Obama Steals Clinton's Base
Hillary Clinton should be worried, not because Barack Obama won the Potomac Primaries, but because of how he won them.
Obama won the Potomac Primaries by eating into Clinton's core. In the Super Tuesday states, Obama won 43 percent of women. He took 55 percent in Maryland and 60 percent in Virginia. In the Super Tuesday states, Obama was supported by only 35 percent of voters over 65 years of age. In Maryland and Virginia, a touch more than 50 percent voted for him.
Within all the Democratic constituencies Clinton relies upon, Obama not only made gains, but won. He won among voters making less than $50,000 a year. He beat her among those with no college degrees. He won Latinos. He won Catholics. He won white men by a substantial margin. And Obama triumphed in every part of that state: urban, suburban and rural. Of the subdivided demographic groups, only white women stood with Clinton tonight. The rest of her base—at least in these states—collapsed.
So far, the Democratic primary contest has not been a race of momentum; wins have been followed by losses, and vice versa. Tuesday marked the first time any candidate has placed first three election nights in a row. Obama won Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska on Saturday, Maine on Sunday, and then the Potomac contests. This is the first Democratic streak of the year. And it comes as Obama has opened up a fundraising advantage over Clinton and the Clinton camp has been hit with organizational confusion . After demoting her campaign manager on Sunday, Clinton said good-bye to her deputy campaign manager just as the Potomac voting was finishing up. The end result is what the Obama campaign says is a 124-delegate lead in pledged delegates.
Prior to the Potomac contests, there was talk that Clinton could be competitive in Virginia and she devoted several precious campaign days to working the state. She didn't come close. Obama pocketed almost two-thirds of the Democratic electorate in Virginia. More important, he collected over 610,000 votes. That was about 160,000 more than all of the votes for the three Republican candidates in the state. Democrats have been eying Virginia as a pick-up state for several years. Obama's performance there suggests he could mount a serious challenge to John McCain, who also won in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. And if a Democrat can hold on to all the states where John Kerry placed first in 2004 and win over Virginia, that candidate would need to flip only one other state to bag a majority of the electoral college votes. Possibilities? Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada. (Of course, winning Ohio plus all the Kerry states would also work.)
During a victory celebration in Wisconsin—which holds a primary next Tuesday, as does Hawaii, where Obama grew up—Obama spoke like a front-runner looking ahead to the general election. He barely referred to Clinton. Instead, he zeroed in on McCain, the likely Republican nominee. McCain's "priorities don’t address the real problems of the American people," Obama declared, "because they are bound to the failed policies of the past. George Bush won’t be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will. When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice." Moments later, McCain fired back, playing the POW card: "Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience.... To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." For Obama, McCain represents the politics of the past. For McCain, Obama offers the politics of the trite. And for a moment, Clinton was out of the picture.
Clinton has the time and opportunity to regain control of the Democratic race. With her campaign aides expecting her to lose Wisconsin and Hawaii next week, she and they are looking to strike back in the delegate-rich states of Ohio and Texas on March 4. Hence, her quick retreat from the East Coast to the Lone Star State. But it certainly is tough for a candidate to go so long without a win. Ask Rudy Giuliani.
In Wisconsin, Obama proclaimed, "We have now won East and West, North and South and across the heartland of this country." He could have added, "We won young and old, male and female, urban and rural." It's not just the vote totals that should worry Clinton; it's the all-important breakdown. Clinton's plan is to stop Obama in Ohio and Texas. But are Democratic voters there so different from those in Virginia? She better hope so.
Page 1 of 1 
It looks like the Big Mo is clearly on Obama's side. Hillary's base of support is withering under the onslaught. She's hoping that Texas and Ohio will be her firewall, but they don't vote for three weeks. With all the money Obama is raking in, he has plenty of time and means to cut into or overturn her lead in those states. (He's already running TV ads in Cincinnati, and I haven't seen any of Hillary's yet.)
Tsk, tsk on McCain for playing the POW card already. It smacks of a little bit of desperation. Shame on him. It's actually his campaign that is short on ideas. I don't think he or the GOP can handle the Obama surge which only shows signs of growing ever stronger. My advice to Barack, if you win the nomination, be smart enough to keep Hillary off the ticket. PLEASE! (Unless you want a knife in your back.) Et tu, Brute?
