Obama Claims Delegate Lead

The Military Industrial Complex (The Corporations) have decided that John McCain will best serve their needs for the next eight years.
The MSM is the vehicle for the corporations to accomplish this end.
They have determined that the Obama nomination will fit nicely in their plans to assure a McCain win.
The Swift Boat Operation "Freedom Watch" now has in excess of $250 million dollars to accomplish this task.
We as the so-called Liberal Democrats really even if united will not stand a chance against the religious right.
As two far left intelligent citizens who knew the Kennedys--Obama isn't.

it is true hillary disappointed me with her stances as she took her senate seat, but i believe she would act more progressive if the people showed willingness for a more progressive politician. barack is a hope object without specifics. for many, hillary is a hate object (see above thread) whose every move is interpreted as vile. i support hillary now and barack later (after hillary's presidency).

Kivals,

So here's the question: What if Ms. Clinton changed her tune and supported public health care. Who would you vote for (excuse the dangling for)?

Would it be a tough decision??

"All the polls show that highly educated adults strongly prefer Obama." -Kivals

"Jaguar- sleek and smart. For men who would like handjobs from beautiful women they hardly know!" - Crazy People 1990

Welcome to America: "Catapulting the propaganda" since 1776.

mary lou,

All the polls show that highly educated adults strongly prefer Obama. Clinton blew it when she decided to run (back in 2001, when she really began her campaign as she assumed her Senate seat) as a DLC triangulator instead of as a progressive. If she had run a progressive, she would be the nominee by now with incredible enthusiasm and momentum. As it is, she long ago lost the trust of progressives who pay close attention to what a candidate does and says, and her campaign and her message are both a complete mess.

3 reasons Obama didn't sweep

i) Plethora of empty signifiers- ie.sloganeering with word such as "Change", "Hope" or at the end of his Supter T speech with that nice fascist/Stalinist ring "Let's Get to Work". This jingoism might appeal to the Young or less educated black voters, but scares off more mature (including grey power and female voters).

ii) Believability ex. How's he going to get out of Iraq? Comparisson to Vietnam won't work (read Chomsky) Where's the details or even some thinking on this matter? (And comparissons to Kennedy -as I'm old enough to remember- aren't helpful as he took ya for a ride further into, not out of Vietnam.

iii) The winning swagger (body language). For example, I would never have interrupted a War Veteran -McCain's speech- on prime time Super Tuesday TV (where's the appology?). It just ain't Canadian ie decent..

Ms. Clinton has a chance,and it's her turn to respond. But she'll have to change her tune fast, because her campaign has been miserable. For example, I suggest she run on the issue of Public Health Care (see Canada). Surely what hubby couldn't accomplish, the wife -being smarter, more experienced- could accomplish.

both obama and clinton should be counting the delegates from ALL the states that violated the dlc's silly restrictions on moving up primaries, not just new hampshire. the other two that should be counted are michigan and florida. no uniter would want to discount such big swing states.

i am a michigan voter, and i would feel renewed anger over this if those delegates were not seated.

I find it amazing that I'm on common ground with starofthesea and BeForKids about supporting Obama.
Don't tell 'em I said so, though, or they'll be so embarrassed as to conjure up a "yet, but" or even a retraction.

merwan,

I hesitated too before including the word "providential" as a possible explanation for Obama's otherwise unlikely rise to prominence. If there is any "providence" in his election, I believe it will be the real deal---which, if real, is a good thing.
If I'm off the mark on that, then he may lose anyway.
(Let's hope not.) But certainly he and his campaign are not claiming any divine right or righteousness, and the form-over-substance claim of such stuff from the Republicans in the past is what we heard too much of for seven years. Precisely because Obama supporters are NOT mentioning it is the reason I now wonder if it could be true. Could America be "guided" to a be a more liberal and sensible nation? It would be an exciting thought---and maybe just my own dreaming for us to be better than we've been lately.

learnfromthepast,

At first glance a Democratic ticket with both Obama and Clinton looks like a good idea, but I think it would be disastrous. They both excite certain segments of the electorate, but both would be vulnerable in a general election to attacks regarding whether they are solid or experienced enough (notwithstanding Hillary's debatable claims of great experience). Either would benefit from being paired with what Independents would perceive to be a "solid" VP.

And there is another, more fundamental reason why they should not be paired. Non-Democrats often view the Democratic Party as deeply mired in an unhealthy and unattractive form of identity politics, and while either Clinton or Obama alone might escape being branded as simply a product of Democratic identity politics, through a campaign emphasizing that candidate's uniqueness and extraordinary abilities, a campaign trying to sell them both as unique and extraordinary just will not wash and together they would look like a weak and un-American identity politics ticket. Sometimes less is more.

allyourbasearebelongtous, I don't know your age, but that above statement sounds pretty cynical.

I've always been a purist, only voting for my ideal candidate. Mostly because the mainstream candidates were craven or corrupt. Hillary manages to be both. I would really like to hear her explanation for voting against banning cluster bombs. That was gratuitous, unless she was courting AIPAC and MIC finance donations. I see no evidence that she cares about anyone but herself. Obama, on the other hand, has made choices in his life that tell me he does care about others, and about justice and fairness. He has expressed a preference to try to work out differences and not just rush to bomb civilians. He has also demonstrated that he will stand up for what is right and fight if he has to. But he doesn't have a "first strike" mentality.

The more I watch these candidates and how they respond to the pressures of the campaign, the more I like Obama, and the more convinced I am that the self centeredness of Hillary is only surpassed by that of George and Bill. I know a lot of people think Bill Clinton was a good president. But the reality is that he sold out the middle class. And he gave away our democracy to the corporations. And under Bush, they plundered our wallets and Constitutional freedoms. So no, for me, it's Obama or Nader. And my concern is that the Democrats "broker" a backroom deal at the convention to give it to Hillary. And then it would serve them right if McCain beats her, which I think he can. It's no accident she has such high negatives. In part, it's right wing hatred, and in part, she's earned them.

kathyodat

Be For Kids
"allyourbasearebelongtous, some people really are genuine. I feel confident that includes the Obamas. No way do I think that includes the Clintons. And I like the fact that in this campaign Obama has shown that while he doesn't pick fights, he doesn't let anyone push him around either. That's what I want for my President."

i just want a democrat for president. i'd much rather have clinton but i will settle for obama if i have to. i just hope he does a better job than than our last noob has been doing. no politician is genuine. imagine what you have to be like to believe not only that you can do that job but that you can do it better than anyone else -- and they all do even obama. someone once said, "politics is acting for ugly people." believe it.

