to guarantee an ever widening gap in the rights of the classes. Wages will remain stagnated and more and more people will be involuntarily opted out of health care due to rising costs. A format you apparently support and believe to be good for our country. While she certainly would be nothing special, she most certainly would be better than McCain. A man who is nothing more than just another lockstep republican in the disguise of a maverick politician.

You speak of Obama as if he is some sort of pox on our electorate. Really Jack, what is so terrible about connecting with people whether it be on the campus or in the home. Has it occurred to you that maybe these people recognize government for what it has become. That just maybe they possess the passion and necessary desire to actually take a chance on abandoning what has proven not to work. These are the people that truly and desperately want to find a way away from the failed politics of old. They recognize that this is a different and changed world today and that past practices are no longer what is best for this country. They desperately want a functional government with the insight and perspective to put our priorities in order. They see Obama as our only chance of taking this country in a new and proper direction. This is not something to fault people for Jack. You should admire them for having the balls to abandon tired ineffective policy and seek a new road.

It is easier and probably would be less painful to continue with what we have so long as we can live with it. The latter leads to the big question. Just how long can we truly live with more of the same. Do we continue down the road of certain destruction or do we turn off in a new uncertain direction with the probability of change for the better. I personally do not live in fear of the unknown. It is what I know that truly scares me. I am still rooting for Obama. He may be an inexperienced liberal but he certainly would not be in keeping with the current format of worthless corrupt politicians intent on serving their personal needs first.

Posted by: RickIL at April 24, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #251328

To echo Jack’s comments just take a look at the results in Texas, where Hillary got substantially more votes and Obama got more delagates. Sounds like big “D” Democrats don’t really know how to be little “d” democrats.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 24, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #251329

I was glad to see Howard Wolfson on Nightline the other night. I thought they had him locked up in the basement. David Axelrod was there too, spinning for the theoretical intellectual boring speech listening constituency. He actually expects the DNC to give him more delegates in Michigan and Florida, proving that this whole thing has been an affirmative action exercise. If the democrats had winner take all, BHO would already be out of it. Remember, except for Nebraska and Maine, the rest of the states are all winner take all in the electoral college.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2008 9:54 AM
Comment #251336

I continue to be amazed that neither Obama or Clinton can lock up the nomination. Perhaps it’s because their liberal positions on nearly everything are so similar and the nominating process has just become a popularity contest.

The talking heads and usually inaccurate polls indicate that with the nomination of either candidate the survivor will loose up to 25% of the defeated candidates followers.

This, if true, would be a huge calamity for the party. While I won’t be voting for either of the Dems, I believe Hillary would have the best chance for beating McCain as she has won in the big states and in states that may be a toss-up in November.

Obama, as the pied piper is able to lead only half of the lemmings over the liberal cliff. While Hillary’s baggage is well known, Obama seems to be picking up a new albatross every week. He remains the mystery man to many voters and doubt is not an attribute that will lead to election.

I believe the Democrat Party’s best move is to nominate neither at their convention, but rather, pick from the list of those who have fallen by the wayside during this primary season such as Richardson. I believe he could unify the party and have a shot at winning.

Posted by: Jim M at April 24, 2008 11:57 AM
Comment #251338

“a new albatross every week. He remains the mystery man”. The national media doesn’t go into Chicago that much to actually investigate things. This radio interview is one example of what they might be reporting if they did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDUTTzGgrJ8

There is a lot more out there, but nobody wants to start the mudball rolling. The real question is why people aren’t investigating. Do they want to wait until just before the convention, to screw that up? Are they going to make it all into an October surprise? Or are they going to wait and see if he somehow manages to get elected, and then attempt to destroy his presidency?

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #251340

ohrealy, thanks for the link, that was interesting. I have stated in previous topics that every presidential candidate should have a complete and thorough vetting before the November election. Who ever becomes president should not spend their term explaining and countering new found information and scandal as was the case for Bill Clinton during his two terms.

The country deserves a president who can devote all their time and energy to the nation’s business. I want to see the complete candidate, warts and all, before I cast my ballot. How else can I forgive and forget if I don’t know all the facts?

Posted by: Jim M at April 24, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #251341

RickIl

I respect your opinion as that of an honorable man. We differ on what we think government CAN do. You have confidence in the ability of politicans and bureaucrats to understand societies needs and deliver solutons. I do not believe any government can deliver on the sorts of promises Obama, Clinton and even McCain are making. Government cannot create jobs outside the government and make work. Many of our problems with widening income gaps are international phenomena. They are related to greater trade and specialization. Everybody has become richer, but some got richer faster. This happened way back in the 7th Century in Greece when their world expanded. It is always painful and brings forth demagogues.

IMO – government cannot solve many of our “problems” because of the nature of human organizations and communication processes. It is the wrong tool and honest and competent people cannot make it better. If fact, they might make it worse by enabling it to attempt even more. Beyond that, some problems are not solvable at all. They are merely choices and consequences. The energy crisis is an excellent example. It can be managed, but there is no problem to solve. We will choose the mix that works best and complain anytime there is a change. When prices go up, we use less and chance the mix…and grumble.

Government has a key and essential role to play in society, but that role is constrained by reality and should be constrained by our practice.
Half of the people will always make less than the median income. Some people will fall sick every year. The natural world and the economy have cycles. Good government can mitigate these things and make the system robust enough to survive them. But if we overreach, we often lose the ability to do these things. It is like the dog in the Aesop fable who loses his own bone as he tried to get the bone from the dog he sees in a reflection in the pond.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #251342

ohrealy

I checked out your link. This obviously is just another Clinton supporter ranting about Obama’s resume. Am I supposed to be concerned about where he lives in Chicago? The guy has money. Why would anyone expect him to live below his means? If he happens to get the nod he most likely will be moving into the most elite neighborhood in the nation. We all know his record of inexperience in comparison to McCain and Clinton. So what? There is no credible or new revelation here.

Posted by: RickIL at April 24, 2008 1:11 PM
Comment #251343

RickIL,

You want a credible or new revelation about Barak?

Forget about the Weather Underground association.

Go here and read about a known terrorist raising money for his campaign.

Posted by: Jim T at April 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #251344

The Republicans love sticking there noses into this one, so I will do my best to tweak those noses with the real facts.

Hillary, despite all the spin and hype, started out this race with the political machine in Pennsylvania behind her and a huge lead in the polls. She starts out with name recognition as the first lady of a president who was hugely popular in this state. And to be politically incorrect about it, she starts out white. I know suggesting that people might have voted race seems terrible for some of you on the right to actually admit, but it was an issue.

Now, despite the “bitter” controversy, and despite the Reverend Wright problem, Obama gets within just ten points of her in the spread, scoring 45% of the vote. A loss, but he got within five points of a win.

Meanwhile he’s expected to win the next couple states, and put Hillary beyond victory even if she includes the states she signed a pledge saying wouldn’t count. She can’t even win if she cheats.

Which leads me to disenfranchising. True, there is small likelihood of revotes or counting of the votes in Michigan and Florida. Part of this is due to the actions of a Republican Governor and a Republican legisature, which are again looking to turn Florida into an electoral joke, since that seems to work for them politically. Part of this is due to an unpopular Democratic governor in Michigan (a state that Barack Obama, by the way, has a substantial lead in the polls in.)

Really, though, this is about a party having the authority to run its own business. The Republicans penalized those states as well, if I remember correctly. Some suggesting counting the votes anyway, but since there was no campaigning, no competition for votes, and many were lead to believe that their vote would not count, such a vote would hardly represent the will of the people anyways. Counting them would be a disenfranchisement of a different species, but one all the same. The same statement would apply to a poorly managed revote.

We’ll work something out. There’s plenty of time to, and with Barack Obama’s current and probable future margins, little chance that it will be a deciding factor. I doubt they’ll be left with no delegates seated for either state.

As for other delegates, namely the super kind, Obama’s campaign has been trickling them in steadily. At this point, it will be easier for them to confirm Barack Obama’s victories than it will be to give Hillary one of her own.

Much has been made of Barack’s younger voters, and as I fit in that category, I can perhaps give you a bit of perspective on this you might otherwise lack.

First, these youngsters are at the Republican’s expense. Second, we are the future of the party, and a particular good one if they don’t tick us off too badly. Third, we have grown up during the decline of the middle class in this country. Fourth, we are at the forefront of the rise of the Netroots Left, a political phenomenon that’s already been used to great effect to win the 2006 campaign handily. We’re part of the reason that turnout is considerably higher, both in our activism and our own turnout.

Talking about us being on loan from MoveOn, Oprah and George Soros is kind of funny. Here we thought we were motivating ourselves. Oprah really doesn’t figure in most of our politics, so I’ll leave her aside and tackle MoveOn.

The thing to keep in mind is that MoveOn was founded in the late 90’s to help Clinton. We were supposed to Move On from the scandal and merely censure Clinton, rather than impeach him. It became a major online force against the Republicans in the 2004 campaign, but it didn’t support Dean, with his newer version of the politics, but Kerry, who was within the political orbit of the Clintons.

That didn’t work out. So in 2006, we said the hell with it and started moving things our own way. That worked. We won back the legislature, and helped fund candidates who otherwise might not have had a chance.

Now it’s 2008. Some with in the party want us to go the same way we went in 2004. Go with the careful, prepackaged candidate who either people feel indifferently to, or positively hate.

No. Not that crap again. We’re going with a candidate who’s actually got some charm and personality. I mean, he’s a bit above it, but that’s fine. We want somebody who’s above that political BS, because we think it’s below us, too! He is inspiring, and still inspires. He couldn’t remain totally fresh forever, but at least he’s not rotting out in front of us like the Clintons, trying to destroy the party’s morale and their most winning candidate for the sake of their on candidacy.

As for Soros? You mean the free market and open society supporter? Soros has long been about doing what the Republicans like to say they do, which is exporting Democracy and freedom. They will dump on him now because he’s a political enemy. The idea of calling him far left is merely a matter of their typical political melodrama. You can’t be the least bit liberal and not end up bunched with Marx, Lenin, and Che Guevara, regardless of what you say or do.

As for going back on publically funded elections? Obama has millions of contributors, almost 40 percent under 200 dollars, and the vast majority of all contributers contributing less than 2300 altogether. McCain has taken half his money from those giving the maximum, and only a quarter from individual donors giving 200 or less. Obama has taken no PAC money, no lobbyist money.

Meanwhile McCain has set himself up in an interesting little public funding scam, where he used the promise to get public matching funds in the primary if he lost to get a loan to his campaign. In truth, he wasn’t planning on getting publically financed. He’s supposedly telling the FEC to get lost on the matter.

This is the example we get from the party that’s Calling us hypocrites. Worse than forgoing public funding, public funding which might have been the consistent, though politically suicidal thing to do, He used it in a way that might have made the public pay for debts his campaign racked up. And now, yet once again, he will use public financing for cynical political purposes, to badmouth a candidate who did what he essentially promised to do and never came through on: removing the money of special interest PACs from his campaign and surrounding the money of the biggest donors in a see of smaller ones. If you have to dance with them what brung you (as we say in Texas), Barack Obama’s chosen to dance with more of the average folks and fewer of the fat cats by proportion than anybody else in the campaign, Left or Right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #251345

Stephen

I think it is perfectly fine for Dems to use whatever rules they had in place before the election. I understand that an election is a statistical event, not some sort of metaphysical experience.

The reason I enjoy bringing it up is because over the last eight years, Dems have been making Federal cases, literally, about perceived little examples of voter disenfranchisements. They were talking about a couple dubious cases and making it sound like it was the end of the world, or at least the end of democracy as we know it.

Now the Dems are happily disenfranchising millions of voters. Can you honestly expect Republicans not to jump with glee and hold you to something like your own standards?