OK, I guess the writing is on the wall. Obama looks to be the nominee, and although I support Hillary, I will support him if he wins. But please, I am so tired of the Hillary bashing. The derogatory comments toward Hillary and Bill Clinton could fill an encyclopedia. I've seen many postings from Obama supporters saying if Hillary were to win that they would support McCain. This is like a 5-year old screaming his lungs out because he can't have candy for dinner. Mr. Politico, why don't you give some concrete reasons why Hillary is bad for the country? Just how would she stab Obama in the back? And by the way, all politicians have baggage, just wait and see what comes out about Obama in the general election. Not to mention the longer he is in the public eye, the more baggage he will have. Just like Hillary.
@John Wolforth
I don't think negative reaction for Hillary has anything to do with juvenile defeatism, or that she might "stab Obama in the back." From everything I have heard, Hillary is an interesting and engaging person at an individual level.
The problem Hillary has is she integrates the worst parts of the Democratic and Republican platforms; she is ideologically inconsistent. Ron Paul's huge following largely stemmed from the fact he was ideologically consistent almost to a fault.
For example, Hillary did not return to the Senate to vote against telecom immunity. She is refusing to release her tax records to show where her $5m loan to her campaign came from. She shows an inclination for the same divisive, secret, and authoritarian tactics that have been the hallmark of the Bush 43 admin.
Who knows if this is the real Hillary or we are inferring where not warranted. But regardless, this is too crucial a time in our country's history and future to throw the dice on another President with a potentially poor ideology.
Yes, I'm happy for Obama's win last night. The Democratics must gain the White House and Barack looks like we will get there with our continual support of him.
On the contrary colinnwn, the juvenile defeatism is an inherent result of the negative reaction by (not all) Obama supporters if Hillary were to win. I agree that the tax return issue and missed vote are troubling, but as I said before, someone with many years in the public eye is sure to be scrutinized to a greater extent. As for her polarizing reputation, I think it's been blown out of proportion. Hillary is a centrist, this is not news so having views that incorporate both elements of Republican and Democratic positions is to be expected. If Obama intends to unify the country as he states, this is an ideology he will have to adopt.
Obama is surging ahead for many reasons, not the least of which is his consistent opposition to the Iraq war.
John Edwards admitted he made a mistake voting to enable Bush/Cheney to grab Iraq's oil, and while I respected him for that it still concerned me that he made the decision in the first place.
Then there's Hillary, who can't even admit her mistake. Frankly, that's where she lost me. When it came to empowering Mr. Bush, she just went which ever way the wind blew at the time.
Not only do we need to end the Iraq war but our catastrophic foreign policies as well. For example, in 1953 the CIA staged a coup d'etat to oust the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh. At that time, Iran was the first country in the Middle East to establish a democracy. Who knows what might have happened had the United States allowed that democracy to flourish? The objection to Mossadegh was that he nationalized Iran's oil. England and the United States objected and installed the Shah (who was a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussien).
America's foreign policy has been one blunder after another for the last 60 years! From the overthrow of Salvadore Allende (also democratically elected) the President of Chile to the present day Iraq debacle.
Another Clinton Administration isn't going to change our foreigh policy. Kucinich would have done it and I'm hopeful Obama will too - especially if he names Kucinich head of the newly formed Department of Peace!
Hillary is making all of the classic petty mistakes in politics. Don't get mad get even. Blame everyone else. Thinking the voters are stupid. As the public is so aware because of the information available, little boo-boo's become big ones. A little humility can go a long way.
I look forward to the day when we all realize that we had better be playing on the same team unless we want to lose by default. For me the dream ticket would be Obama and Gore -
Obama is surging and winning because the media and celebrities have made it so. It is at times funny and at others disheartening how easily the public can be led to a conclusion that the corporations set up.
The last time this happened, we elected Bush. The media refused to question and those that questioned were trashed. Am I one of the few who sees this happening all over again before our very eyes?
The only difference is that they have fooled the Democrats instead of the Republicans this time.
Logically, they could not possibly mess with the voting as they did in the past and got away with. This time, they positioning and promiting their Republican stooge preferred candidate, they have positioned and promoted their Democratic stooge preferred candidate, Obama.
I was a Republican a long time ago. I have been a Democrat even longer. Today, I am an independent as a result of watching the Democratic party act as idiotic as the Republicans have.
I will not vote for a party. I will vote for my candidate of choice. At this point, I have more respect and trust in McCain (crazy as he may be) than I do for Obama, whom I don't know and whom has been given a free pass on the issues.