Yeahhhh, Obama! And CD; I hear "us" 'seeing' some good in this man, uniting a bit, that is nice nice, bad for them.

Justice=JustUs

Happiness. The Republicscum are fragmenting themselves over McLame, hee hee... especially the Radio talk show filth, limbaugh, coulter, may they die today.

Be For Kids, Stiv Whitman, and all who are at least willing to listen to Obama: It's nice to see
that there is some sanity in the so called "Left". With the hatred that is coming out of this
left-leaning website, you would think that people can go so far to the left that they start
becoming the nutcases of the extreame right.

Hello all,
as someone who comes by often to lurk about this site to enjoy the progressive articles and comments - I'd like to add some historical realism to the Obama vs Clinton discussion.
Why are we allowing two great candidates to beat up each other? It seems to me that they are close so far because they are both great Democrat choices for President.
Many commenters appear to ignore Presidential election history. Republican candidates won using personal attacks against Democrat's who were clearly superior in their platform - some good candidates in point Dukakis (Willie Horton), Carter II (Iran Contra/hostages - weak), Gore (Invented the Internet - can't be trusted), Kerry (Swift Boat - flip flopper).
Do we see some common threads here? I won't belabor the point but we can agree that Obama or Hillary will get the same treatment or worse. I've seen examples of demonizing Hillary but for some reason criticism of Obama has been lacking -even by big Media (and that in-itself worries me).

Here's my suggestion to consider for what it is worth.
Why don't we plan on winning the Presidency for 16 years instead of risking everything with these two great candidates at each others throats. Let's have a chance for putting into place policies that will leave a lasting imprint for decades to come - health insurance for all, money for education and sound economic policy to stimulate employment and reduce poverty, election reforms etc...
Obama will be cast as the most liberal Senator and clearly will be hit hard by Republicans as not ready for the job. We all know the Hillary attack talking points as we've heard them for over ten years. Seperately they will take a beating and maybe loose - together they are a going to win.
Let's face it - their platforms are not that different and if they team up they can negotiate a platform that is even better for us all.
Can we dream 8 years of Hillary and Obama and 8 years of Obama?

Give Hillary the Presidency (I could care less but this may be the only way this can work)- she has the edge on experience and Obama the edge on the future.
This would be my choice - of course it's up to the Obama supporters on whether they want to walk the talk of change - and change the way politics has been practiced to date. Obama will follow and so will Hillary if we tell them what we want.
Enjoy the dream but let's do this Change thing now.

Hey, tailcap, positive is definitely more fun. I appreciate your polite disagreement.

CNN has an election scorecard which needs careful reading because they lump delegates and super delegates into the totals, even though the super delegates can change their minds. Also, those totals don't really reflect how the votes go. For instance, Hillary has 188 delegates from New York, but only 127 from the voters. Obama has 88, but I can't find out if any are super delegates. Not too likely from Hillary's state. In their scroll down, they only post delegates for the winner, so deeper research or a better website is needed to track what is really going on. Trust CNN to obfuscate the results. Any suggestions?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D

kathyodat

BeForKids February 7th, 2008 1:05 am
Thanks kathyodat for your response. Although we disagree, I admire your optimism and positive outlook!

tailcap, I've been watching him for some time and at first I was disappointed, but now I think he has been covering his flanks so the vicious lying Republicans can't say he abandoned our troops. They would, and the uninformed electorate would believe them. Bush would go on vetoing bills and blaming the Democrats for the troops running out of bullets and MREs. If we had an informed electorate we wouldn't be in this mess. But we don't and we are. And in addition to Obama's progressiveness, his conviction that we must empower the people and generate change from the bottom up has electrified our youth. Every young person I talk with is excited about him. He's offering a path out of their apathy. And we need them and their energy.

Thank you, starofthesea. Looking at his past, I also choose to believe he's sincere. And I did watch Michelle Obama's speech at UCLA. I would much rather see her as first lady than Bill Clinton as first husband. She reminds me of Eleanor Roosevelt.

allyourbasearebelongtous, some people really are genuine. I feel confident that includes the Obamas. No way do I think that includes the Clintons. And I like the fact that in this campaign Obama has shown that while he doesn't pick fights, he doesn't let anyone push him around either. That's what I want for my President.

kathyodat

Comes down to this if he is about hope and healing and not about naked political ambition WHY DID HE ALWAYS PUT IN HIS MONEY WITH BUSH AND FUND THE ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ????????????????????????????????????????????

To all (myself included) who really do want to feel some hope in the possibility that Obama could be the nominee and the next Pres, all I can say is, like BeForKids, Obama will disappoint only if we expect miracles.

Sure we who would love to see Kucinich or Gavel or Nader or McKinney are depressed that such an outcome still feels nearly impossible, but please, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Obama's history points to at least a possibility of a real shift in priorities.

We need leadership that does not strive to divide us. He says he wants to heal the nation and if that is ALL he can accomplish, we will have moved forward. A united country can work together for fundamental change, from the bottom up which is the only place it's gonna come from. Give the guy a chance!!!!

I choose to believe that the man is sincere, and I realize that he is only one person, but I think it is very possible that he will be swept along by the wave of hope and enthusiasm he is generating. If he disappoints, we are back to go, but why assume before the verdict is even in, that he will.

I will join with others, especially our young folks, and embrace hope and healing. Any other takers?

Having seen Obama, I was reminded of the following, spoken about another great soul:

"He had the remarkable capacity to read through the layers of self-doubt, of anxiety and tension, of fears and insecurities, of false pride, to reach through these false identifications to the very core of a person - to one's essence - and recognize and greet and affirm it.

"He seemed to be able to see through the pain and the chaos of those who came to him, to their positive and creative inner core, and say to them both with and without words, 'This is who you are.'