The Democratic hypocrisy is astonishing. They complain about a few POSSIBLE cases of disenfranchisement, but when Dems do millions, they complain that it is no big thing. For years, Dems have complained that we should have publicly funded elections. Now that they got money, it doesn’t matter to them anymore. Dems have had fun associating their political opponents with racists. Now we have a Dem candidate who has as 23 year close association with a terrible racist, and it doesn’t matter to them anymore. It just gets better and better.

Just imagine the following. What if a Republican had just thrown out all the votes from two big states, associated with known racists, radicals and crooks for more than 20 years, refused to take part in a publicly funded election and then said that none of this should be held against him or even brought up?

I good measure of fairness is turn around. Obama is not immune to the fairness standard.

BTW - remember the Clintons belong to you guys too. All those dirty tricks you say they are pulling are the same sort the pulled on Republicans. Most Dems cheered that and claimed it was NBD.

This is so much fun because the Dems have done it all to themselves. Republicans can sit back and watch the lies, deceit, fear and loathing and it is all intermural Democratic stuff. You cannot blame Republicans for any of it. How does it feel to be on the receiving side of the Democratic love machine?

Clintons cheat. How surprised are you? Clintons are Democrats.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #251346

“I know suggesting that people might have voted race seems terrible for some of you on the right to actually admit, but it was an issue”

So, some whites voting for hillary because Obama is black is an issue, but the majority of blacks voting for Obama because he is black, is not?
Thats rich.

Posted by: kctim at April 24, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #251347

Jim T

“Go here and read about a known terrorist raising money for his campaign”

That is accused terrorist Jim. A big difference. The man has not been arrested or sent to Guantanamo. His page is nothing more than anyone else gets who manages to elicit a contribution or two. You are reaching here friend.

Posted by: RickIL at April 24, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #251348

Jack-
Many of the “fat cats” are elected Democrats. If you were better familiar with the netroots left, you would know that there is considerable pressure being put on the superdelegates by their own constituents to make their choices. You would like to paint us as passive in the face of our leadership, but in that case, Barack Obama would have never gone as far as he has.

Hillary is only still in the game because she started out with a huge superdelegate advantage, an institutional headstart, if you will. That’s part of how she won Pennsylvania as a matter of fact. Keeping the margin of victory down to 9 points when it was originally more than twice that fits the usual pattern of these elections for Barack. He wins big, and always reduces the gap in states he doesn’t. There have been few if any states where he started out bigger than he ended up. Who do you want in a campaign, the person who increases their support over time, or the person who loses it?

As far as hypocrisy goes, you folks took half the delegates away for much the same reasons we took all of them away. Half or all, if you call one disenfranchisement, you must call them both such.

Or you can call it what it is: National parties maintaining discipline in the candidate selection process to avoid a regressive backwards march of primaries away from the year of the election.

I’ll be honest with you: this is a real headache for the party. Rules are rules, though, and both our parties realize that.

Well, at least some folks.

You’re free to have fun with this while it lasts, but you’re about to trade Clinton as an opponent for the rival of hers who beat her. Who do you think is tougher?

Lee Jamison-
As a participant in Texas’ election, I can vouch for the Democratic nature of the process. People voted each time. It would be preferable to me that we go for one system or another, but the fact remains that each vote represents a vote for a different set of delegates. The Texas State Party picks most of the delegates by primary, and about a third of them by the caucus. A smart candidate would have been prepared for that, but evidently Hillary’s wasn’t.

The caucuses represent those who came back, those who stayed interested in the process. What does it say that Hillary barely won the popular vote, and got edged out on the delegates by the Caucus lead Obama got? It tells us that Obama cut terribly into her support, and when push came to shove in terms of turnout and re-turnout, Obama could get his people back, young or old, better than she did.

Ohrealy-
If wishes were wings, we’d all be flying. you can talk about winner take all, but who won the most states this primary season? And how many of Clintons wins are in Blue States probably set to go the Democrat’s way anyways?

As for the Delegates in those states, let me tell you something: Hillary wants delegates for free. She wants delegates from states where she didn’t have to compete for them, one of which she only she showed up on the ballot for. That sounds positively Soviet to me.

Hillary only gets a lead, in fact, if she alone is awarded delegates. If any compromised is reached to account for the fact that there was no campaign there, to redress the grievance of her competitor’s name having been taken off the ballot as per the rules she agreed to, then she’s screwed.

Hillary only wins if she gets special treatment, to the tune of the vast majority of the Superdelegates voting for her. But there will be no superdelegates in November to save her. We need a self-sufficient candidate in November, not one dependent on political deus ex machinas to win. The Democratic Party will not likely pull a Supreme Court Style judgment to put Hillary over the top.

As for Chicago? Chicago is not a place where political secrets rest easily. If Obama were really that dirty, the mudball would have been started years ago. It wasn’t. He’s not perfect. He is a politician. But he’s better than most, and in comparison to his opponents, is a much stronger candidate in that regard. Karl Rove has more of a chance of being entangled in the Tony Rezko case than Obama, when it comes to corruption.

Jim T.-
Have you ever noticed that it’s always associations that you folks try to smear him with? It’s almost as if you expect him to vet every person who comes close to him or contributes to his campaign, to keep constant watch over his friends and other people he engages with.

What I’d watch for, and what we haven’t seen yet, are cases in which he acted in common cause with people, did something actually bad himself. All this bull of questioning his honor and moral standards over what others grown adults is just one more cow-pie on the pile of BS that your party just uses to distract people. Meanwhile, you point to another pile and tell people to dig through the manure to find their free pony.

kctim-
I have the feeling that the black voters in question are favoring Obama not because they are against whites, but because they are for Obama, and against Hillary, who they feel has exploited race in her campaign in a way that makes them uncomfortable. Meanwhile, of the voters she’s appealed to with these attacks, there are a significant portion with a touch of bigotry that she’s taken particular aim at. Those supporters, though also acting within an issue of race, are motivated differently. Barack’s race becomes a problem for them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #251349

RickIL,

I’m not so sure about that.

According to the US Treasury, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of “KindHearts” and:

KindHearts officials and fundraisers have coordinated with Hamas leaders and made contributions to Hamas-affiliated organizations.

Also:

Information developed from abroad corroborates connections between KindHearts and Hamas in Lebanon. As of late December 2003, KindHearts was supporting Hamas and other Salafi groups in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

Most damning:

In addition to providing support to Hamas in Lebanon, KindHearts reportedly provides support to Hamas in the West Bank. An individual identified as integral to assisting KindHearts deliver aid to Palestinians in the West Bank, also reportedly was responsible for dividing money raised by KindHearts in the U.S to ensure that some funds went to Hamas.
(Emphasis mine)

Also, KindHearts was established to take over fundraising from two other organizations that were closed by the government for aiding terrorists:

Following the December 2001 asset freeze and law enforcement actions against the Hamas-affiliated Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and the al Qaida-affiliated Global Relief Foundation (GRF), former GRF official Khaled Smaili established KindHearts from his residence in January 2002. Smaili founded KindHearts with the intent to succeed fundraising efforts of both HLF and GRF, aiming for the new NGO to fill a void caused by the closures. KindHearts leaders and fundraisers once held leadership or other positions with HLF and GRF.

Admittedly, El-Hady has only raised $60 (according to his page), but considering El-Hady’s status, all contributions should be returned.

Don’t you think?


Posted by: Jim T at April 24, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #251350

Stephen wrote:

“All this bull of questioning his honor and moral standards over what others grown adults is just one more cow-pie on the pile of BS that your party just uses to distract people.” (Emphasis mine)

What? The Libertarian Party is smearing Obama?

No, I am an equal opportunity smearer!

Check out THIS link:

Hillary FIRED!!!

Posted by: Jim T at April 24, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #251351

I prefer Hillary Clinton over Obama. She was part of a team of people (a spouse, but I would guess very involved in advising her husband, much more of an influence than most previous first ladies). This group of people were successful on multiple fronts and I have more confidence in who I am getting with her. Obama is still a blank slate to me. He has only three years in the Senate and has spent half that time running for the nomination. I appreciate his prior service as state legislator and as a community organizer but it scarcely adds up to what is needed in an executive office that will head a nation. If he gets the nomination I would hope that he wins, and hope that he governs well. That is simply not enough when compared to Hillary Clinton. I think she is on the right path by emphasizing experience and what I consider to be substantive policy proposals over Obama’s rather stylistic campaign.
I would point out also that Obama draws enormous support from people under thirty. These people were teenagers during the Clinton presidency and if you asked them what they remember it would probably not go much beyond Bill screwing (sorry, I guess he did not “have relations with that woman”), let’s say “screwing around” with an intern. If you told them that Clinton conducted a war without a single combat death, that he headed a government that managed to balance three budgets, that he appointed the team that was instrumental in delivering a peace agreement in Northern Ireland, I think most of the under thirty crowd would say: “gee, I didn’t know that”.
If Obama is so great and so inevitable, how come he didn’t win Penn by ten points?
Also, re: McCain and Pennsylvania. More than a quarter of the republican electorate voted for people who were not even running. Smart republicans should sit up and take note of that.

Posted by: charles ross at April 24, 2008 5:29 PM
Comment #251352

So there is no way that these white voters, whom you labeled as bigots, could be voting for hillary because they are for hillary, and against Obama?

Voting for a candidate because of their race is just as bad as voting against a candidate because of their race. That is why we haven’t heard the MSM harping non-stop about the evil white man not voting for Obama because of his race yet. In order to do that, they would also have to acknowledge that black voters are voting for Obama because of his race.

Your “feeling” is nothing but an excuse for PC racism Stephen.

Posted by: kctim at April 24, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #251353
Obama has the money

Yes he does. And it’s clean, small donor money.

and the media

No, McSame has the media. That’s why we see no criticism of him, even when he so richly deserves it.

give him

Obama has earned his position. He has taken on the DLClinton machine, and has totally kicked their asses.

the momentum.

Yes. He has the momentum, indeed he has won the nomination.

Nevertheless, Hilary kicked his butt by 9%+.

She was 20 points ahead going into PA and ended up with a single digit 9.2 win. She needed a huge win to remain convincing to superdels, but Obama blocked it by campaigning hard against her in a state full of old people and blue collar workers who don’t follow politics very closely. Obama has kicked her ass, and she has now lost the nomination.

This calls into question assumptions about Obama

Yes it calls into question why everyone in the media and so many on the right keep questioning his amazing abilities when he has just beaten the pantsuit off the candidate who went in with an Inevitable label, a Big Machine, and Lots of Corporate Money.

(and Hilary).

Who has lost, is millions of dollars in the hole, and is currently campaigning in the State of Denial.

Obama’s supporters claim that he is a uniter & the inevitable winner.

Yes.

But facts are stubborn things and the facts are that Hilary beat Obama by a big margin AMONG DEMOCRATS even though Obama spent three times as much money.

The Political Spin is what is what seems to be most stubborn here, because after the media announced that she absolutely needed to win by a double digit margin, she didn’t get it, yet still they persist in acting like this is still a horse race. It’s not. She’s toast. They know this. And so do all of us.

Who won?

Barack Obama!!!

If you win a majority of the vote, it means a majority support you. If you do not achieve this, it means a majority of the people preferred someone else.

Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates, the popular vote, the fundraising, and twice as many states.

If you include the Michigan and Florida, Hilary leads the popular vote by 113,000 votes out of 29,914,356 cast. If you exclude the voters of Michigan and Florida, Obama is ahead by a little bit, but no matter how you count, neither Democratic candidate can win on won delegates alone and there is no Obama landslide either among voters or delegates.

Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan, and he wasn’t given the chance to campaign in Florida — because he followed the DNC rules. Therefore there is no measure by which it could ever be considered fair to include the popular vote totals of those races, and there is no way in hell that the DNC is going to allow them to be counted for Hillary, simply because she doesn’t want to face up to the fact that she has lost.

Take a look at this:
Hillary’s New Math

Anyway, Democratic insiders, not Democratic voters, will decide who wins the nomination.