I am a veteran and each time I read some nitwit degrade McCain for touting his patriotic background, I am disgusted.
I guess using the black card is the only one allowed these days.
Okay, no Hillary bashing.
I'd like to wish her a long and happy career in the US Senate helping to enact President Obama's agenda.
Why does Hillary Clinton want to be President, Her husband already was President. I don't want another Clinton in the Whitehouse. Bill Clinton defiled the Whitehouse with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, He was impeached. So why should they go back?
2 unfortunate headlines related to this story: "All Hillary's Base Are Belong to Barack" read the email headline while the website blares "Obama Steals Clinton's Base." After reading this story, he didn't steal anything -- the base came to him! The tide is turning, there is no doubt. I think it important that the Nation, of all publications, gets this right...
In looking at why the base is shifting to Obama, the significance of the vote on Iraq cannot be understated, nor should it be misunderstood.
The "tell" of that vote goes beyond the issue of the war and touches on the question of whether a politician is driven by political courage or expediency.
Along with many others on that day, I believe that Hillary did not vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution so much as she voted (within the context of the fear-driven political environment created by 9-11) to preserve her own political future.
I understand that and while I would like to imagine I would have been more like Paul Wellstone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2CLRZLK2E or http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3... )and less like Hillary Clinton during that debate and vote, I will acknowledge that it is always difficult to know how one would face that kind of “Profiles In Courage” moment.
But when someone makes that kind of mistake and then won't own up to it, well we've seen what that kind of attitude can do in the White House.
In looking for the next President of the United States of America, the vast majority of Americans (Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike) are looking for a person that puts our future ahead of his or her own.
That's one reason I am supporting Obama and one of the reasons I think not only the Democratic base, but also the swing-vote independents are moving in his direction.
Hillary is a very capable leader and she's got ideas, however she is laden with baggage and many of her ideas are stale. Why chose a candidate that does McCain's job for him by uniting his party? Hillary also poses the same problem as Kerry - she can be portrayed as a flip-flopper (I voted for the war before I voted against it). Obama is squeaky clean on this issue - and in fact has played the political game very well: he didn't vote for the war, but he didn't vote against its funding (thereby being strong on security and not be labeled as not supporting the troops).
Politics as usual (a la McCain-Clinton) will keep us in the direction that we are heading, with perhaps a slight adjustment in bearing. A wise older person once told me that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results. We had 8 years of the Clintons - heck, we've had over 16 years of "boomers" and it's time for them to step aside, they've already made their mess and continue to use the same dirty rag to clean it - their ideas are stale, time to let someone new try to clean it up.
I agree with Shawman... it's time for some new ideas. McCain-Clinton bring with them the same people that are the architects of many of the problems we have today. Why invite them to continue to wreck our country? It's time for new leadership that we can believe and believe that the words spoken are felt to be real and not merely the result of some poll or focus group designed to appeal to a certain demographic. GO BARACK!
I support Hillary. I liked Edwards, but he is out now. I live in Florida and almost a million voters in Florida supported Hillary. Why doesn't our vote count? We knew the candidates. Obama did indeed campaign here and I knew people who went to see him. So it is bunk that we somehow did not know much about the candidates. We don't live in the dark ages, have tv, internet, can access their websites. My mind has not changed in support of Hillary Clinton as the best option before us as president.
Hillary is a centralist. Obama is far left, the most liberal voting record in the senate.
Obama surely is a charmer, real smart, but doesn't have much experience. He reminds me of wonderful preachers at Southern Baptist revivals. They can rev you up, an emotional experience, and crowds come down to accept Christ as their savior at the end of the sermon and throughout the revival. Memorable events and the energy stays high for awhile. But that doesn't mean they have the skills, knowlege and connections to run a nation. An only a small percent of folks in the US would classify themselves as far left politically. The Republicans are going to SLAUGHTER Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.
This is a media led favoritism and people are falling behind like sheep. The Repubs have been going after Hillary Clinton for the last 8 years trying to defeat her in advance of her expected nomination. Amazing to see her strenght, in spite of having been pounded. SHE HILLARY is not devisive. It is the people trying to defeat her in advance that have tried to paint the picture.