"We have often said he spoke to the highest in us and we rose to meet him. "

— A description of Roberto Assagioli,one of Freud's early students, who founded his own approach to psychotherapy and growth, which he called Psychosynthesis.

ITS THE WAR STUPID!

"BeForKids February 6th, 2008 11:44 pm
allyourbasearebelongtous, sorry to disappoint, but Obama really did come out ahead. The Clinton camp did wrongly claim victory and the MSM ran with it. California is still counting, but it looks like Clinton beat Obama in California by about 30 delegates out of 370. Aside from super delegates, who are party leaders and hacks Obama has more voted delegates than Clinton."

and gore won the 200 election too but he never got to hold office. superdelegates do count. u r talking about tuesday total & i was talking about total -- not even on the same point.

"If super Tuesday had happened two weeks from now, I predict Obama would have won by a large margin."

maybe. maybe not. my crystal ball quit working some time ago.. glad to see yours still works. btw what are the next winning lottery numbers?

"I'm looking at their respective trajectories, and hers doesn't look good. They are going in opposite directions. She started out way ahead in the polls, and she's been going down while Obama has been rising. A clue is that his campaign has had twice the money flowing in than hers, and she has just loaned her campaign $5 million of her own money. That's like paying the mortgage with a credit card. That is, the campaign is in trouble. Financial supporters are losing faith."

many points here. you may be right but it isn't over yet.

"I don't think Obama will disappoint us unless we expect miracles. I don't expect miracles, but I do expect him to start moving in the right direction. I would not expect that from Hillary. Michelle Obama made a good point when she said look at what they were doing in the past when they lived in the shadows."

obama is too much soaring rhetoric and not enough specifics. as walter mondale said of gary hart, "where's the beef?"

Rudyjo is correct: The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.

(They are having trouble getting other people to give them money to compete with Obama, just imagine!)

The Clinton infusion of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.

Barack Obama won the most states and the most delegates on February 5th.

To date, more than 650,000 people have donated to Obama's effort.

The delegate process is stacked in favor of Clinton, as I and others have mentioned. The role of the super delegates is particularly arcane and undemocratic. That alone should be something to be upset about if you are a Democrat. Obama, for the first time in recent history (or perhaps EVER!) has a chance to challenge this outrageous and unfair super delegate system.

Again, I've argued that anyone on the left should be fighting for the most progressive candidate to be the democratic nominee. I would say the same about the Republican race. Would anyone here like to see the possibility of Mike Huckabee getting the presidency? I should hope not.

Obama and his wife are working class people. I don't understand why he gets so much wrath from the (generally destitute) leftists who think he's just a con man. Give me a break. Read about his life. Was he a community organizer to con people? Does his wife come from a rich family? Did he come from a rich family? Are the Obamas involved in white collar crime like the Clintons (whitewater, pork futures, etc.)? Did the Obamas ever order a military strike that could be interpreted as a war crime? (As with Clinton on the Sudan, for example.) Have the Obamas ever had problems with marital fidelity? Has Obama ever stuck a cigar... oh, never mind. I really don't understand this hostility toward the Obamas at this point. We have a choice between someone who MIGHT be open to ending the war very quickly, someone who is INTELLIGENT, someone who is a lawyer specializing in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, someone who was a community organizer from a working class family who went to college on STUDENT LOANS on the one hand--- and HILLARY on the other. She and her husband are like Ferdinand and Imelda MARCOS! A dynasty of corruption and nefarious deeds, well-documented. Bill Clinton has been ON TOUR with Poppy Bush. These people have no shame. One big happy family--the Bush-Clintons.

Vote Green if you want--I am a registered Green and can't do anything at this late day, but I recommend that those who can get OBAMA into the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE SLOT. It's simple & pragmatic: a common sense strategy for poor people on the left--try to get someone who is concerned with your interests and issues into office. Take any and all strategic action to do so at every possible opportunity and juncture.

The best thing the Obamas have been saying, for the few here who have bothered to listen, is that they strongly believe CHANGE COMES FROM BELOW. Look, that's absolutely right. I take that as a signal that they would respond to people showing up in the streets. What a difference that might make--to have them notice us in the streets, as I take them to mean from their speeches. Again, I highly recommend watching Michelle Obama's speech at UCLA linked above.

Michelle Obama — 30 minutes into it…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZiNtTq10i0

Seems like Obama is now the establishment's choice. My guess is that they figure that because the US is too racist to elect a black candidate. Obama may be easier for McCain to beat. Can you imagine how much it would suck if I were right and Obama (if he's the candidate) loses to John "100 Yrs. War" McCain!

But, on the other hand Obama is basically a Republican so what's the difference? Either one will serve their masters faithfully and turn their backs on the millions that put them in office on a false hope.

The powers that be can always rig it so that whoever they want to win comes out on top. How stupid we are to think elections are legitimate after we witnessed two stolen elections for the highest office in the land without so much as a whimper from the Bend-over_crats.
What if they steal another one? Who is going to stop them? Obama? Clinton? Pelosi? Harry Reid? The Supremely Corrupt? Yea, I'd like to think so but in order to do that I would need to smoke some hope.

I imagine that many feel weary and burdened with the egregious behavior of "our government" = "our country." I certainly do. We've all been drowning in filthy water for a long time. I sense, at the very least, a desperate need to come up for air.

Reminds me of a lively song by the Beatles, "It's been a long, cold, lonely winter…Here Comes the Sun!"

Another way of seeing Obama's overall strategy (instinctive and/or calculated) is that he seeks to evoke the "superconscious" aspects of our the human spirit, rather than the "lower unconscious" parts. Plainly, the tricks of the Bush administration have all centered around lower unconscious energies. (Reference: Psychosynthesis by Roberto Assagioli).