Yes, and the superdelegates aren’t going to hand the race to the loser of the pledged delegate count and popular vote. A loser who ran a horrible campaign, couldn’t manage her money, and is now stiffing people who provided services to her campaign by not paying them, or even taking their phone calls. The loser who attacked her fellow Democratic opponent using the kind of mean, nasty, and transparently desperate tactics that our party directly associates with Rovian Rightwing Republicans.

Obama is a liberal of the kind we have not seen in a long time.

Thank Goodness. Change was desperately needed.

He inspires liberal students on college campuses and there are many, until experience sets in.

He is inspiring people. Period. Because we’re sick of the kind of “experience” that we’ve seen in Washington for so very long both left and right. The kind that only rewards the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Liberals in the media and on the Internet love him.

Conservative talking heads in the media and on the internet hate him. They’ve long dreaded the very thought of Old Man McSame attempting to run against Obama in the general election.

He has something like 1.5 million donors, many of them small donors. That is given as evidence of his popularity and it is impressive that so many people are willing to cough up the cash,

Obama’s donors want change from the kind of government we now have. This entails us to put up our own money in order to get the kind of candidate who will be beholden to We the People, rather than Corporate K Street lobbyists and PAC’s.

Obama has an impressive and energized small group,

No, it isn’t small, it’s big, deep and spread out all across this country. It’s not only impressive and energized, but very determined and well organized. We know what’s at stake, and we don’t want more of the Same.

mostly on loan from moveon.org, Oprah & George Soros.

No one is on loan. Everyone is part and parcel of this movement, because We are the Change we Can Believe In.

Obama clearly has the coin.

And the vast majority of that coin came from us.
Not from the lobbyists. Not from the PAC’s. By Americans for Americans on behalf of the change in priorities we want to see from our government.

He will go back on his promise to run a publicly funded election, so he will use that money as an offensive weapon.

It’s Our Money and We want it to be used like a weapon against the Status Quo.

If money can buy elections, Obama will certainly win.

Yes, we know that has proven to be the case. Why else do you think we keep giving it?

However, Hilary and Pennsylvania have shown that the big bucks don’t always translate into victory.

And Obama has proven that the Status Quo Machine doesn’t always translate into victory.
That’s because:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!
Obama got every vote his money could buy and he still came up more than 9% short.

No, Hillary came up short despite the heavy concentration of old folks and white racists who live in Pennsylvania, and she has now lost.

The bottom line is that Obama

Is the winner of the Democratic nomination.

Dems still have not chosen their nominee and a lot can happen before November.

Barack Obama is our nominee, and yes, we can win in November.

Maybe all those bitter guys clinging to God and guns are more important than Obama thinks.

The God and Guns voters tend to vote for the GOP, but maybe even they’re sick of the Status Quo that has gotten them nowhere they want to be. Such is the case among so many of our military families, who have been voting for and donating to Obama in record numbers.

Maybe moveon.org cannot help Obama keep in touch with ordinary people.

Obama is an extraordinary man who came from an ordinary background. Moveon and many other groups who started on the internet are comprised of ordinary people who are trying to do an extraordinary job: inform the public when the media and the press began to do nothing but repeat the talking points that are handed to them by the status quo.

Maybe nothing is inevitiable.

Yes. Even when the media and press labels someone inevitable, it isn’t always the truth.

Maybe we should get used to the sound of “President McCain.”

That would mean the majority of people in this country want to vote to support a third term of Bush policies and one hundred years of occupation in Iraq.

Somehow, I strongly doubt that is the case.
I could be wrong. But I hope I’m not.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at April 24, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #251354

Charles Ross, BHO began his presidential campaign THE DAY AFTER his election. His entire US Senate record is the record of a Presidential campaign, and guess what,

RE: Walker Willingham/Cross Ideological appeal:
Comment #246118
I hope the legislative achievements in Springfield being claimed by Obama supporters are not just resume inflation. People who support him better look into that closer, rather than have his opponents find out later that he really didn’t invent the wheel. …
Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 03:33 PM

When the Illinois senate changed hands in 2003, Emil Jones Jr became the president of the senate. Barrack Obama went to him and explained that he would be running for the U.S. senate. Emil Jones offered the bills that Obama introduced, and arranged the senate voting and session timetable around Obama’s campaign, debates, and fund-raisers. The bills were designed to help him with specific interest groups in his campaign for the US Senate.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #251355

VV:

Well at least it’s good to hear some of you state clearly that Obama is a liberal.

He certainly is not a uniter, as evidenced by this being nearly May and the democratic party is divided.

If one can’t unite your own party, how do you unite the country?

It is going to be an interesting summer. It has been a long long time since someone from the far left won the presidency.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 24, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #251356

VV:

That would mean the majority of people in this country want to vote to support a third term of Bush policies and one hundred years of occupation in Iraq.

You are a better than this. Repeating an Obama lie about one hundred years of occupation in Iraq.

Are you equally opposed to our “occupation” of Germany, Japan, South Korea and Kuwait?

You know what Mccain said. And you know what the full quote is.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 24, 2008 6:33 PM
Comment #251359

Craig, here is the full quote:

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

Of course, he neglects to mention that Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we are in Iraq. And Bush Administration policies have been exactly what Al Qaeda needed to train, recruit, and motivate more people than ever before.

Craig:

Repeating an Obama lie about one hundred years of occupation in Iraq.

The Iraqi’s don’t want us in their country. If we plan on being there permanently despite their wishes, what else can it be called but occupation?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at April 24, 2008 7:22 PM
Comment #251360

S.D., you can actually get elected president with about 15 states electoral votes. I am excluding TX here. This website has a fun electoral college calculator:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/calculator.html

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2008 7:27 PM
Comment #251364

Jim T

“Admittedly, El-Hady has only raised $60 (according to his page), but considering El-Hady’s status, all contributions should be returned.

Don’t you think?”

The man has not as of yet been convicted of any crime. Only accused. And I don’t believe I read any mention of the intent of filing charges. Anyone can donate to any of the campaigns. Your original post made this out to seem as though Obama and this guy are best buds sharing in terrorist activities. That clearly is not the case. I certainly will not lose any sleep if he does not return the money. I am sure that if one were to scrutinize the profile of each and every person who donates to his campaign we could find a varied lot of not so savory characters. The same holds true for McCain and Clinton.

Posted by: RickIL at April 24, 2008 8:11 PM
Comment #251365

Jim T

No, I am an equal opportunity smearer!

As an equal opportunity smearer it is only fair that you show true parity and provide a McCain smear. Otherwise you can not in fairness make that claim. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at April 24, 2008 8:18 PM
Comment #251366

RickIl, The Rezko Hyde Park connection goes back further than the national media has ever reported. Obama bought a condo when he claims he was broke. The guy in the radio talk show is referring to previous deals and Rezko using BHO as a front man for redevelopment deals.

The superdelegates were introduced as the antidote to the proportional representation that has given BHO so many delegates. For example, in the Michigan non primary, only 2 counties went uncommited, mostly just Ann Arbor, yet Axelrod wants at least half the delegates or voting strength. 4 candidates wre on the ballot, 4 withdrew.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2008 8:39 PM
Comment #251367

S.D., “Go with the careful, prepackaged candidate”. You’ve really got to be kidding, really. I guess I’ll undelete the part of my comments referring to BHO as Axelrod’s marionette.
Before D A came along, people didn’t see the magic, they saw an off-putting snob, too smart, too reserved, too elitist. The Pritzkers and Newton Minnow liked what they saw. These folks also helped a lot: http://www.strategygroup.com/
I am still looking for some figures on how much these guys make off these candidates.

HRC never had a chance with the caucus-goers, so she didn’t waste resources on that part of the system.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2008 9:27 PM
Comment #251368

Stephen
I never said the super delegates would not eventually go for Obama. The point is that the system the Dems have set up will REQUIRE the decision of the super delegates. The Dems have set up a system where nobody can win a majority.

We still don’t know how this will play out. It is possible that Hilary will have a majority of the vote from the 48 states, but Obama wins in delegates. In that case, what should the super delegates do? Should they go with the expressed will of the people or with the delegate count? The rules and ethics permit either choice. And we still have the problem in that America has more than 48 states. Two big and important states are disenfranchised, no matter what.

And you don’t seem to get my point. I believe that elections are statistical events. We do not know the metaphysical will of the people. It is unknowable. That is why we go with the rules set up before the event and I understand there are multiple interpretations. I have argued this on many occasions and Dems have attacked that position. Now you guys have come around to my position and it is fun to watch. Obama may well be playing the Bush role and Hilary the Gore part. Hilary may be demanding that all the voters be counted (even if they made mistakes or cannot be located) and Obama will be playing the GOP role from Ohio.

I appreciate it that you are honest re Dem party’s problem. I consider it a bit of a maturing process for the party. They are learning what I and others have been telling them for eight years. Elections are not metaphysical. They are practical and there is always built in some degree or arbitrariness or error AND this is not necessarily bias. This is the way the real world works. Democrats have had a hiatus from that for eight years. Now it is back.

My big regret is that they will forget or ignore this lesson the day after they have a nominee and we will be in that same metaphysical mystery magic that they pulled in Florida and Ohio.

Charles

The problem with Hilary and Obama is that they are rejecting almost every one of the Clinton policies that made him successful. Both will spend more. Neither will support free trade (a hallmark of the Clinton years) and both will attack NAFTA and other free trade agreements. Then they claim they will have a more inclusive foreign policy. How do you think people in Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Japan, China or Europe will react to having their firms and policies bashed and excluded? Bill Clinton didn’t do that. Hilary will and it goes double for Obama. With either of these two, we don’t get the late 1990s; we get the last years of the 1970s.

VV

I guess when you talk about the old folks and white racists, those must be the bitter men and women who cling to guns and God because they are not smart enough to know Obama is their savior.

Re racists, Obama got 97% of the black vote in Pennsylvania. That last 3% is within the margin of error and could well result from mistakes. I really cannot believe that all the black voters in a state as big as Pennsylvania share every economic, social and ideal to such an extent that 97% of them choose to vote the same way. Do you think race might have something to do with that?

Re Iraq – As I said to Stephen in a similar situation, you are making the old Groucho Marx joke. – “what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” What I see in Iraq is different from your perception based on reading media reports. I understand that different parts of the country might have different opinions, but it is clearly not as you believe in at least the ¼ of Iraq I know.

Re Obama winning and being popular. When I see that happen, I will believe it. Up until now, he has not been able to knock out Hilary. She beat him by almost 10% in Pennsylvania. It is a big state, whether or not you like the people who live there. She has managed to garner almost as many or more (depending on who you choose to disenfrancise) popular votes. Neither candidate has managed to win even half the total votes cast be Democrats. That does not seem overwhelming popularity to me.

Obama is a legend to his followers, maybe not so much to everybody else.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2008 9:34 PM
Comment #251369

VV:

The Iraqi’s don’t want us in their country. If we plan on being there permanently despite their wishes, what else can it be called but occupation?


YOu are stating that McCain plans a hundred year occupation. As long as you use the same term to describe Japan, Germany, South Korea etc I have no problem with your use. You are knowingly using improper terms to describe McCain’s position for political reasons.

So Obama’s position is that we are to end our “occupation” of Germany?

Come on. you are being misleading, and you know you are. Is this the new politics Obama is talking about?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 24, 2008 9:37 PM
Comment #251371

Jim M , Richardson would be my favorite choice of the also-rans. I thought he was looking for the Vice-Presidential nod when he endorsed BHO. I don’t think either HRC or BHO would accept the vice presidency on the other one’s ticket. If the convention goes beyond the first ballot, all bets are off, and anything could happen.