Hillary wanted to directly debate Obama each of the next four weeks and he refused. It if fine for him to talk in generalities, but if it come down to the details, I'll just bet he doesn't know many of them - meaning how things work and details of major federal programs. He can say all these promises, but if he doesn't understand the mechanics and regulations and if he is not able to bring over the political center and right, then he is not going to be able to implement his initatives anyway. Hillary does know the details and this would become readily apparent in a series of one on one debates.
Also, if you think that sexism is not a huge part of choices here, think again. Some women and most men don't like the idea of a woman boss. Many men are going to be more prone to vote for a man because of this. Maybe they won't admit it or even pretend it isn't so, but it is.
People need to come down to earth here. It is easy to like Obama. But I still say he isn't in same league with Clinton re what he knows and will be able to apply to make things happen.
RE position on the Iraq invasion - Obama was not in Congress when this vote was taken, and was not privy to intelligence information or presure as were those in Congress like Clinton. It is easy for him to say he was against it in beginning - well, he never even voted on it since he wasnt' there.
Did you see the C Span debates and discussion about this? I did! Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and others who eventually voted to authorize force, if needed, did so with understanding that this would only be authorized if Sadaam did not allow opem inspections. All said specific things. First, attempts at inpsections should proceed and invasion avoided at all costs. Only if Saddam didn't allow open inspections and disarm / give up any weapons found, should any force be used. They all hoped that Saddam would be disarmed through UN inspections. None anticipated that Bush would go full blast and blow-up the place without really giving inspections a chance.
Hillary R Clinton would make a great president!
Grow up. I don't give a hoot who Bill Clinton screwed with--at least he did not screw this country and the world. I will support whoever is running against the GOP this fall, but this bickering and snapping has got to stop--and although we would all like to blame the "shrill woman" for starting it all...it really is coming from our Obama supporters. Perhaps, it is the young and first time voters who do not understand primary politics? I would say to all those first time voters are in their late 20s or older...where the hell were you 4 years ago? 8 years ago. You are the reason this country is a mess right now. Sorry there was no cute speeches when Gore or Kerry ran, and no MTV sound bites, and hip hop "change" songs...take responsiblity--
Don't count Clinton out. She is the smartest candidate in the Presidential race and can run circles around Obama and any of them. Alot of people know this but "Think" Obama can appeal to the Clinton Haters. We'll see. I hope and Pray Clinton can win the Majority becuase she will take America and fix it. Skinny Obama (how can he portray a strong leader, he looks like a underfed teen?) and We know little of his Leadership skill, only his great speech talk that talks the talk, but will he walk the walk? I Hope he can back up those words if he makes the nomination.
I respect your opinion BJ, but a simple reversal of the argument in my direction in no way invalidates my point. If you want to know where I was - I was voting for Clinton in 92 and 96, Bradley, then Gore in 2000... Kerry in 04 and Barack in 08. Sorry if you are disappointed that I wasn't sitting home eating cheesey-poofs and watching Beavis and Butthead on election night. To quote Joe Pesci in "The Super" - "it worked before you broke it".
I voted for Hillary, and was thrilled to have had the opportunity to vote for an intelligent, well spoken, educated, compassionate and hard working woman for President, who shares my values. I can't honestly say I know what her motives are, and how much her political future directs her actions, but that can be said for all of the candidates, each with their own hidden agendas. It it the price they pay to get elected. In then end, I think she will serve honorably, if given a chance to do so.
Either Clinton or Obama would be a huge change from past 8 years. I long for the peace of the Clinton years. A vote for McCain is to continue policies of the neo cons and current adminstation.
Too many promises are being made while the dollar is falling, our debt is soaring, and our trade imbalance grows. No one wants to tell you the truth - we have to tighten our belt buckle, get that deficit down, and better balance the trade deficit. I got excited about some of Ron Pauls points, where he kept trying to make people understand WE ARE BROKE! The military complex and this war is driving the deficit. We have got to bring most of the troops home from Iraq, with grace and as much support/respect as we can for assisting Iraq with this transition. Many other places need to be looked at for reducing our presence.
If any Republican goes into office (except maybe Paul and he isn't going to win) then we likely will be at war with Iran soon. I would not be suprised if Bush didn't start something before he leave office. It may still happen if either Clinton or Obama become president as we cannot predict how something may emerge re development of nuclear weapons. But we know for sure almost, that if McCain is elected that military engagement is likely in Iran and Syria. I believe both Clinton and Obama will try to avoid this.
People need to look hard at what has happened to the stability of the US under the current administration and its policies.