People are drawn to Obama out of a hunger for truth and light, among other things. They're sick of living with chronic depression and anxiety, and of being surrounded by sociopathic behavior. It seems to me that much of this is akin to a survival instinct.

allyourbasearebelongtous, sorry to disappoint, but Obama really did come out ahead. The Clinton camp did wrongly claim victory and the MSM ran with it. California is still counting, but it looks like Clinton beat Obama in California by about 30 delegates out of 370. Aside from super delegates, who are party leaders and hacks Obama has more voted delegates than Clinton. If super Tuesday had happened two weeks from now, I predict Obama would have won by a large margin. I'm looking at their respective trajectories, and hers doesn't look good. They are going in opposite directions. She started out way ahead in the polls, and she's been going down while Obama has been rising. A clue is that his campaign has had twice the money flowing in than hers, and she has just loaned her campaign $5 million of her own money. That's like paying the mortgage with a credit card. That is, the campaign is in trouble. Financial supporters are losing faith.

I don't think Obama will disappoint us unless we expect miracles. I don't expect miracles, but I do expect him to start moving in the right direction. I would not expect that from Hillary. Michelle Obama made a good point when she said look at what they were doing in the past when they lived in the shadows.

kathyodat

ia bird,

u r 2 cool.

but donate to local community organizations, not the DK's and Sheehan's of the world. (folks in clevelnd and marin county can give to them, i guess.)

donate money to organized communities who will hold whoever wins accountable to their promises.

you don't build movements with a couple of candidates. you build 'em locally, networked to the ends of the earth.

I believe the superdelegates were created to stop a runaway liberal candidate in favor of a more electable one. It is certainly undemocratic, but is it possible that it may help Obama? If you were a superdelegate staring at the consistent poll numbers showing Obama winning over McCain while Hillary losing, and Hillary's ~50 unlikable rating, would you take that bad bet and go for Clinton? In this odd situation the more liberal candidate is actually more electable.

Also, every time I see Howard Dean's name as chair of the DNC I'm confused- he was the youth-driven hip liberal dark horse, and how it looks like he's in charge of quashing the dark horses! Maybe he could turn out in Obama's corner later?

Obama raised over 35 million last month, mostly small donations, It has come out in the last
few hours that the Clintons had to put in 5 million of their own money to pay for adverising etc.
Makes you wonder how desperate they are to win?

what fascinated me as i observed the returns last night was where hillary won and the unbalanced numbers in the individual states obama carried. obama won convincingly in the states he won, hillary won by much smaller percentages in states she carried. an example of 2 comparable states results (TN 68 delegates, clinton 54/obama 41 -- MN 72 delegates, obama 67/clinton 32). this story repeated itself in their home states IL and NY (IL obama 65/33 NY clinton 57/40). basically clinton won huge states by smaller margins (also the states she won are already in the dem base CA, MA, NY) obama demonstrated that he's popular in the south and in the plains/rocky mountain states - which indicates he would fare better in the general election against mccain (unless say he went on an all out war platform and ran with powell as VP - read the real race card)

rebelnow February 6th, 2008 8:12 pm

npr was very sympathetic to the dlc candidate yesterday. i listened to 4 hours of coverage on npr and cspn (switching to cspan coverage when the rhetoric became to nauseating at npr) while i watched the vote count online at NYT's. the times was more accurate in posting results and refraining from making sketchy calls, the telltale was missouri. npr called it way too quickly (as AP and CNN did). i understand the daunting nature of trying to determine a winner. but even though it was clear obama had tied clinton (48-48 w/ 98% of the vote) and was passing her (nyt's 98% obama 49-48) NPR did not correct the initial call (till over an hour after the fact as they were joyously announcing clinton's overwhelming victory in california). the spin all night was pro clinton.

allyourbasearebelongtous February 6th, 2008 10:13 pm

i agree this was the only post i saw that put obama ahead in the delegate count. i've seen alot of numbers today. the one i just looked at shows clinton up 1012 to obama's 933 delegates (79 delegates - from realclearpolitics.org 10:50 pm est)

about the horse race, momentum is with obama. the best analysis i've seen in last 24 hours.reid wilson's piece (link below) analyzes the remaining primaries state by state, region by region.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/road_ahead_tough_for_c...

please contact friends in states that haven't caucused/voted, plead with them to participate to stop clinton2.

please donate money to kucinich and sheehan..............
see ya in the streets of denver... peace...........................

We have an uncanny gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Bill Clinton was perceived as a Southern Governor, Washington outsider, during the dot com boom. We haven't had a non-Southern Dem in the White House since JFK. Hillary has assumed the mantle of Eastern Seaboard Liberal Insider like every other losing Democrat for the last fifty years.

Mr. Obama can win. He will talk to our "enemies." He would not authorize Bush to attack Iran. Even if Mrs. Clinton COULD take the White House, policy will remain the same. This Bush juggernaut is madness.. Hillary is a sword in our pinions... an agent of neoliberalism. She lies with every breath.

Obama can win. Whether or not he will bring change is an other discussion...

well this is the first and, so far, the only count of delegates i have seen that puts obama ahead. isn't it interesting that it originated with the obama camp? if it turns out to be fallacious, i wonder if the media will hold them to account for it. certainly the obama camp would raise holy hell if the clinton camp had done this and it turned out to be wrong. just a partisan dig there. in a larger sense tho, we are all democrats and need to remember that this fall no matter who wins the nomination.

It's the usual hope springs eternal mode as all the substantive men have been locked out of the race. A people too distraught and disillusioned to face reality begin to take stock in a straw candidate. It is so American. We want to see everything imaginable in this man, the new music man. Although we know better, we're content to watch the stars in others' eyes and believe what they believe because we have no other choice.

If you support Obama, just be sure to let the campaign know that you expect real progress on the real, very specific issues. It seems that he is more likely to respond to this than the others from either camp.

It's almost laughable to see people saying "Vote Obama for real change!" AS IF!
I hope that you don't actually believe that Obama is going to change anything. You're in for a big letdown. I heard the same stuff a few years ago "Vote Democrats into Congress for real change!"
I admit I was fooled. I voted for them and they took over and did NOTHING.
Wake up and smell the coffee! Obama isn't Superman. If elected, he's going to do a nice song and dance routine but with no change at all. Sure he might withdraw some troops from Iraq (just to say he did) but will re-deploy them immediately to Pakistan. Government expense will shift around some but the string pullers will still get their cut. The "War on Terror" will continue. Torture will continue. The racism and fascism will continue as we mutate into a neo-nazi theocracy.
It won't be Obama's fault but you must understand that you can't cure Cancer with a band-aid. The roots of our society are corrupted and the whole tree of our country is dying. Until we focus on the real issues - Corporate America and the Religious Right - we will continue to wither no matter who is elected.
If you actually believe that Obama will make a difference, you are fooling yourself.