This clip might be interesting to many, it’s one of BHO’s better public appearances. The other parts of this appearance are also available on the related videos, from The View pt3:The first three things you will do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1P1F064gIs
1. Begin a withdrawal from Iraq
2. Give every American health care
3. Deal with the energy crisis
Plus crisis management for the economy.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2008 10:01 PM
Comment #251372

Jim T-
Okay, so it’s just you doing it in concert with Republicans. Sorry to drag your party through the mud. It’s still just a distraction. Obama is a politician and a leading figure in his community, and you can’t do that without interacting with all kinds of people. Hell, you can’t go through adult life without doing that. What’s the solution to that, raise our politicians like monks in monasteries and nuns in convents? That’s the only way you will get that desired purity. None of the candidates has that purity. McCain was one of the Keating Five, Hillary’s got all kinds of skeletons. The only reason people emphasize him is this notion that we don’t know Barack Obama, but the reality is, there’s plenty down the memory hole on the other two candidates that might give people the impression that McCain and Hillary are no more known to them than this Illinois Senator.

By comparison, many of these supposed anchors around Obama’s neck are there by loose association. He’s not been demonstrated to do anything wrong. Rezko’s a pretty corrupt man, yet reporters investigating that case backwards and forwards, Patrick Fitzgerald investigating every nook and cranny of the whole scandal couldn’t come up with any reason to believe that Obama was dirty in all that. He spent three hours answering every question that a group of assembled reporters from the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune, evaded not one of them, and left each paper believing that he had nothing left to answer for.

These are the people who know him better than anybody else. And they don’t think he’s dirty. That’s why you haven’t seen any truly fatal scandals brought up, any real campaign killers. That’s why folks like you have to resort to guilt by association. Secondhand controversy is your only available means of taking him down.

Charles Ross-
None of the candidates has executive experience. Hillary’s not got a good track record for leadership. Witness what happened with the Healthcare program. Her campaign has shown a similar tin-ear for the politics of coalition.

As for the under thirty crowd? I am under thirty. I remember the Clinton years very clearly. I remember very clearly believing there was merit to triangulation, to a certain extent. that said, I also remember the party getting more and more spineless in the face of the GOP. I have come to the conclusion that this embrace of Clinton triangulation and the inability for the party as it now stands to stand up to the Republicans, even with the country having their back on it are not unrelated.

I have come to the conclusion that we have nothing left to gain from that approach, and nothing much to lose by taking a new, more assertive approach. We got more aggressive, more ambitious in 2006, and we utterly reversed the Republican majority. But as the Mostly Clintonian leadership continued to call the shots, that’s not done us much good.

If for no other reason, Barack Obama is like or even loved by many Democrats because he is not compromised by this defeatist, toadying attitude towards the Republicans. If Hillary had shown she had grown a spine on this matter, I might have voted for her, but her actions since 2006 have convinced me that she’s all too willing to run to the right on defensive ground and throw our interests under the bus in order to effect her own political survival. She will go Hawkish on Iran to avoid being called weak on defense, and she will ally herself with Republicans, even the ones that persecuted her and her husband, in order to defeat the Progressive wing of the party.

I know the Clintons. I paid attention to them. I just don’t like what I see anymore, and I really do not like where their politics puts us in relation to a Republican Party that badly needs to be put in check.

kctim-
You’re getting politically correct on me. There are reasons of cultural pride for blacks to vote for Obama. What other black person in history has had such a good chance to be president? To charge that there’s some sinister motivation behind it is just silly. If were alive during the Kennedy era and of age, I might have voted for him. I mean, look at my name! But it wouldn’t be because I have any hatred for Protestant Anglos.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to see people from your own community in office. The difference I would cite would be that Whites have had plenty of opportunity, and minorities less so. Minorities have a right to get excited about seeing their own make good, especially when they have such a strong candidate at hand, and a bit of a cold shoulder from their former ally. We could believe Whites getting excited for the same reason if they had a few centuries of exclusion from the ballot at this level.

As for the media, they bring up the 90% support at just about every point. It’s hardly a secret. They’re not going to call it racial hatred, though, because nobody seriously believe that most blacks would bear Clinton or whites in general ill-will. These people have been loyal supporters in the election of one white candidate after another. It’s not racism to want their turn, especially when race is not the only reason this candidate can win.

Craig Holmes-
Nobody’s making a big secret of it. You’re trying to make it out like its something we’re hiding from. We’re not. It’s just so blindingly obvious it doesn’t merit constant reference.

Secondly, His support is not merely with the most leftward part of the party. It runs the gamut. His support as a primary candidate is lesser at this point among certain Democratic voters, but that doesn’t mean that he won’t gain that support when he does get nominated.

On the subject of uniting, even Uniters can’t win every contest. He has, however, managed to unite more primary and caucus voters in the states Democrats have campaigned than Clinton. In fact, more than that, he’s managed to unite together more Democratic voters than any other Democratic Party candidate in history. It’s not his fault he’s got a stubborn opponent who refuses to face the irreversible nature of her situation. Uniting doesn’t alway happen all at once or painlessly. Nor are people always helpful.

One thing for sure: With Obama and Clinton facing one another the pattern is always the same: Clinton loses support, Obama picks it up. Hillary’s divisiveness seems to lose her supporters with every state, while Obama’s more positive appeal picks them up.

ohrealy-
I suppose you could. The trouble with relying on just a few states is that makes your political fortunes very delicate. That’s part of how Gore and Kerry lost the Presidential elections, and part of how Hillary’s irretrievably lost with the pledge delegates: she put too many of her eggs in one set of baskets. She would likely end up doing the same in the election, and would be in the same danger of losing the election as Kerry was.

If Barack Obama wins the states we won in 2004, if not all of them, and then adds some more, then the weight of the election will fall less on single swing states, and more on the shoulders a considerable lead.

We’re not merely looking to win, but to win by a margin that is robust enough to give ourselves the strength to govern by a mandate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2008 10:05 PM
Comment #251374

Stephen:

I don’t think you are hiding from it now, but if we go back three months or so Earlier in the campaign there was an attempt to frame Obama as as someone who transcended old politics. Now he is turning into a liberal of the moveon.org type with a strong liberal agenda.

I think it is more “out there”. Looking at Obama’s proposals they are not really new, just common stuff from the left.

We seem to be moving into more of a traditional race. Obama is no longer viewed as Jesus Christ. His negatives have moved up nicely, in part thanks to Hillary and of course his own mistakes.

I would expect some more “revelations” as his record continues to come out. In the end, he is a brilliant but inexperienced liberal candidate. He is probably you candidate now, but if the primary season were to start afresh I doubt he would be again. I think Clinton would win a second time.

I think this will be a very interesting general election. It is liberalism’s best shot in a generation. I think it will be closer than many predict.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 24, 2008 10:35 PM
Comment #251375

ohrealy-
I’m sick to death of hearing about elitism.

Here’s what’s happened in the last generation: for the sake of fighting elitism, we have continually attacked those who earned their elite status through study and hardwork, and granted populist appeal to those whose policies work against the middle class and the masses in general, and work for the few and the rich instead. Elitism is defined as thinking you know something better than somebody else, a nice definition with the singular problem that yes, some people do know more than other people on a subject.

Yes, some of those people come off as elitists, or snobs. But I know from personal experience that this doesn’t always mean they are ones, and that you have to look at their actions and attitudes more carefully to figure out where they really stand. And where does Obama stand? He’s always trying to be understanding, forgiving of people’s differences. He takes an unabashed populist tone, but doesn’t use that tone to dress up proposals that merely gimmees to big special interests. Rather than stick to an elite of educated consultants, like Clinton has, he has stuck with one consultant mainly, and has used a model that is radically egalitarian in its construction. Rather than rely on the political elite of the party, he’s pulled the rug out from under them.

Elitism for me is the belief that one’s status in society is granted by virtue of superior character or constitution, and the expression of that belief in support for policies that benefit other elites at the expense of the masses. That does not seem evident in him or his campaign.

Jack-
Remember when Super Tuesday usually gave us a front-runner just before the spring? The Superdelegates have been an obscurity, like much of the primary and caucus apparatus, because much of it’s never mattered on a national level before. It was inside baseball for the most part, many of these systems set up not to cater to the masses, but instead to generate party participation at the local level. To be fair, who the heck cared before?

I firmly believe that these institutions and party mechanisms will be smoothed over or replaced as they become better used, just the way that electronics or software becomes more refined as customers gain experience with and give feedback on the product. What people pick, I think will depend upon what people like locally. On the subject of disenfranchisement, I’ve covered it in my previous comment, so don’t mind that I leave it out here.

As for what you see in Iraq? I think you might have taken a different view had you been embedded with the combat troops. Ask them sometimes about about how comfortable they are, fighting along side the people who were killing their people before. You came to a rather more pacified portion of Iraq, one that has had a certain isolated kind of success. I’m not doubting your honesty on what you see, but I do think you’re seeing one facet out of many of the war, and are too close to it to see the more troubling big picture around it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2008 10:40 PM
Comment #251378

Stephen

I am embedded with combat troops. I was just very lucky to come just as the insurgency was largely put down so nobody has shot at me. I am happy about that. Many of the people I know fought against the people they are now fighting along side. AQI really turned the Iraqis sour on that insurgency thing. I also understand that I see only one part. My part was called the triangle of death when I signed up. It was supposed to be lost to us. Many people declared defeat two years ago. It is an excellent example of how we can win and how fast we can turn around a situation if we do not give up.

Re Dem party politics. Please understand, I am not criticizing Dems for their rules. I just find them amusing. I am also not down on Dems for how they are exercising the rules. I am merely welcoming you guys back to the real world.

In November I don’t want to hear all the sanctimonious crap about every voter’s intention being sacred. We now know how Dems really feel about that and we have it on written record. That is why I keep on making you guys repeat it.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2008 11:36 PM
Comment #251380

S.D., I like BHO. He would make a fine Supreme Court justice. There is no evidence that he would make a good President. It’s all theoretical with him. Is Axelrod going to follow him to the White House? Will the Strategy Group from Evanston still be polishing his image and creating his agenda? Will he drop them like Wright, when they have served his ambition? What is beyond that? Who will he be imitating next, after Bobby Rush and Bill Clinton?

What’s left is a professor reading a book and lecturing people, explaining history to the people who were actually there when it happened. His whole career has been persuading people to let him get his own way. Why would anyone think that this will work in the White House in Washington DC?

Posted by: ohrealy at April 25, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #251381

Craig what does Germany, Japan, and South Korea have to do with Iraq and occupation? Didnt Germany and Japan both declare war on us? Didnt we intervene in Korea because of China and North Korea attacking South Korea. I understand we have trops there but it was all agreed upon as part of the surrender if the Japanese and Germans because they were not allowed to have armies and Russia was next door, I thought.
In Iraq we invaded and conquered a country that didnt attack us. We won the war, ousted Saddam and instead of leaving stayed to rebuild the place ourselves instead of letting the Iraqis do ut themselves. We invited the terrorist to fight us there and we continue to fight the terrorist on Iraqi soil. We are occupying Iraq. It seems like we are comparing apples and oranges. Isnt there a difference between Iraq and the other 3 countries?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2008 12:24 AM
Comment #251383

J2t2:

I asm so glad you asked. The only point to the analogy is the lie by the Obama campaign concerning McCain’s remarks.

Obama is implying that McCain wants to occupy Iraq for 100 years. And that he wants to fight a war in Iraq for 100 years.

However when you read McCain’s remarks in full, it is very clear that McCain has in mind an agreement like we have in many countries around the world. He sees a presence in Iraq in the future like these other countries.

It is fine to debate the merits of such an agreement. What is wrong is to say you are for a new type of doing things, and then intentionally misrepresent McCain’s remarks.

It is the lying and misrepresenting that I am calling VV and Obama on.

Debating McCain’s ideas for Iraq are of course more than appropriate, and your post makes an excellent point.

My response to you, is that of all the countries listed only Japan attacked the United States.
We got into wars in very different ways with each occupation. With Kuwait for instance we truely liberated them. But it is very hard to argue with success. In all of these cases, US forces have brought stability. The only real failure was when we pulled out of south east Asia. That resulted in millions of deaths.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 25, 2008 2:10 AM
Comment #251388

“We are the Change we Can Believe In”

I have to admit I love this slogan and completely agree with it, but I’m sure my interpretation is far different from the Obama campaigns’.