I think Clinton is the a much better choice to help get us out the current state of affairs at home and abroad, but would support Obama if he is the nominee. People need to move past the gossip and BS. Both are excellent candidates, but Clinton knows what she is doing and I do not think Obama does, at least not as well.
NO MORE NEO CONS PLEASE!
Terrian - let's try to keep these comments relevant to the issue and election and not ad hominem against either candidate. Hillary is certainly an intelligent person. My concern is that she appears to be a micromanager and a good leader is one who surrounds her/himself with good people (unlike the current dolt and his yes-men) with good and fresh ideas. The Presidency is not about who is the smartest, but who is the most capable of leading and building new leaders. The Clintons are notorious for their party-politics and "good-'ol-boy" networks. It may be a fact that you need to work these networks in politics, but you do not have to reify them. I a simply tired of the same-old smear campaigns that then gush with love when it comes time for endorsements. Part of McCain's appeal is this, as was Reagan's. Regardless of the poor decision-making and policy of Reagan, he was an effective leader who got things done... they just happened to be the wrong things. That is what we need - but this time it should be an effective leader who gets the right things done.
If Clinton et al. voted for the war with the understanding that their speeches about restrictions, that were not part of the actual language of what was being voted on and therefore unbinding, and could not see the capacity for Bush to abuse this, then I say they were naive at best.
OK Sorry about my last Obama comment. I really do like him, and any one of the previous Democrat contenders (when Biden, Dodd, Richardson were in ther race), All were fantastic and smart. But my gut instincts tell me Hillary is the right choice. After 8 years of Republican rule, I'm just happy we are, and WE ARE, going to have a Democrat in the White House.
Ruffneck - It was part of the language. It was an authorization for use of force if needed. It was leverage requested to get Saddam to let inspector back in. Congress never voted to go to war. That is why Paul keeps saying it is an illegal war, that only Congress can declare it. They never did!
I will support the Dem. nominee. With Edwards gone, Obama is my choice. The Clinton/Bush dynasty is crippling our country. I would respect a woman as Pres., but Hillary will implement policies to insure Big Business remains in Wealth, just like Bush. Obama may be able to do better, time will tell, but remember, The Clintons brought NAFTA. They certainly did not oppose it. Americas best economic times,after WWII, had no dominating "GLOBAL BUSINESS". We are brain washed to believe in Globalism first. Recall Thomas Jefferson, "a capitalist has no country". McCain & Clinton support "globalism", hopefully Obama can break from this mold.
On Iraq, enough excuses of trusting Bush and the given intelligence. This is a cop-out. We pay these elected officials to know better. If an individual sought the correct literature, they would know all the Bush reasonings were false. Kucinich knew and told his colleagues. Why didn't they listen. Because the cowards (including Hillary, Kerry and all other enablers) were more concerned of their political careers and did not want to resist the Bush-Media-military-industrial complex which was hell bent on manufacturing the illegal Iraq war.
Watching Obama's uplifting speech last night and then viewing McCain's funereal speech (with an old, old Senator Warner standing behind him) showed the striking contrast between the two candidates and the opposite messages of each party. One wonders if McCain has the stamina to make it through the campaign.
Regarding Hillary...I believe the more we see her, the less appealing she appears. With Obama, the effect is the opposite.
John McCain, in playing his POW card, said, "Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hope tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience."
Guess what? McCain was tested and he failed. He "broke" under pressure and admitted that he was an "air pirate." Do we want someone with that sort of fortitude leading the United States?
I for one would rather quit the Democratic party than switch camp. As it is unconscienable to elect an unqualified President for partisan reason, the more so in light of the precarious state this nation and its economy is in now.
For the good of the nation we ought to adopt a bi-partisan approach in electing our president.
Once people experience Hillary's brilliant leadership, they are sold on her, which is how she transformed many once rock solid Republican counties in upstate New York into solid Democratic strongholds and won landslide victory in her Senate re-election.
I have no doubt that she will be a great President and accomplish a lot for this nation if given a chance.
Rather than being distracted by the personality cults that the Media would foist upon us, voters should realize that it will cost big bucks to fix our countr's problems. The first step MUST be to extract ourselves from the disasterous misadventure that George & Co sent us on in Iraq. It will certainly cost us dearly to fix THAT problem, but it IS doable.