Hillary Clinton's supporters are now trying to blur the issues by claiming that she and Obama have the same positions, and that the difference is one of experience. This is disingenuous. Her early and vocal support for the Iraq war, which she justified by retailing the same lies about Saddam's alleged weapons and ties to al Qaeda, should raise serious questions about her judgment. Now she claims to oppose the war and want to get out, but her plans for doing so are typically vague.

And how about her opposition to intervention in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which, all told, cost close to a million lives? Her support for the vicious sanctions, enforced by her husband, that denied even vaccines and medicines to Iraqis and cost the lives of over 500,000 children? Her support for her husband's refusal to ban landmines, and her opposition to restricting cluster bomb exports to countries that use them in civilian areas? Doesn't it bother anyone that they cynically had US diplomats vitiate the International Criminal Court statute, fatally weakening it with concessions granted by other nations in the expectation of US support, then refused to sign it?

Hillary is Joe Lieberman in drag. She may pro-choice, but the way she and Bill sold gays out, after enjoying their strong support in the election, by imposing the onerous "don't ask, don't tell" regulations and signing the Defense of Marriage Act shouldn't give social liberals much hope.

She claims to be a feminist but is unabashedly riding on her husband's semen-spattered, muddy coattails. She claims to be a champion of the common people, but what about her long and lucrative service on the Board of Directors of the union-busting, worker-exploiting, offshore-sourcing WalMart Corporation?

A slick politician she may be, but a progressive or humanitarian she definitely is not. Don't let the big smile, on-cue tears and expensive pants suits fool you.

Wow! I can hear the Hallelujah chorus from Handel's Messiah - and it ain't even Christmas.

Earlier today on Talk of the Nation they had two call in phone numbers, one for democrats and independents, another was for republican and independents. Wrong approach guys. It should have been democrats and republicans ONE line and a SEPARATE line for independents. Those NPR folks don't get it do they?!

I honestly didn't know about "delegates".

For the first time in I don't know how many years I'm pleasantly surprised by something electoral. The Democratic Party has gone at least two steps toward proportional representation elections. This has enormous implications in the long run.

Neither Edwards nor anyone else, nor the voters, realized that a third or fourth candidate could stay in the race and pick off one delegate in every district, then go into the Democratic Convention as a minor power broker and a kingmaker.

The beauty of having three, four or more candidates running is that no one candidate can go negative. Negativity will successfully run down one candidate but it also runs down the speaker of the negativity. A third candidate wins. That's why, once proportional representation is well-understood by the candidates, by the voters and especially by the mainstream media, debates become more civil.

Suddenly, candidates have to play every single state and every district. It won't be just winning the last 2% of California, New York and Texas all the time. Obama visited rinkydink states like North Dakota and Idaho. As a result, Obama won delegates. Now all Democratic Party candidates will campaign this way. Presidential candidates should be more responsive to you!

The nature of proportional representation is to elect people who look like the electorate at large. The proportional election of delegates for a white woman and for a black man at the same time is perfectly normal wherever PR has been used, although uninformed people think running a black man for President is wildly unusual in the United States.

In showcasing an alternative to winner-take-all primaries, the Democrats have demonstrated an inherently more fair electoral system. Embezzlement of 10,000 votes, or any other stunt that swings 10,000 votes, is now only a drop in the bucket affecting perhaps 1 delegate, not the gesture that lurches Texas or California's 100 delegates from one camp into the other camp. Remember that Florida was stolen in 2000 and Ohio was stolen in 2004, stealing two presidential elections in a row. A major sector of the American public is angry at the idea of election embezzlement.

Here's my hope: that the Democratic Party sweeps into power, absorbs people of good will, then reaches out to these new people. Do you think bankrupting the U.S. Treasury is wrong? Well then you're a fiscal conservative. Welcome. Do you think "Love your neighbor" is holy? Well, the Democrats don't want to see any veterans living on the streets in winter, and they want to see that every kid has enough to eat and regular medical checkups too. How's that for Christian charity toward your neighbor?

So what happens if people march over and discover that the Democrats allow anyone, any set of delegates no matter how small, proportionally into their conventions? In other words, every set of citizens gets rights and power. Meanwhile, the Republicans promise the moon and deliver a smelly little piece of cheese every time. What happens is that almost everybody walks!

The miracle would be if the Republicans shrink into a few tiny fringe groups that hate and fight each other: Scrooge-like millionaires, silk-suit preachers who extol the love of money, poison-mouthed talk radio personalities, Klansmen who deeply love the cross as long as they can burn one, a few Swift Boaters, and Pinky and the Brain. Well, maybe not Pinky.

We could see a permanent Democratic majority. Permanent. The Democratic Convention becomes the de facto government.

I posted days ago that November will bring 'war hero' McInsane vs Mrs. BJ Clinton (superdelegates will make the difference).

If he is proved right than he will drink heavily for days.

A long time ago I posted the suggestion to vote Democratic for President and third party for Congress.
I repeat that suggestion.

With the compitition effectively eliminated, the MSM is talking about the candidates like there is some kind of difference between them!

The fact that the MSM is even talking about them at all should tell EVERYBODY something!

mirf59, isn't the superdelegate idea, allowing the party to overrule the will of the people, just fantastic?

Jim Mc: The role of the superdelegates may be distasteful to some but at least they are in the rules.

"The rules"? Who's rules? Who made up the superdelegate rule? Why the superdelegates themselves, that's who. Superdelegates serving the corporatocracy. They may as well be called corpo-delegates.

These corpo-delegates are yet another reason why true progressives thumb their noses at the Demoks and write in third party progressives in the general elections. If there's only one lesson from the past seven years it is that we are much better off without the corporatocracy. We don't need the economic activity of the corporatocracy. We actually need to avoid most (90%) of such economic activity.

Daniel David,

I share your enthusiasm, but your use of the word "providential" does make me shudder a little. We've heard entirely too much of that over the past seven years.

Thanks!