Yes, we, the American people, can and should believe in our own abilities to change our circumstances. But changing our circumstances doesn’t involve growing government or implementing new regulations or pandering to corporations with subsidies and grants. It involves individuals taking the initiative to improve their lives, and the government getting out of the way. Barack Obama’s policies may empower average Americans to change Washington, but most Americans don’t want to change Washington’s role in their life. They want Washington out of their life. How does a bigger, more powerful Washington empower people to change their lives? It doesn’t! It enables more of their time and money to be wasted by both parties’ bureaucrats in Washington.

We ARE the change we can believe in, and we need not wait for any government, any politician, or any other person to get us started towards that change. When, out of fear, Americans invest their hopes for the future in the government, they will come to have much more to fear. But I don’t believe most Americans are waiting for the government. They are trying to improve their lives every day. It is in this pursuit where the past, present, and future greatness of this country and its people has always resided. Americans simply don’t hear often enough that their ability to lift themselves out of their problems almost always exceeds the government’s. Sadly, none of the current presidential candidates seems to consistently hold this conviction and are all truly uninspiring. If a majority of the American people were inspired and truly understood the potential their liberties afford them, they would demand the government eliminate the endless bureaucratic oversight and intervention and let them achieve it.

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 25, 2008 4:05 AM
Comment #251395

“There are reasons of cultural pride for blacks to vote for Obama.”

Then why is it not possible that maybe those “clingy bigots” voted for hillary out of cultural pride? Maybe they didn’t like being called economic idiots and having their way of life mocked, so they voted for the candidate they thought better understood their way of life?

I’m not getting PC on you Stephen, I am only pointing out how ridiculous it is to condemn one group for racism while defending or ignoring racism for another group, and that is exactly what you are doing.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2008 9:28 AM
Comment #251404

Jack-
AQI didn’t turn Iraqis against the insurgency. They turned them against AQI. We keep them in line with continued bribery, and as the Romans learned to their dismay, that hardly guarantees victory over the long term. The real question here is whether they’d turn on us if we stopped paying them. Indications are “yes”.

Meanwhile, as you focus on the Sunnis in the Center, you basically have to ignore the trouble with Kurdish Rebels in the North (you know, the incursions of the Foreign Army in the North), and the destruction of the ceasefire in the South and Sadr’s return to renegade status.

I know, and have agreed that things are calmer where you’re at. But I don’t draw your conclusion. Now you can commit the Ad Hominem fallacy, and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, but you tell me: if Maliki can’t handle Sadr by himself, if we have to hand hold, and if he turns to Iran as an honest broker, if Turkey can’t keep it’s butt on side of the border, and some of the Peshmergas can’t seem to do the same, then where’s your victory in Iraq?

You’re talking about defeat in fairly superficial terms. For you, defeat is going home. But the reality is, the policy aim for which this war was intended has been defeated. There will not be a pluralistic, cohesive, centralized Democracy in Iraq. Even if your people succeed in their current plans, we’ll leave behind a badly fractured system. You’ll call it decentralized, but as Phillip Zelikow in your Department called, it’s more like failed, and our continued intervention is giving every political force in Iraq the excuse to simply put off dealing with one another.

I won’t tell you that I think that after this withdrawal, things will hang together by necessity. However, my view would be is that our presence is not really preventing chaos in Iraq, just redefining it and pushing it around. We never had enough soldiers to give Iraq law and order without its internal forces, the Army and Police vunctioning, and we certainly don’t have enough and won’t have enough now to handle Iraq now that it’s gone to hell, and the surge has run through our remaining residual strength.

It’s not going to be easy on us, but that’s what you get for having gone to war without the right planning, without a plan to win the peace when you really could win the peace. This is the responsiblity we took on, and we screwed it up, and despite our relatively good intentions, it will be positively ugly.

That’s the reality your government doesn’t want to face, and perpetually puts off with the notion that if we stay long enough, the magic solution will show itself, and we’ll have peace with honor. We tried that before, and it didn’t work there, either. Why? Because we already failed and just kept on compounding the failure by not admitting to it and working our way out when other institutions in Iraq would have been better able to keep the country together. We’ve addicted them to American forces, addicted them to American money, not set up enduring political unity. That’s not a recipe for peace.

As for my party’s politics?

First, we didn’t prevent voters from voting. We just decided as a party that we wouldn’t have our candidates campaign in those two states, or the votes count towards delegates in our party. Everybody agreed to this, including the lady right now who is contradicting her own signed pledge to that effect.

We warned the state parties in both states. We gave advanced notice that these results wouldn’t count, and that folks wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. Voters showed up likely understanding this. So, were there real presidential primary elections for our party in those places? No. The parties response, as a private organization was to disregard and skip over those primary elections that were not held properly according to the party rules. You can debate the why’s and wherefore’s of the fairness of the rules, but it was something the party agreed on, and that the state parties were supposed to abide by. That’s how you hold a primary that means something when it counts towards a nomination. The rules are the rules.

Elections are about more than just holding a vote. In any election, the quality of the process determines whether that vote is taken accurately, and with a party, whether that vote translates properly into the choice of the party for president. Your party, like ours, cares about such things, and so they imposed a penalty on those who had broken with the schedule. They too penalized the offending states.

So I understand the reality, probably better than you, since you’re still talking disenfranchisement. There was none. Those voters, additionally, will still have a choice come November, and if they’re still ticked off about it, they can vote accordingly.

On the flip side, though, here’s what it seems you’re trying to argue. You’re trying to side with a candidate who made a pledge, back when she was in the inevitable candidate, not to campaign or to consider those votes counted. She did not campaign, and in one state’s case, all other candidates had removed their names from the ballot in accordance with the same pledge. Somehow hers remained.

So, essentially, you define enfranchisement as a candidate who did not campaign in either state counting votes in states she agreed not to count, and in which, pursuant to that same pledge, other candidates did not campaign. We’re at least being consistent with what we promised.

It’s a mark of the twisted nature of politics that you’re trying to reward people for going back on their word. You say count votes not campaigned for, and the vote in a state where only one candidate was on the ballot, we say: rules are rules. We count the votes in the contests that were held in accordance with party regulations.

Ohrealy-
You ask a lot of questions, but you don’t answer a lot of them. That’s called an argument from ignorance. None of the candidates has executive experience. Barack Obama has plenty of experience in organizing people on a community level, and has applied that experience to his campaign. Which is to say that he’s successfully taken political theory and made political fact out of it. That’s what I’m looking for. Hillary’s theory and practice all seem to come out in the same place: A rush to the right to neutralize an electoral advantage the Republicans no longer have. I have no doubt that when she gets into office, it will be the same all over again, and I really can’t stomach that, givenw hat’s happened over the last year with Congress. We need somebody who stands up and stands firm against the excesses of the Republicans, not somebody who seems more inclined to hamstring her own party instead.

As for the professor explaining? He was explaining things to people who weren’t there, explaining to well-off San Fransiscans why voters in rural Pennsylvania might vote the way they do. His target audience wasn’t those people themselves. As for this:

His whole career has been persuading people to let him get his own way. Why would anyone think that this will work in the White House in Washington DC?

That’s called politics, and he seems more effective at it than her, so far. You guys set preconceived limits on how far you think you can persuade people. That is neither a very confident nor a very robust way of engaging people.

Barack Obama has successfully taken a permanent lead in pledged delegates due to his ability to keep her victories smaller and raise his victories through the roof. She is lucky that Obama started out from so far behind in her most recent wins, because in each case, she won by ten or less points, which translates to only being five percentage points in the majority in her best race. Further results from Pennsylvania indicate that she has less than a double digit win there, And Texas was basically a wash, a slim victory in the primary cancelled out and then some by a decisive victory in the caucuses.

Conventional wisdom would have counted him out long ago. But he did not count himself out, and he made inroads into all of Hillary’s core constituencies. People are fiercely loyal to him, and he’s not doing much himself to alienate them.

I think it’s political elitism to talk about Obama like he’s a snob. His campaign is grassroots on many different levels. He could have waited his turn like a good little establishment boy, and gone through long process of political succession that seems to have done nothing to make Gore or Kerry more electable, but instead he launched a rather successful primary campaign that looks much more likely to defeat her establishment support campaign than the other way around. Who’s more in touch? Obama would have to be in order to properly wage such a campaign. Meanwhile, Hillary continues to engage in her negative campaigning, despite the fact she’s losing supporters left and right because of it. And primary results? She doesn’t care. She wants the superdelegates to give her the nomination without any real substantive victories. The only reason they aren’t moving faster for Obama at this point is that they want to satisfy people that she was given her chance to compete. In other words, the party’s humoring the Clinton voters in order to maintain the party unity she’s endangered with her divisive politics.

Is this the person who’s supposed to be in touch? The one who can’t even tell how badly she’s screwed things up for herself in future elections?

Craig Holmes-
The fact of the matter is, McCain’s 100 years of presence in Iraq would require that we maintain our presence and win there. It’s permanent basing. It’s a continuation of the war.

It’s fair to say that this represents something contrary to what the American people want. He wants us, in the middle of what most Americans consider a losing war, to consider permanent basing within a country that we have not settled down and likely won’t settle down. Even if he’s serious, and will devote American resources to that end in sufficient amounts, this situation will be entirely unlike even what we have with North Korea, a nice dividing line, a UN mandate and a relatively peaceful half century cease-fire.

They are right to use this pipe dream against him.

As for who attacked this country?

Let me put this plainly. Germany and Italy declared war on us. Their actions had killed Americans up to that point, but we let that slide to avoid war. Japan just made that latent hostility open warfare. Korea we got into under UN auspices, and with their approval, and we fought them to a stalemate essentially at the old lines. You can call it a success, in that we didn’t lose the entire Peninsula.

The Gulf War was a success, since it’s purpose was to liberate Kuwait. We applied overwhelming force, brought in international cooperation, got others to fund the war. The trouble would come with our problematic dealings with the aftermath, and the way the belligerents among our government and foreign policy elites kept trying to goad us into a war we were ill-prepared for.

Vietnam was a failure for the same reason Iraq is one now: we mistook tactical successes for strategic successes, and fought a war we knew would have to be limited to avoid unnecessary esclation using a model better employed for total wars. We failed to deal with the significant political aspects of winning that war, and in doing so ensured a long bloody slog that we eventually decided we couldn’t afford to maintain and couldn’t get right with the accumulation of all the errors.

No doubt it’s to our shame that millions of Vietnamese were killed in the aftermath, especially those that depended upon us, but we hadn’t been in a real position to win that war for over a decade by that point. You don’t wave a magic wand after that many years of war and make all your screw-ups and their consequences go away. If you’ve lost a war that far into the game, then by definition you’ve lost the control necessary to prevent anything bad from happening.

Even now, in your days of “success”, hundreds of Iraqis are being killed each month, and many more remain refugees, remain expelled from their homes with the Sectarian strife still bubbling under the surface even as we try to put a lid on it.

It gets worse, every day we perseverate. Yes, it will be bad when we go, but it will be worse if we take longer to go. Maybe next time, we can exercise better judgement and not let the failures of the wars of yesteryear convince us that we can win a war on media manipulation alone.

Mr. Haney-
Let the American people speak for themselves. On nearly every major issue, Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on the issues. People know what to expect when they let Liberals and Democrats lead, so by extension, they cannot be going along with your sense of where America is going and what the majority of America believes.

I think Americans are sick of the erosion of the public domain, sick of economic an political elites ignoring their interests and refusing to allow the political will of the American people to act collectively to preserve our safety, our economic prosperity, and our rule of law. We want better as a nation than the last few decades of middle-class rollback have given us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #251405

“The only point to the analogy is the lie by the Obama campaign concerning McCain’s remarks.