Global Warming (or climatic change--it could just as easily end up being another ice age) is tied to our addiction to oil (at least Dubya got that right): candidates must put forth their plans for changing the way we use energy. It is not enough to go "renewable". Burning fuel adds to the world's CO2 emmissions, and without leadership from the more technologically advanced countries, India and China have no incentive to leapfrog 19th century technologies (which caused the problem) and use cleaner power sources. Nuclear energy does not produce significant amounts of CO2, but has serious problems in the areas of radioactive wastes and the potential for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Any solution for these problem areas will cost (dare I say it?) TAX DOLLARS to fix. Those dollars can not be used if they are sucked away by the military opportunism foisted upon us by Geo. Bush & Co. Diplomacy is MUCH less expensive (and more effective) than bombs! No matter what we do in Iraq, energy conservation and recycling will produce efficiencies that can only help our economy (although some major "status-quo" contributors may need to revise their business models).
The people of the United States need to realize that their consumer-driven model for the conomy is inherently flawed, and needs to be changed. This is going to be a hard-sell for any candidate, but it must be done: The human world can not possibly survive if that model continues to be the standard for the most desirable lifestyle. However, a very comfortable lifestyle can be developed with a few paradigm shifts. Cooperation rather than competition. Renewable and sustainable rather than growth and consumption. Diplomacy and negotiation over military force and intimidation.
I challenge the candidates to think about what works, rather than insisting on enforcing a particular ideology. Take bold steps to effect a paradigm change in the minds of the electorate: This is true leadership! This is true change!
I will repeat this warning about McCain that his remark showing disrespect for women showed he imbibed too much already of the filth surrounding the Republican elite in Washington. On the subject of whether Hillary is finished vs Obama it is evident from the pictures in her album that she is relying on the vote of the Latina women in Texas.
We still need for Obama a strong enough majority to repudiate any inclination of the superdelegates to throw the convention.
Why make such a big deal of the Potomac primaries? Hillary was not expected to win there but she is expected to win in Texas and Pennsylvania.
And what's this about Latinos in the Potomac primaries switching to Obama? How could you tell that when there aren't really enough in that area to make a real difference. When we get to Texas we shall see what the Latinos will say and I'm quite certain Hillary will enjoy a resurgence.
What amazes me the most is that most of the writers to this column are saying we need new ideas; like Obama has new ideas. "Yes we can" wow, and "I offer change" yozza! But where the hell are his new ideas? He doesn't have any. His ideas are rhetorical and Americans are idiots for falling for his sing song act. This country is really in dire straights and Americans are the cause of this because they elected a bunch of greedy corporate puppets to the White House and now you believe you can change that by electing a dreamer with no ideas or experience, only slogans that make you fell good!
But hey you will get exactly what you deserve in 4 years of indecisive, incoherent dreaming.
The only thing that bother me is will I have to pay the price too.
We don't need a dreamer in the White House we need a doer with a record of doing for the little guy; named Hilary!
It should be noted that Jefferson did not say "a capitalist has no country" this is a quote attributed to a number of individuals, but not Jefferson.
Nice to see again, this time by Al Comstock, yet another example of a reply that starts out with a point then turns into an ad hominem attack. You want new ideas Al? I know this is hard, but I will help you. It's simple, go to http://www.barackobama.com Then, spend a little time actually reading the material on the site. At some time the Dems will select a candidate and many of us who prefer to trash the candidate, rather than debate their ideas, will need to vote and probably back talk the candidate like all the libs who second-guessed Kerry after he lost and immediately turned on him like a pack of hyenas.
If Obama was against the Iraq war, then why, when he did have a chance to vote against it, why did he vote for Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State? After all she was one of the prime architects of the war.Politics I guess, or flip flopping.
this comp to won in obma because obma wa good and execcellent man who every thing what the want even islamic poeple and black muslim
Obama to me is a one in a lifetime. He is my overwhelming choice. I think Hillary would be OK if she returns to the Senate, but what I would really applaud would be to see her appointed to the Supreme Court. Then she can divorce Bill, forget all of his monkey business, and grow without Bill's shadow. I think she would really stand up for women's rights and go about it very compellingly. There has to be some kind of vaccination against Justices Roberts and Alito. I really like the idea of Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Why should it be noted misquote? What is your source? In reviewing Jefferson's hand writings: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
Very difficult to read to prove or disprove because the letters are hard to read. Bottom line, the quote is valid and applicable to a reasoned person's analysis.