Just got an e-mail from someone "warning" me that McCain wants to invade Iran. Well DUH! Whether the thought crossed his mind or not, many of those who were around Reagan do.

Now if someone showed me proof that Obama wanted to invade Iran, that would be a bit more shocking (and quite a bit less believable!)

Hamster - If Mike wants to rant, let him - we all have days like that - you know days where you keep running and running and it feels like you are getting nowhere.

RE: - They're such sick idolators and morons that many of them spend more time worshiping what's between their two legs; for crying out loud.

Mike, I think your teacher at school would call that practicing safe sex. I think that The Onion referred to that as "choking the pretzel" (by Bush) or "pounding the peasant" (by Stalin). Now that you vented, the choice is between doing your homework or trying to beat that level in Halo.

RE: - One fault with obama, he supports the war on drugs.

Not all drugs - only those which compete with Novartis and Eli Lilly. I would like Obama to consider Axe and Tag unacceptable drugs. It could just be a war Obama doesn't think worth fighting at the moment. One must pick one's battles.

RE: - A Hillary nomination almost guarantees a McCain victory.

I wouldn't say that and I don't like Hillary. McCain has married himself to Ronnie Reagan's legacy and both Clinton and Obama would be wise to tarnish said legacy.

Obama has to be careful because you get this charismatic young man who looks as if the world is his oyster against a man who has suffered in an enemy prison for years - McCain is going to turn everything Obama says around to make it look like Obama is a snotty young upstart who holds anyone who has ever served in the military in contempt. Even veterans for peace would be turned off by that if McCain can pull it off.

RE: - If I needed open heart surgery, I'm not going to be satisfied to have the doctors' wife perform the operation.

What if they met in medical school? Being a "First Lady" or a "First Man" is an official position in the US - and many are thinking about how Michelle will fill the role (as if it comes with qualifications). But if Jack Layton were to become Prime Minister, Olivia Chow will not be the "first lady" but she may be a Cabinet Minister.

Hillary is probably talking about accompanying her husband on trips and shaking hands with world leaders (which Obama has yet to meet). I don't know if she were ever employed in the Whitehouse in an official capacity.

Obama: Hello President Harper
Calderon: Actually, he's a Prime Minister
Harper: You can call me President if you want - I like being called President. I get hot and bothered every time I think of your triple-E senate. May I sit on your lap and lick your face?

RE: - and whatever "Muslim" ties he may have, or be rumored to have had, in his history

Speaking of ties, did you know that the people of Obama's father's birthplace (and where Obama's paternal grandmother still lives) are openly supporting Obama (it was on The National last night). They figure that if Obama becomes President of the US, that he will combat poverty in Kogelo Kenya. Don't have yesterdays The National, but here is when Obama visited Kogelo in 2006:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/08/25/obama-kenya.html

There is a school named after Obama in Kogelo Kenya.

RE: - hillary is a little too mannish for my taste, but calling her a husband is a little unfair to her natural smile and body language during the debates

It is not like you have to sleep with whoever is elected president either of you! Hillary doesn't seem at all mannish to me.

And I know an MP who keeps getting re-elected who, in her bio, list both her late common-law husband and her present common-law wife. She is proud of both of them.

And I saw Preston Manning daughter once on TV representing the Fraser Institute - she looks just like him BEFORE he had that make over which made him look like kd lang.

Back to topic, It strikes me as odd that Hillary always wears a skirt. Nylons tend to get very itchy when you either perspire or get them wet in the snow.

RE: - I cry for the Iraqi people and their families and homes that are no more.

They cry too. Their tears are easily manipulated. McCain calls the grieving "evil" when they are manipulated by the recruiters.

HAS ANYONE CONSIDERED THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DNC's SUPERDELEGATE PROCESS? Think of it this way: Obama or Clinton narrowly wins the majority of the primary's regular delegate votes, which essentially represent the votes of the majority of those who voted for a Democrat. If it ended there, our votes would be counted, which must occur if we all have the right to vote (i.e., the intent of the law is not merely that we have the right to walk into a polling place and cast our ballot). Now if either candidate is able, through "any means possible" to gain enough superdelegate votes to put them ahead, even by one delegate vote over the other candidate, at that point, the votes of the majority who voted for the other candidate are voided, resulting in DISENFRANCHISEMENT. I have suggested this perspective to the ACLU today. I want my vote to count, and the members of this elite group should not be able to discount my or your vote. The DNC is saying to each of us that we're not intelligent enough to be able to pick who should be the next President. I encourage each of you to call, write, or e-mail the DNC and let them know that if they don't uphold the will of the majority, then you as one of the majority voters will simply write in the name of your candidate to reflect your choice. Yes, that could result in the Democrats losing the presidency again, but I'm willing to take that risk in order to protect my Constitutional right to vote. I think if enough of you contact the DNC and let them know what you intend to do, they WILL choose to uphold the majority's choice.

Stiv Whitman:

Thanks for the Five Reasons That Hillary Should Be Worried link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8363.html.

It makes me feel alot better, even though I'm not an Obama supporter. Step 1 is to defeat the Clintons. We go on from there...

Dick Cheney said he was not too concerned about who would be President after Bush and that he'd be happy to serve any one of them. When asked what he meant by that he just smiled his crooked smile and walked back into his office.

The cynic in me thinks that Repubs (I've read something like 40%) were/are turning out in droves to vote for Obama in the primaries. Perhaps they think they can smear him into oblivion once the nomination is cast, assuring a Repub victory. Sad, but it would probably work. I've seen lots of other progressives talk about a write-in for Kucinich. Can we organize such an animal ? I have a little more faith than most in the ability of actual citizens to affect political change in this nation. After all- I'm from the state that elected an Independent ex-wrestler as Governor

I would like the viewers here to consider a proposition. I presented the proposition of mathematically perfected economy to the Clinton camp during and prior to his administration. Bill Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton have refused to answer to mathematically perfected economy.

The Ron Paul camp claims to be following our work with great interest. But of course, the prospects of a Paul win are now remote.

Our nation has the most serious economic issues; and I assert there is but one solution. I'm at once testing the water here and offering a way to take the right candidate to the White House.