Obama is implying that McCain wants to occupy Iraq for 100 years. And that he wants to fight a war in Iraq for 100 years.”

Well Craig when I heard McCains comments I to thought that when he was saying “as long as it takes” He was referring to the actual civil war type fighting that is continuing. Afterall our stated goal was to stand down when they can stand up right?

If I understand you correctly you are saying that McCain is wanting to stay in Iraq after all fighting has ceased and the Iraqi’s are able to stand on their own. He wants to continue to have a base to work from because the base in Saudi and Kuwait are not enough for us.

I dont think Obama is lying I do think he is stretching what McCain meant. The 100 years was to indicate to the cons that he is just as conservative as they are and will not leave Iraq no matter the cost in lives nor dollars until we can proudly declare victory and/or the oil runs out. The comment really wasnt directed at libs as it was reaganspeak for staying the course.


Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #251406

RickIL,

DARN! Ya caught me! I’ll come up with a McCain smear soon. I’ll find one. It shouldn’t be hard.


Stephen,

I’m not joining with the Republicans to smear BHO. I’m a Conservative that’s against THE most Liberal Senator in the Senate ascending to the office of President. That IS BHO’s record, isn’t it? THE singularly most Liberal Senator in the Senate? I mean, with what very little is known, that’s what I have to go on, don’t I? His voting record?

BTW, Stephen, I have heard some of BHO’s speeches, and I must say that they ARE inspiring. If BHO were just a little more Centrist, I wouldn’t have much of a problem voting for him, as McCain’s policies and positions don’t sit quite right with me. I’m still not quite convinced that McCain’s the best option for me.

Posted by: Jim T at April 25, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #251410

kctim-
If Barack Obama wins, black people will finally see a black person in the White House. That will be a first, rather than a 44th. The same goes for women of all colors who look at Hillary and see a chance for a first there, not merely another 44th. Either way, I don’t blame people (even if I don’t agree with the Hillary supporters) for casting their votes on those grounds.

It seems to me that you’re trying to justify prejudicial voting, voting by people who consider Barack Obama inherently inferior in his abilities and his character because of his race, by equating that to those who’re merely happy to see themselves represented in a political campaign by a candidate who has a chance to win. The question is, why are you reading dark motives into this? This is a historical opportunity for them to see a black man president. How often has that come along in the history of this country? If black president were a regular occurance, perhaps you’d have a point. They’re not. This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to see this change happen, to be a part of it. Nothing so historic would motivate a white voter. We’ve had plenty of chances to lead.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2008 11:23 AM
Comment #251412

J2D2:

dont think Obama is lying I do think he is stretching what McCain meant. The 100 years was to indicate to the cons that he is just as conservative as they are and will not leave Iraq no matter the cost in lives nor dollars until we can proudly declare victory and/or the oil runs out. The comment really wasnt directed at libs as it was reaganspeak for staying the course.

He and the democratic party are misrepresenting the remark. He was very specific and stated he is fine with being in Iraq for 100 years if that is what it takes, with specific reference to Europe and Asia.

It is fine to debate that you don’t want a permanent base in Iraq. That is a legitamate issue fairly presented.

What is not appropriate is to state that McCain is for a 100 year war and occupation, meaning that the current state of affairs would continue forever.

To do so is false and misleading to the voters.

The Democratic party knows that. I believe they are intentionally misleading voters in this regard. They have been called on it in many quarters. Actually, that train of thought is fading away.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 25, 2008 11:35 AM
Comment #251414

What’s misleading? He’s planning on staying in Iraq, he’s staying- the implication may be a bit unfair, but at heart it’s true. He will stay when Americans want to go.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2008 11:56 AM
Comment #251417

S.D., hiring a good spin doctor, resume inflation, continuously campaigning for 5 years or more, and marketing yourself to key constituencies, do not make a President. The public, and his supporters, are ignorant of this man’s actual career, and don’t know what he will do in the future any more than I do. He is being promoted as though he was something more than he is, or has been successful when his successes have actually been orchestrated by others. When this is explained, they go back to the community organizer b.s., something at which the candidate considered himself to be a complete failure, whatever the later revisionism. His first major campaign before he got the proper packaging, showed signs of instability. He wants to be a different person than who he is. He is in a rush to get to the next step on the ladder, hoping that if he goes fast enough, nobody will examine him closely. His supporters are making a lot of noise and claim that they can do more than it would be possible for any president to do. He is going to call in the joints chiefs of staff and tell them he wants to withdraw from Iraq. I guess they are in outer space right now, and won’t know about this until he walks into the room with them, and won’t have any arguments to make against him. He is going to give everyone health care, including the people that don’t want it. He is going to solve the energy crisis, create alternative energy, and help cure global warming, because these are all problems that didn’t exist until he thought about them, and no one else has ever tried to do anything about them. This guy is running for an office that doesn’t even exist. We govern by consensus. The opinions, theories, and proclamations of a president actually have very little to do with what actually happens after he assumes office. Campaign promises have nothing to do with what happens later. All a candidate can promise is to be able to use their best judgement in dealing with events as they come up in the future. If the candidate’s judgement is not actually his, but is provided to him by marketers, then those are the people that we should be electing, instead of the front man.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 25, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #251418

Stephen
Are you serious? You defend prejudicial voting in the first paragraph and then accuse me of justifying it in the second paragraph.
Voting for or against a person because of their race is sad, your defense of it is pitiful and only continues the sickening cycle of racism we seem stuck in.

I am reading no dark motives into this at all. I condemn ALL forms of racism. The dark motives come from the people who pick and choose when and who is allowed to act as racists.

“It seems to me that you’re trying to justify prejudicial voting, voting by people who consider Barack Obama inherently inferior in his abilities and his character because of his race, by equating that to those who’re merely happy to see themselves represented in a political campaign by a candidate who has a chance to win” …..because of his race.

Why leave that huge part of the equation out, Stephen?
Because leaving it out makes white voters who vote based on race look like racists and makes black voters who vote based on race look like they only care about being represented?

Americans doesn’t need a black President because its “finally” time to have one.
Americans doesn’t need a black President because it will be historical.
Americans don’t need a black President, we need a President.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2008 12:20 PM
Comment #251419

Stephen,

The American people are not being offered a choice of less government. They must choose big government Republicanism with McCain or big government liberalism with Clinton and Obama. They will forced to make a choice between the two in November. I respect that Obama is a fresh face in Washington, but his big government, freshly whitewashed liberalism won’t fix Americans’ problems or fix Washington. It’s an empty promise. You can’t cut back on the elitists in Washington unless you cut back on Washington, and Obama has made it clear he isn’t about to cut back on Washington.

The government didn’t create the middle class, but excessive taxing, excessive spending, and excessive regulating by Washington has sure done a lot to erode it. Are you asking me to draw the conclusion that Democrat big government policies are better the Republican big government policies? Well, I reject the premise that any big government policy is the answer. If it is offered to them, Americans will choose to improve their lives with less government and not through government, but no one left in this election is giving them that choice. The choice we have before us is far more precarious.

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 25, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #251434

Stephen,

I am jus t speaking from the perspective of what I see and know from my own experience. AQI and he insurgency were/are not the same, but they overlap a lot. The insurgency w/o AQI and foreign fighters is not much of a threat. I don’t mean to denigrate your particular expertise, but my observation is that the media is not correctly reporting on the situation in Iraq. More precisely, they are not reporting much at all about new developments so people are left with the impression that nothing has changed since 2006.

I don’t believe things will hang together if we leave too soon. Of course, in the long run everything works out (or not) if you are willing to have a total chaos.

Re your theory of just war, it sometimes doesn’t work that way. No matter how the war begins, it is possible to win or lose it. We made mistakes in Iraq, but began to turn the situation around in 2006.
BTW – we are currently in Iraq with full UN approval, if that makes a difference to you.
Re Obama & Clinton – please remember that both are prominent Democrats. You can trash Hilary if you want. It is fun for me to watch. I don’t have to defend her. She is one of yours, whether or not you like it.

Obama cannot win cleanly; neither can Clinton. The party insiders, AKA super delegates, will do the job. They will disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida based on the rules in place before the election. In this respect, they are playing the same role Bush played in Florida in 2000. I don’t have a problem with that and welcome you to the realist club. Just remember this for next time.
Re Obama’s race – He is half white, so part of his family was involved as much as anybody else in U.S. politics. He is also Kenyan. None of this part of his family experienced slavery or racism in the U.S. He grew up outside the U.S. and in places w/o large American black populations, historical or contemporary. So his connection to the race issue in the U.S. is tangential and literally skin deep. If people want to vote for him because of the color of his skin, that is their business, but don’t try to make racial preference a glorious thing. Personally, I look forward to the time when we will judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

Re “We’ve had plenty of chances…” Who is this “we”. My granfather was Polish. Poles make up around 5% of the U.S. population, but there has never been a Polish president. People who kind of look like me have been successful in government, but none of my relatives have ever held any elective office in the U.S., now or in previous generations.

Posted by: jack at April 25, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #251437

“The Democratic party knows that. I believe they are intentionally misleading voters in this regard. They have been called on it in many quarters.”

Craig its the same situation as the repubs stretching Obamas “bitter” comment to the point they did. So I think lying is a bit much I think both sides have exaggerated the comments to make the candidates look less appealing to others. The real shame is the number of people that fall for these tired old tricks.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #251450

Jack:

I guess when you talk about the old folks

I’m talking about the kind of older blue collar Democrats who don’t keep up with politics. Who are familiar with the name Clinton when they see it on the ballot, and who remember that times were a whole lot better in the late 80’s and 90’s when Bill Clinton was the president. There are a lot of these kinds of folks in Pennsylvania.
While political junkies might choose to watch The Mclaughlin Group, these are the kind of folks who are going to prefer tuning in to The Price Is Right.

and white racists

There are a lot of these people in PA as well. They will never vote for a black candidate, even if it means they’ll be voting for a Republican for the first time in their lives.

Sometimes older and racist overlap, too. A large number of older people in PA often sound a lot like Gerry Ferraro once you start talking to them.

those must be the bitter men and women who cling to guns and God because they are not smart enough to know Obama is their savior.

Oh, I won’t say they’re stupid, but let’s just say that a large number of people across America are what could be termed misinformed, or suffering from low information. :^)
Of course, lots of people are bitter about their economic situations currently, but the hardcore fanatical God ‘n’ Guns folks are more likely to vote for the GOP for the most part.
Btw, PA has closed elections, so Limbaugh’s strategy to get his dittohead Republicans to vote for Hillary wouldn’t have made an impact in that state as it has in others.

Re racists, Obama got 97% of the black vote in Pennsylvania.

And Hillary got 67% of the white Democratic womans vote in PA. Lots of these women will end up voting for Obama once Hillary can finally manage to face up to the fact that she has lost.

That last 3% is within the margin of error and could well result from mistakes. I really cannot believe that all the black voters in a state as big as Pennsylvania share every economic, social and ideal to such an extent that 97% of them choose to vote the same way. Do you think race might have something to do with that?

I’m certain it does. I’m also certain that this is due to the fact that the Clinton’s and Gerry Ferraro thoroughly offended black people with their comments during this primary race. Black folks were very fond of the Clintons before this primary, but they know race baiting and base insults when they hear them and so, have now withdrawn their support.
It’s really a shame that the Clinton’s have permanently lost people who until now had held them in such high esteem, but that’s the kind of loss that can only be expected to occur with people like Hill and Bill play cutthroat political games .

Re Iraq – As I said to Stephen in a similar situation, you are making the old Groucho Marx joke. – “what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” What I see in Iraq is different from your perception based on reading media reports. I understand that different parts of the country might have different opinions, but it is clearly not as you believe in at least the ¼ of Iraq I know.

I don’t mean to be rude, but if I am to be perfectly honest, after reading many of the things you write regarding Iraq, I think you’re constantly sticking to your partisan agenda, and aren’t at all interested in relating the truth about what is going on there.