Since mojo runs my paragraphs together, I'll divide this into two or more separate parts:
WHY I BELIEVE OBAMA IS -AND WILL BE- THE CANDIDATE OF CHOICE
First of all, the principal problem I have with Hillary is that she can't be separated from her spouse, and Barack's a far better husband and father than Bill - he's a more congruent human being, a more mature man, with a deeper committment and more fully developed understanding of community, as well as what America needs to construct in order to improve it. He knows what we need to do as a nation, in order to accomplish the changes that society requires to make progress and recover lost ground.
HE REALLY MEANS WHAT HE SAYS - and What drives him is neither an empty populism nor a political expedient: HE SOWS THE SEEDS OF CHANGE! (He is perhaps -along with Whitney Houston and Tiger Woods- a prime example of what a wider gene pool can sometimes produce).
Secondly: Aside from Bill Clinton's stupid and infantile indiscretions, he filled his administration with staff members that represented -and were loyal to- corporate rather than the public interest, people who used the position of power he gave them to circumvent the purpose of the governmental agencies responsible for overseeing and protecting the environment and public health.
Monsanto was particularly well represented within his administration, and this gave rise to the approval and release to the environment and national food chain, of a number of Monsanto products based on incomplete and even, falsified evidence of their being innocuous (safe).
Hillary has yet to distance herself from the unfortunate performance of her husbands government in this important area of responsibility - nor has she admitted the existence of a real and serious problem, much less committed herself to correct it. On the contrary, her approach to the campaign seems to be based on the dubious achievements of the Clinton Era (which admittedly, Dubya made look good), as if she was really entitled to perpetuate the mixed blessings present during that historical period, during a third Clinton term.
Well, it's over! As Obama himself declared: "We turned a new page in American political history!" and he (not she) deserves the nomination, because he'll do a better job. He deals with the root causes and gets to the bottom of the issues. A visionary community organizer and effective legislator, IMO, he's the man for the moment.
Not disappointed at all!! Relieved!! Whew.
As Obama himself declared: "We turned a new page in American political history!" and he (not she) deserves the nomination, because he'll do a better job.
So if I said, "Change is here! Change is here! Yes we can!" over and over at a podium would you vote for me? Excuse me, I think I will go find a podium and over to the local park.
"A visionary community organizer and effective legislator" does not necessarily make someone a world leader able to deal with complex issues of war, human rights, economy, trade issues, global warming, education, health care and so on.
"IMO, he's the man for the moment" I notice you used "man" and not "candidate" and also for "the moment". Wow. That is so now...
Again--I will support the candidate nominated through our primary/del. process. Let's win in November!
Am I really hearing you make moral judgments on someone as a father--and talking about the gene pool--and throwing in Tiger Woods and Whitney Houston (crack head Houston) into your ramblings? Whoa. What happened to Mother Jones, the left, the progressives, and thoughtful discourse? What is going on here people--take a step back and read this postings slowly--what is going on????
Interesting. It has been posed by some that republicans are voting for Obama to knock Hillary out of the race. I am not so sure but that could help explain the large number of votes.
My question: what will the Obama supporters do when their candidate makes the inevitable move to the center after the convention? Will they still support him in numbers large enough to offset the centrist Republican votes for McCain after eight years of Bush 43? For all the chanting of "change," candidate Obama will still have to court the middle -- both Dem and GOP -- in order to win in November.
sudam hussian once said this country would destroy itself from the inside out.this will come to past if obama is elected president.someone who will not be sworn in on the bible should not ever lead this country.if people don't get back to their christian faith,this country will fall from within.bill clinton reduced the deficit and also had the stock market booming while he was in office.I think Hillary is the best person for the job,and people better wise up before this country makes the biggest mistake of it's life.
Just watched on CNN and MSNBC a few moments of the fab four (McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama) on the stump. What strikes me about Clinton -- and which may explain in part her apparent slide -- is that, unlike Obama who makes a clearly strong connection to the crowds he speaks to, Hillary definitely seems remote. Today, for example, while Obama free-wheeled his usual stump speech and generated real enthusiasm, Clinton read a speech to a crowd who dutifully applauded at the appropriate places, seemingly on cue. There's a real difference in atmospherics here, which may play a part in future events.
the reason the florida votes should not count is simple--it was cheating for Clinton to run there. Same as Michigan. The primary season has rules. Florida should follow them. Florida should have learned this from the debacle of 2000. Clinton wants to cheat her way into the white house. same as bush.