Give this article at Nolan Chart a look, and see what you think:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2519.html

Obama is promising change. We've heard that forever, but somehow I want to believe him. I'd throw all my weight behind the man if he would touch base with us seriously over the prospect of mathematically perfected economy. The American people desperately need it; and the candidate willing to work that trail deserves all our support.

Have a look, and let PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy know what you think.

Mike Corbeil, Your comments make absolutely no sense at all. Your English is incomprehensible and your assertions sound like those of a dribbling-at-the-mouth raving lunatic... which I, and likely most others, assume you are.

re: Obama the master chess player

Politics is, and always has been, a chess game. The real strategy always remains hidden behind the "public" strategy. Obama's "game" will not become apparent to us until we see him taking the oath of office.

Many of us on the left feel this kind of "strategizing" is akin to dishonesty. All I can say is, the deck is stacked against progressive values. If you want to win... honesty may not be the best policy. Just look at our "honest" candidates today - Kucinich and Edwards.

If you want more progressive candidates, start creating more progressive voters.

Sally UUKent, Thanks... I agree 100%. GREAT post.

Hey there Stiv Whitman. Thank you for sharing that video of Michelle Obama's speech at UCLA. Very moving.

It should be noted that neither Barack nor his wife speak with notes. I believe the last candidate with that kind of sincerity (and courage) was Bobby Kennedy.

Has it ever occurred to Obama maniacs that change can be for the worse? So far, he is long on hot air, his eloquence signifying little. Wait for the details to be filled in - then think about them. Democracies need rational voters to work.

I do not care for either Clinton or Obama.

Since I am tired of voting for the lessor of two evils, this November, my vote will go elsewhere.

Five reasons Hillary should be worried
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8363.html

Check out Michelle Obama -- change comes from below:

30 minutes into it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZiNtTq10i0

I don't know, I'm skeptical about it all, but this is more interesting than usual!

Hillary should have joined the Republican party. Then we would have safely seen if she could have beaten her partner-in-war McCain. And she'd be in the party that is a better match for her. Conservative compassion.

"Obama really is the best hope for "change" that America has in the election of 2008."

LOL!!!

I just hope once Obama does not get the nomination, or worse, he gets elected and then people find out he is no diffrent thatn any other politician, all these kids who are believers now, don't revert to apathy once they realize they've been grifted.

Obama is the great triagulator, he out triangulates the Clintons, and thet's why they hate him.

He talks abt popular struggles and issues, and then in the same breath announces he is not abt those things that divide us, only abt those things that unite us (an amorphous desire for anything but Bush 43). His actual political record is that of a master chess player. He obviously does nothing without calculating it out many many moves ahead.

Vaudree, thanks for that great article on the death of courage.

mirf, I agree also. Especially like your pointing out the definition of: "victory" as meaning the death of Iraq and its citizens.

It irks me to no end when McCain and others persist in using the meaningless phrase: "winning the war". First of all there is no war...it is an occupation of a country that never attacked us. In the current context winning only means killing as many Iraqi people as possible; causing mass exodus of all Iraqi citizens with a dime to spare for the trip (currently at an unbelievable 4 million!!!), and destroying Iraqi infrastructure for years.... or possibly getting them to sign over those oil rights ?.

I cry for the Iraqi people and their families and homes that are no more. I cry for the ignorance & stupidity that abound around the world. I cry for my country that now so blatantly lies, spies and tortures.

I hope that Obama can pull us out of our downward spiral...but it will depend upon who his economic and foreign policy advisors are. Hillary won't do it because her advisors are the old guard that paved the path to our hell.

hillary is a little too mannish for my taste, but calling her a husband is a little unfair to her natural smile and body language during the debates, bushwickamir!! nevertheless, obama is the dream of underdogs and the best hope for unusual politics still in the race. this article is the best news of the day for this guatemalan, which goes to show the long shadows of US presence worldwide!!

The superdelegates make the Democratic Party less democratic than the Republicans are. Hillary will never change this. It was dreamt up by the DLC(the cancer on the party) to ensure they were in control. Barack, with only one foot in the DLC, might view elimination of this practice as part of his mandate for change.

mirf, I completely agree, Hillary is Bush in a skirt so far as I'm concerned. She's an avid globalist and of course was for NAFTA before she decided it needs a "time out" now that it's proven to be the disaster any thinking person knew it would become.

Bejugo,

I don't think so. It's about the war. McCain is too close to the war. Hillary is too close to the war. Obama appears to be with the public on the war, even though in the debates he said some things that indicate he may continue the current course at least in the short term.

I think an end to the war is what we're looking for from the President. Hillary is not credible in this respect, and obviously McCain is not interested in anything other than some nebulous "victory."

Since it is the Iraqi people that are fighting us, I can only guess that victory would mean killing all Iraqis. What other victory is there? These people are not going to submit to our control any more than we would submit if China attacked here.

I want to preface my statement by saying that I think this is the most exciting election campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, that I have ever seen in the last 50 years. I believe that what we are seeing is the democratic process at its best. This is what the Founding Fathers envisioned with the two system when this country was in its infancy.
Now to my main train of thought, I am a Barack Obama follower because he is the person that can help heal this sick country. America is a very ill patient with a prognosis of only getting worse if radical surgery is not performed soon. The patient America suffers from many deadly diseases such as racism, militarism, massive greed, staggering debt, the lack of foresight, electing leaders who are dummies and intellectual midgets, and using its military might to "strong-arm and bully" smaller/weaker nations. The solution is surgery at the top with Dr. Obama leading the nation but we all know how hard it is to get the patient to consent to take the medicine without first having to sugar coat it!
Once again,"Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come" and the only constant in the universe is change. It is the only thing that you can set your clock by - change. Barack Obama is the physical manifestation of that change and his campaign is the tip of the spear of the progressive movement. Clinton represents the liberal wing of the establishment, whereas, Obama is the face of a movement and an extention of the civil/human rights movement that is moving America toward a more perfect union and making real the meaning of democracy.

Interesting how the corporate owned media is proclaiming Clinton with more delegates. Why are we having a primary season, corporations have already decided to run two Republicans against each other: one disguised as a Dem.

Vote Nader 2008!