In fact, I think it’s probably best if I completely avoid discussing the issue of the war with you from now on.

Re Obama winning and being popular. When I see that happen, I will believe it. Up until now, he has not been able to knock out Hilary.

Actually, he has. She needed an enormous win in that state to maintain any sort of credibility, but couldn’t get it. It’s over. First signs of that can be found here:
BIG HRC FUNDRAISER DEFECTS TO OBAMA

And here:
Dems’ suspense may be unnecessary.

She beat him by almost 10% in Pennsylvania. It is a big state, whether or not you like the people who live there.

It doesn’t matter, the primary is basically over. The superdels aren’t going to destroy their party in order to maintain Hillary’s delusions about her own inevitability. Indeed, I think these people are fully aware that with the tactics she has stooped to using to bring down Obama, she has permanently damaged herself and any chance she might ever have had to run for president again.

As for the people of PA, I like some of them, don’t like some of them, and am indifferent about others — exactly like anywhere else in this country.

She has managed to garner almost as many or more (depending on who you choose to disenfrancise) popular votes.

No, she hasn’t. The loonytoons metric she’s attempting to use to make this claim left out all of the caucus states, but included Michigan and Florida, two states Obama never campaigned in, and where she previously agreed the votes weren’t going to count. It’s nothing but pathetic and transparently delusional spin.

Neither candidate has managed to win even half the total votes cast be Democrats. That does not seem overwhelming popularity to me.

As I’ve said, Obama has won the pledged delegates, the popular vote, the fund raising, and twice as many states. That spells more than enough popularity to make the winner of our nomination clear.

Obama is a legend to his followers, maybe not so much to everybody else.

I’m not worried. I think a lot of people will come around in time. :^)

P.S. to Craig re: Your comments to me
You’re talking nonsense in what I consider a uniquely Neocon way. McCain is indeed talking about a hundred years of occupation, and that is not a lie or an exaggeration.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at April 25, 2008 6:22 PM
Comment #251468

VV

I try to stay away from the Iraq subject. I have taken down all my post re and I no longer post on the subject.

You guys dislike hearing from someone who actually has seen the things you talk about and talked to the people you have seen on the news. You call this ground truth partisan and I guess the truth is partisan, since it goes againt the received pessimism or the moveon.org types.

I don’t mean to be rude either by pointing out that among the people writing here, I am probably one of the few who has been to Iraq recently… or at all. I understand and have said that people can draw different conclusions. I do not agree with all my team members and many people have different opinions. But I do know what I can see and feel. I prefer to believe my own eyes over the partisan spin.

The Dems are just too narrow minded on this subject. Their party line brooks no opposition, but my experience doesn’t mesh with the defeatism, sorry.

Posted by: Jack at April 25, 2008 10:26 PM
Comment #251469

One more thing re avoiding the Iraq discussion. I only bring it up in response to what other write. If you do not bring it up, we will discuss it no more. But I cannot allow all the BS by people who have never had the experience to understand their own comments, so I will respond to what others write.

Posted by: Jack at April 25, 2008 10:29 PM
Comment #251498

ohrealy-
I think the proof is in the pudding. Who is gaining supporters, who is losing them? Who seems better able to manage organization, better able to maintain finances?

Obama himself has said that he is not perfect, and that he won’t magically solve the problems. That stuff about “we are the change we are looking for” may sound like naive hype, but in a very real way it’s true: consistent political pressure is necessary to bring about the changes necessary in Washington. He acknowledges and understands this out in public, where I have little evidence that any other candidate understands this in the least.

He’s telling us we have to band together as a nation to do this, and his political skills show him capable of bringing people together

If you think a Candidate’s theories, beliefs and sensibilities have little to do with what happens while they’re in office, just look at the Bush Administration. From Global Warming to Business, from Iraq to fiscal responsibility, we see what his bad leadership can create.

Hillary doesn’t seem to have a guiding theory to her politics. She seems to be like Bush in her relentless pursuit of power. If she were thinking on a higher level than just this primary season, she might crank down the rhetoric, or acknowledge her likely defeat, instead of perpetuating a campaign that just serves to further divide a party that needs to be united to win in November.

We don’t need somebody in charge so blindly political.

kctim-
You’re accusing vast numbers of African Americans of being racist, with no other proof than their solidarity with Barack Obama. They must be voting for him mostly because he’s black, you say. Trouble is, in times past, when a black person ran the race, they had no such luck. The African Americans went for the white candidate.

Barack Obama, though, shows he has the strength on his own to win. He’s not leaning on them like a crutch, not aping the words of identity politics that so many candidates along his lines have done before.

There’s another angle to this. It isn’t merely that they want Obama President. It used to be the Clintons that had the advantage, but as with so many other times, they threw away that advantage when Barack did well with them in a state. Bill Clinton and Hillary alienated blacks with remarks that disparaged Obama’s showing. Before they’d had a good relationship, signified by the joking references to Bill as the first black president.

It was neither the first nor the last time that Bill and Hillary would alienate a key constituency.

Black voters have not shown a record of liking a candidate merely because they were black, nor of hating or disliking a candidate for being white. Obama gives them reasons beyond shared culture to embrace him, and the Clintons have provided reasons for them to balk at supporting her that do not stem from any past prejudice directed towards them.

But that’s not all I said last time, did I? I find nothing wrong with people who have never seen a black in the White House taking the opportunity to support a qualified candidate for that office. You want to boil that down to race-born preference, but in doing so, you oversimplify it badly, and attach negativity to it it doesn’t deserve.

I agree that it merely being historical, or finally time is not reason in itself to vote a black man president. But I don’t think it’s an objectionable reason, if it’s a decision backed by other rationales for that vote as well.

Mr. Haney-
I don’t care about big government or small. I just want one that works, and works efficiently at what most Americans ask it to do.

As for taxes, spending, and regulation, America’s economic rise didn’t come during some small government period of paradise, but during the rise of American Liberalism. What killed it was Johnson tryng to get something for nothing, paying for Vietnam through deficits.

As the Republicans have risen, they’ve relaxed much of these things, except the spending what you don’t have part. That is one part of our economic problems, but not all.

The trouble is, through their deregulation, Republicans have made it harder for participants in the market to determine what the value of different things are. They’ve also set up a situation where employers have been allowed to stagnate wages, in return for making credit more generally available. Unfortunately, that’s left Americans more debt-ridden, and allowed prices on many things to run out of control.

The economic problems of the average people feed back into the business world, as consumer businesses feel the pain as overburdened consumers restrain their spending in self-defense. It’s like Artherosclerosis for the economy.

The Republicans take an elitist view of the economy, believing that investment and corporate profits drive the economy, but in reality its a system, with nobody entirely indispensable in the process. Businesses and the rich depend on us for their wealth, and we depend on their investment and their employment. In the past generation, Employers and investors have consider their own interests in more and more ruthless disregard for their welfare, trying to squeeze out more profits from the average, middle class person. Unfortunately for them, there’s a poing where you’ve merely cut off the circulation, and those people stop functioning so well in the economy as a result, and that feedbacks to cut into profits.

I have no problem with the economic elite benefiting from our dollars, but if they want growth in their companies and in their economy, they should share more readily with the rest of us. What goes around, comes around. Get greedy, and your greed will make it harder to make your gains. Supress wages, and growth will be unstable and hollow.

All that said, here’s the problem: Business function in competitive and legal environment that demands they give the largest legal return on their profit that they can. Henry Ford once gave a raise to his employees just for the hell of it, and ended up sued over it by his own investors because he couldn’t demonstrate how it benefit the corporations.

I could go into unions, minimum wage, and other things, but it all boils down to balancing this corporate and elite profit motive with the average person’s ability to defend their interests, together and individually. Without that, the system as a whole suffers as the average person loses out economically to the economic elite, and thereby loses the wherewithal to support our consumer economy.

Jack-
Look, you’re not the only person in Iraq. You act as if we’re just disagreeing with you out of naivete of the situation, when the fact is, we’re listening to other people, many of whom have a different experience of Iraq than you. AQI, though troublesome, is a small part of the insurgency, and the the Sunnis themselves aren’t even the majority of it. It’s the Shia that have drawn the most casualties, and that situation looks like it’s going to hell.

Everybody reported what happened with Anbar. It may not seem that way from the middle of that province, but trust me, it was in the news quite a lot. Your people made sure of it.

Unfortunately for your point, Anbar’s success hasn’t translated well. The Sadr situation is one of many that’s discrediting this notions that the changes undertaken in 2007 have changed things for the better in a general sense. The incidents have demonstrated once again that having a weak central government is not a good thing, and that the failure to bring political reconciliation will have negative consequences for keeping the peace.

It’s the tendency of polticians to emphasize superficial, immediate successes, and Anbar is no exception. Tell me: how long do those people remain cooperative with our interests, when the payments stop coming in? As the Romans came to know all too well, the bribes they ask for have a way of becoming larger, and our ability to pay them smaller.

On the subject of the election, Neither candidate can win without superdelegates, but Barack Obama has the cleanest rationale for being nominee: A majority in states, pledged delegates, and popular vote. He’s outfought the Clintons, no mean feat, and looks poised to help lead a nationwide change in the politics of this election. Hillary’s methods and actions have made her far less attractive to people inside and outside of the party.

I think I answered the supposed disenfranchisement question well enough. Rules are rules. In Florida of November 2007, they said count every vote. Your party had a problem with that. In the Florida Democratic primary of this year, the problem was a primary improperly held according to our rules, therefore the stripped delegates. Your part stripped delegates for the same reason, though you removed only the minimum. The real outrage is a candidate who agrees to abide by these rules, but then goes back on her promise for political gain. Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and are being punished for that.

As for race?
Well you’re wrong on multiple counts. Obama’s family includes his wife and his in-laws, who most certainly experienced that. Obama also recounted an episode, if you’ve read the Time article “How Barry Became Barack” where his father encountered racism within the US.

I doubt Barack’s been free of it himself, especially given the parts of his life spent in places we could call traditionally white in their demographics. He spent part of his time outside the US, but much of it inside the borders of this country as well. Additionally, I don’t think the racists in this country looked at him and said “well, biologically, he’s only part black, and that parts from Africa, rather than from native-born African American groups.”

He’s not directly of that culture, to be sure, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t confronted by the issues of race in this country, not in the least. This goes more than skin deep.

As for ancestry? I’m Irish, so we ( meaning Irish Catholics) have already had our go. If you’re a Catholic, we’re both part of the same we, though that actually comes from my Mothers side of the family which is German from the Saxony region. And Scots. And perhaps a little Welsh.

(Confused yet? Good, so am I! And I like it! That’s America!)

That said, all those European groups have had considerably more luck in politics over the last two hundred years than those whose heritage traces back to Africa. And for what reason?

In my view, it’s a nice bonus that we’ll break America’s addiction to White males of Northern European descent with Barack’s election. Content of character’s easier to look at when it stops being strange to put somebody else than a person of a certain skin color in there.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #251501

Jack:

You guys dislike hearing from someone who actually has seen the things you talk about and talked to the people you have seen on the news.

No Jack, what so many liberals like myself can’t stand is the constant ignoring of events on the ground in favor of spinning our occupation of Iraq into nothing but continuing progress on behalf of “stay the course.”
We see articles about how great things are in Iraq as well as here in America, or pieces like this one about the supposed “failure of Democrats”, meanwhile, when is anything ever written on a development
such as this?
:

Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr pulled back from confrontation with the government on Friday, asking his followers to continue to observe a shaky ceasefire and not to battle government troops.

Sadr, whose call for calm was read out in a major mosque in Baghdad, said a recent threat of “open war” was directed only at U.S. forces, not the Iraqi government.

His comments could ease some of the tension that has been simmering in Iraq since Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki cracked down on Sadr’s Mehdi Army militia a month ago and threatened to ban his mass movement from provincial elections in October.