I've come to realize over the years that the DLC will always choose the most conservative candidate. It's a fail-safe built into the corporate dictatoraship to prevent real change. Clinton, like Kerry and Gore before him is unispiring at best. Moreso, she carries a great deal of baggage and breeds animosity. A vote for Clinton is, in essence, a vote for McCain.

At least with McCain, there is no illusion. He is the real repug, why settle for an immitation.

As for Obama, I think he can handle whatever the repugs toss his way because he rpojects the illusion of change as opposed to "staying the curse" and after 8 disasterous and bloody years Americans are ready for something different. Of course the selection may (and probably will) still be stolen.

I just spoke with my conservative brother. He predicts that if Obama is the nominee, we will see the nastiest smear campaign of all time, attacking Obama on account of his admitted cocaine use, his race, and whatever "Muslim" ties he may have, or be rumored to have had, in his history.

He believes it will be ugly, but he believes it will do enough damage to keep him out of the White House.

Thoughts?

Obama galvanizes the youth vote, Hillary galvanizes the right wing vote. As my son pointed out, only the Democrats could find a way to lose a slam dunk election. So Bill Clinton and Terry McCauliffe each get over 22,000 votes more than each of us. That's democracy for you.

kathyodat

Kristina40,

The main problem with Hillary versus McCain is not that McCain and the Republicans would win but rather that Republicans cannot lose. Hillary Clinton's voting record indicates that she is a conservative. Raised Republican. Hawkish at every turn. Etc.

There are also strong indications that Obama will become a classic establishmentarian candidate when he gets in. Clinton 42 entered the White House ready to slash the DOD based on the peace dividend of the end of the Cold War. Bush 43 entered the White House claiming to be a uniter, reaching across the aisle, a "compassionate conservative", and flatly against "nation-building."

You have to listen carefully for true signs of what will happen under a Clinton 44 or an Obama 44. In the case of Clinton, throw out the rhetoric and look at her votes in the Senate and look at who is supporting her financially. Viewed this way and forced to guess which Party she belongs to, one would guess she's a moderate Republican. That's what she is.

Listening to Obama talk about protecting our "vital national security interests" in Iraq is a strong indication that he will not challenges the foreign policy paradigm one iota. In other words, continue to use force and violence to increase economic stability and therefore prosperity at home.

At least Obama did not agree to declare the entire national Army of Iran a terrorist organization. So he's not as rabidly hawkish as Hillary.

BUt, anyway, Hillary as nominee means two Republican candidates and Republicans are guaranteed to have an advocate in the White House.

I'm not quite sure I understand Hillary's claim to be the candidate with "presidential experience"....

...If I needed open heart surgery, I'm not going to be satisfied to have the doctors' wife perform the operation.

Mike Corbeil,

Take a chill pill. I don't 'worship' Obama. Just think he is slightly better than Clinton on foreign policy and agree with Zunes:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/04/6836/

On domestic issues, I've worked in education, some years in Oakland. I was impressed by Michelle Obama's speech in L.A. and her opposition to No Child Left Behind. In general, I don't trust Clinton on education issues. That's personal.

But I also don't like the way the Democratic Party Machine stacks the deck against newcomers and outsiders. I cut and pasted that bit from Politico.com on super delegates because I feel their power is undemocratic and archaic. Maybe you misunderstood that I was cutting and pasting, not expressing my opinion?

In any case, I'm a Green Party supporter and I am pulling for McKinney in that race. But I hope Obama takes the Democratic party by surprise.

I don't think the folks who comment here are naive about Obama. Some clearly feel he's a better candidate than Clinton and has a better chance of defeating the Republicans.

It's really not about worship at all, it's just a sort of matter-of-fact pragmatism given the constraints of the candidates left standing.

To those who want the WORST democrat possible, hey, I'm open to that idea, you just need to flush it out for me, because I don't understand your reasoning. To those who think Clinton is the better democratic candidate of the two, I would appreciate someone taking Zunes article to task; please point out where his analysis is wrong.

Thanks!
Peace.

buckets of pus, served up by big business.

Ken Mitchell, dont' be so sure about the war on drugs thing. I did some digging and he was actually for decriminalization of marijuana but got lambasted for it in his Senate race and pretty much gave it up. That's not to say he can't be swayed AFTER he gets elected. Baby steps...

A Hillary nomination almost guarantees a McCain victory. First, Nader will run if she does, there goes the Progressives...Next, we'll get to relive Whitewater, the definition of "is", the blue dress, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the host of other follies ad nauseum leading up to the election. The Dems will have once again shot themselves in the foot and snatched a defeat from the jaws of victory...

Mike Corbeil,

I have been enjoying your tremendous insights. Keep up the good work. I'm quite sure enlightened human beings that are living in the full glow of humanity would cherish every word of your commentary.

One fault with obama, he supports the war on drugs.

Seems as if everyone who comes on to talk about last night's race is using the same phrase - they say that it is an exciting time where people have to choose between "two people of integrity and vision." I get suspicious when I hear the same phrase coming out of different mouths.

They were talking about Mulroney the other day and it seems that he too was seen as someone who could bring unity between Liberals and Conservatives.

Hope is good. Believing in someone or something is good. But faith of this intensity and expectations this high you wonder what happens when people crash. Even if the new President performs better than I expect, people are apt to feel cheated because they expected so much more. I wonder if we are creating another generation of youths who are distrustful and apathetic towards politics.

RE: - Obama really is the best hope for "change" that America has in the election of 2008.

Better than Clinton and McCain any way - and that is what we should be measuring him against. Obama is no John Edwards or Paul Wellstone, though. Edwards and Wellstone knew that even when you win, they won't stop fighting you and trying to overturn your victory.

The one change that Obama can deliver is getting COMBAT troops out of Iraq. He still may need to keep a peacekeeping force in there (there is no way he can rule that out).

Speaking of ill thought out wars, there will be a Confidence motion in March about extending the war in Afghanistan. If more MPs vote against it than for it, Canada has another election. Seems that Stephen Harper either wants an election or he is playing chicken with Stephan Dion.

MP=Congressperson

RE: - yes the feminist and the abortion people are voting for hillary BUT that is NOT in their interest cause at the same time the clintons nafta and ga