“You are the best who committed and were patient with the decision to cease fire, and were the most obedient to your leader. I wish you would continue your patience and your belief,” said Sadr’s statement.

“When we threatened ‘open war’ we meant a war against the occupier, not a war against our Iraqi brothers.”


The answer is never. We never see what is and has been really going on in Iraq being honestly discussed by Republicans & Conservatives.


You call this ground truth partisan and I guess the truth is partisan, since it goes againt the received pessimism or the moveon.org types.

I call things as I see them. Unlike so many here in the rose colored column, I’m not interested in denying or ignoring what has been happening in Iraq in order to be a cheerleader in support of an unending continuance of the worst foreign policy disaster in American history. Thus, my “received pessimism” has been honestly and unflinchingly gained.

And now I’ll let you have the last word, if you choose…


Stephen Daugherty,
Many good comments in this thread. I personally don’t have the patience to engage with so many. Well done.

The final summation of this article was the specter of “President McCain.” A man who has been demonstrating through multiple comments that after five years in Iraq he hasn’t been interested enough to grasp the differences between Sunni and Shiite, the factions within them who are warring, or much about AQI — but who is all for maintaining our occupation there indefinitely, and wants to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” in the bargain.
We also see the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats here stumping for the nomination of Hillary, despite the fact that she’s already lost, and despite the fact that she’s the kind of Senator who didn’t read the NIE but voted for the war for the sake of political expediency, and now claims she will end the war, obviously again for the sake of political expediency. Strangely enough, she also isn’t afraid of casually mentioning that if she’s the president she will start a war with Iran, and wouldn’t mind fundamentally rewriting US foreign policy by being willing to “totally obliterate” Iran, on behalf of Israel, a non NATO country. Whether she actually thinks this is a good idea, or is just hawkishly nuking for voters, both show a complete lack of judgment.

Indeed Mr. Daugherty, people like you and I are labled “Obama Cultists” who have “drunk the koolaid” because we’re “Moveon types” who are “on the liberal fringes.” While the ignorant and ill considered judgment of McCain and Clinton are popularly advertised as the “conservative” and “moderate” choices.
Since I personally find this maddening, I have trouble maintaining a perfectly polite demeanor at all times — although I have nothing but admiration for those like you, who somehow can.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at April 26, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #251515

S.D., “proof… pudding. gaining…losing. organization…finances. not perfect…naive. changes necessary…out in public…little evidence”
Don’t you have anything substantive to say about your candidate? You expect me to vote for this candidate instead of going Green. I am one of those people that would be necessary for you to win. In my particular case, since I live in Illinois, I don’t matter at all, but you expect people like me in CA, NY, PA, OH, MI, MA, NJ, FL and many other places, to vote for this candidate. Since it looks like BHO may be nominated, I have been doing research, so that I might have some actual reason for voting for him for the highest office in the land. I have actually found less and less reasons for voting for him. He is in the Senate because of a dead body, and two angry ex-wives, Brenda Sexton and Jeri Ryan. He is manipulative,calculating, and disingenuous, all of which characteristics you decry in his primary opponent, perhaps becuase they are unattractive qualities in a woman.

HRC, “might crank down the rhetoric … acknowledge her likely defeat … perpetuating a campaign that just serves to further divide a party that needs to be united to win in November.” Ask Dan Abrams about that B.S. There are people out here right now who are willing to say that they can absolutely guarantee that BHO will never become POTUS. I am not one of those people. I think that with GWBush and the economy, anyone notBush could be elected, including McCain. HRC knows this, and stays in the race. Personally, I dislike the fundraising aspect of the campaign so much, that I wish she would stop that entirely, just travel around the pub crawl of the rest of the primaries. Anyone who looks at her, and sees anything negative, is only seeing their own negativity. She is an All American mom, hard working career woman, and dedicated public servant. People that disparage her, reveal their own lack of character instead.

On the “L” word, those who bandy it around reveal a 17th century school of thought, worrying about people doing things unauthorized by their betters.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 26, 2008 7:42 PM
Comment #251535
I don’t care about big government or small. I just want one that works, and works efficiently at what most Americans ask it to do.

I would like an efficient government too. I just don’t see how handing the federal government more money and more responsibility gets us there. If they ran education, healthcare, immigration, or even our currency efficiently, it might inspire some additional trust, but they can’t. We need to be freed from the federal bureaucracy to fix these problems. Let New Yorkers fix New York’s problems, Californians fix California’s problem’s and so on… Why throw more money at the federal government? One size fits all, federal solutions don’t fix distinct, local problems.

As for taxes, spending, and regulation, America’s economic rise didn’t come during some small government period of paradise, but during the rise of American Liberalism. What killed it was Johnson trying to get something for nothing, paying for Vietnam through deficits.

When the original promises of American Liberalism (the New Deal) were made, they were sustainable based on the assumptions at the time. In hindsight, the assumptions made were awful. In the proceeding years, the liberals changed the original promises and made additional promises which only dug the hole deeper. These programs’ deficit has far greater long term consequences on the middle class economics as they consume a greater and greater portion of GDP. As the costs have grown, the payroll taxes associated with these promises have become the the largest tax on the middle class and unless changes are made, these taxes will have to increase dramatically. Payroll taxes also add to the cost of employment, and so as they have risen, they have certainly been one factor contributing to the stagnation of wages. Effectively, government entitlements are slowly burning the middle class’s candle on both ends.

As the Republicans have risen, they’ve relaxed much of these things, except the spending what you don’t have part. That is one part of our economic problems, but not all.

Yes, too many Republicans abandoned their conservative ideals and did not cut the spending proportional to their tax cuts. This is why they lost power in the ‘06 election. Still, paying for overspending with tax revenue does not make wasteful spending justified.

They’ve also set up a situation where employers have been allowed to stagnate wages, in return for making credit more generally available. Unfortunately, that’s left Americans more debt-ridden, and allowed prices on many things to run out of control.

Not enforcing existing immigration law and allowing millions of illegal workers into the country has enabled employers to stagnate wages. Unfortunately, both parties are to blame for turning a blind eye to properly enforcing immigration laws since the last major immigration reform in 1986.

In regards to out of control prices, food and energy prices are partially a result of the idiotic ethanol mandates and an inept energy policy by Washington. The another part of the blame falls to a long standing monetary policy which allows the Federal Reserve to devalue our currency. The easy solution is the removal or reduction of federal ethanol mandates and/or drilling for some oil until we find some non-food item(s) to use for fuel. Otherwise, people must once again change their spending behavior to compensate for the unintended consequences of federal policies.

In regards to Americans’ debt, is it unreasonable to ask Americans to live within their means or be responsible for their debt if they choose not to be? Nefarious business practices are the exception not the rule. Businesses undertaking such practices deserve the financial losses or the lawsuits which result from these practices.

Posted by: Mr. Haney at April 27, 2008 4:03 AM
Comment #251536

ohrealy-
In my experience, the real substance of a campaign isn’t in proposals, since they are often made in ignorance or in calculation of voter interests, it’s in the thinking and strategy of the candidate. How does this guy or girl operate? How does he think?

He’s taking an approach to politics which more seriously embodies what folks are always talking about. Instead of merely talking about campaign finance reform, he sets up a system that actually does it, bringing in two-thirds of his money from donors giving less than 2300, and two thirds of those giving less than 200. Hillary’s getting fifty percent of her indidividual contributions from those giving the maximum. Also, she’s accepted more PAC money from special interests than John McCain, and Obama’s taken none.

Hillary seems to believe that it’s still fashionable to rush to the right, to co-opt their positions. Rather than learn skepticism from her previous letdown from Bush, she once again cooperated with Bush’s warmongering on Iran. Ironically enough, or maybe appropriately enough, it turned out that the threat was overblown, and that Iran was years from a nuke.

And now, with her supposedly inevitable nomination in danger, she’s more or less repeating the Republican line. Even if Barack Obama isn’t telling the whole truth (gasp, a politician being dishonest!?!!?) He’s at least somebody who’s made a commitment to the party and to some issues that we can push him in the right direction on.

I would prefer somebody in office who really agrees with me, but I will take somebody who for strategic reasons does the same thing. I don’t get the impression from Hillary that she’s honest, nor do I get the impression that when the political push comes to shove that she’ll back her own party. She seems willing to divide the party and sow discord in it in order to win. That strikes me as poor reason to make her the party’s winner, especially in a critical time for our history.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2008 8:17 AM
Comment #251538

S/D, on “the thinking and strategy of the candidate” and “campaign finance reform, he sets up a system that actually does it”. You’re claiming he invented the wheel again. Those are all provided to him by those who have selected and promoted him as their candidate, not the other way around.

On the HRC “rush to the right”, and “cooperated with Bush’s warmongering on Iran” she is dealing with where we actually are right now, not ignoring reality by trying to go backwards into the past and undo everything that has happened since 1980.

The worst part of the campaign will begin in NC, where the Rplcns have decided that Wright is their new Willie Horton.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 27, 2008 9:31 AM
Comment #251543

ohrealy-
Obama’s reinventing the process, if only by taking the risk of depending on the netroots model, which lends itself to a vastly more distributed approach to raising and gaining political support.

Which means he depends more on the average Democratic voter, on keeping them satisfied, than before. Even if he’s some devious faker, this changes the nature of what he has to do to keep the game going. Trust me when I say the online left will not go easy on him if he betrays us. If he knows which side his bread is buttered on, he’ll give us what we want out of a President, or die trying.

Figuratively speaking of course. But I think the whole Willie Horton thing is problematic as a key to victory. If that’s all they can come up with, then they will try the patience of the American people more than they sway the opinions.

Mr. Haney-
In modern America, problems don’t respect state borders the way they used to America’s more integrated in transportation and commerce. And don’t even get started on the internet. If you go for too much state control of these things, all you do is get multiple bureaucracies making conflicting rules, with big fights erupting about who’s right.

The proof is in the pudding for liberalism: it’s succeeded. To put it plainly, America rose as an economic power under New Deal Liberalism. The truth of the matter is, when policies are good for the little guy, they’re great for the corporations and everything. Productivity remains higher. As long as people are willing to pay for what they’re getting.

The stagnation of wages has been a Republican policy, on the premise that such stagnation would reduce inflation. Entitlements are the result of a rather unbalanced fix which mainly put the bulk of the burden on the backs of the working class.

The Republicans have relaxed many of the labor standards and requirements on these people on the premise that these newly freed and profit awash employers would, out of the kindness of their hearts, pay their employees better. Or at least that’s how they explained it to voters.

What in fact happened was this: wages have gone down, and greed has driven prices up, Credit deregulation allowed people to get deeper into debt to cover this, to avoid a confrontation between a lack of real dollars and reduced buying power, but that could only go so far.

The trurh is, we have an elitist economic policy in place, which considers doing things for the powerful and the rich the way to benefit society as a whole. We need a system that better balances the economic interests of those who drive the economy, the folks who buy the goods and services, who keep other businesses going. If people can’t afford what you’re selling, your tax cuts aren’t going to make you all that much money.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #251561

VV & Stephen

Re Iraq - I prefer not to talk about it here. That is why I don’t bring it up anymore. If you guys will leave it alone, so will I. I write only in response and that is that last word on this until somebody else brings it up again.

Stephen

Re Democrats disenfrancisments. I agree with you. You have explained it very well. All I ask is that you recall these explanations next time Dems are giving Republicans a hard time. You guys have not disenfrancised many more people that you have even (unjustly) acussed us of doing. Good work.

Re Hilary - She is also one of yours too. I don’t care which of the junior democratic senators comes out to play with McCain. I think they both have strengths and weaknesses and McCain can take either one. I just enjoy the mudfight between them.

But please recall Hilary = Democrat. What she is doing to Obama is a smaller version of what Clinton machine DEMOCRATS have been doing to America. Now that the shoe is not the left foot, it is less fun for you guys.

Posted by: Jack at April 27, 2008 6:53 PM
Post a comment