The "Neo-con press and media favor [Obama]"?

Charles Krauthammer is considered a representative neocon and has attacked Obama very harshly. See this news clip below from Nov 2007 in which Krauthammer tears into Obama for being insufficiently belligerent toward Iran:

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/specreport-20071102-obama.wmv

By contrast see Krauthammer and other neocons' favorable views toward Hillary in the Paul Hogarth article of 10/16/07, "Neo-cons Push for Hillary's Nomination" at

http://quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/index.php?itemid=5011

Here is just one paragraph from this article, and bear in mind Krauthammer here is talking straight not satire; he seriously means this (to his conservative audience) as a commendation of Hillary.

[START EXCERPT]
"I could never vote for her," said Krauthammer, "but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her – precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's – flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated – always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason."
[END EXCERPT]

As for why the media has been up to now favorable to Obama (true), I attribute this to about equal parts Obama not getting extremely hard hits because he has not been perceived as the frontrunner (why waste time taking him down), and partly the "honeymoon" effect in which individual journalists, like much of America, personally like him. Obama may be taking on frontrunner status for the first time as early as today however (he just won resoundingly by 2:1 margin here in Washington state and is expected to win more states today and tomorrow) and if it does become clear Obama is going to be the nominee the Republican attack machine will I am sure make up for lost time. They are restrained from hitting him too directly for fear of being perceived as racist, but from their point of view this is a problem to be overcome by other means. Rush Limbaugh for example, who has been making offhand racist sideswipes at Obama all along, said last week in a serious moment that Obama would be almost impossible to beat. That's not Limbaugh being complimentary or disingenuous; it is Limbaugh expressing conservative despair and recognition of a serious problem and (for one moment) being truthful: Obama is headed to wipe the Republicans off the floor if he is nominated. Tsunami is right (as someone earlier said).

riverman, does your monitor offer you the luxury of spellcheck, or do you just not know how to use it?

At this stage of the game, folks, it's really just show biz. To get where any of these candidates have gotten means they had to have dirtied their hands somewhere along the line. Obama might be the best the Dems got at present, or not. Just don't let yourself be taken so easily by a speaker who gives great pep-talks. Con men do that without blinking (not necessarily saying Obama is). Remember the Amway scam? Look for integrity above all, and to whom the candidates are beholden. Seems like more and more we're voting against the other guy, rather than for anyone we really like. Curious when you think about it, isn't it?

What amazes me is that Hillary is trying to position herself as an underdog and is trying to pin Obama as the candidate of the "Establishment". As if! She's probably the most "establishment" candidate out there. She's had the long-time backing of the mainstream Democratic establishment, and now she's got the gall to call Obama the "establishment" candidate?

What a hypocrite she is. I don't care if she's a woman, she'll never win my vote!

the democrats won in 2000 and 2004

i am sure they will win in 2008

Funny too CHESSGAMES except not ha-ha funny. This election is very important. If Obama wins La, which he has I hear and then Md and VA which he likely will, and Hillary takes Ohio and Texas, she'll still be the front runner. Then if the party head hogs decide to allow the Mich and Fla votes to count, she'll be way ahead. That guy who said his bookie gives 20 to 1 odds Hillary will be the next presidet is probably the best opinion posted here so far.

The differences between Clinton and Obama in terms of policy are tiny. I'm still opposed to Clinton though, since I despise political dynasties, aside from the fact that she voted for the war and never apologized for it, and is pretty much a conservative democrat on almost all issues.

I don't think we will elect a person capable of fixing America, at home and abroad, any time soon. This election is more about putting someone into office who simply won't make things worse. Perhaps Obama might fill that role. McCain seems like the kind of man who will continue the Bush nightmare. He is obviously hawkish in the extreme, the nightmare scenario of a George S. Patton presidency come to life. But I fail to understand this hatred Limbaugh and Coulter have for McCain, it is almost enough to make me like the guy. The "liberal" positions he took on various issues, and the bills he helped pass were so full of loopholes an oil tanker could go through them. These bills hardly represented a "win" or even a "compromise" with true left-wingers. While McCain may not be among the most rabidly right-wing of conservatives, especially when it comes to religious non-issues, he's hardly a "progressive". I'd rather have Ron Paul win the nomination and even win the presidency than McCain, considering Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.

I sort of doubt Paul will win the nomination, unless McCain and the Huck both suddenly decide to drop out, or they start all over and Paul is the only candidate running.

~RIVERMAN~. What in hell are you on John Edwards case for with your constant bashing of that good man? Your 'assumptions' of him you post here and on other threads are utter nonsense. Are you sure those are grapes those babes are popping into your mouth, the dufus rants you're writing, they may be rabbit turds, because you sure are full of crap.

Well RIVERMAN, after today, Hillary is still about 70 to 75 delegates ahead of Obama. So I do think your addition is as bad as your speling. My spellling is lowsey too and I don't really care about that eethur. We'll see how much ooumph the Clinton clan has with Dean and the party leaders, and if they count the Michigan and Florida votes at the convention. I cannot see them discounting those two large states. If they do, it will come back to haunt them. Hillary will be the nomionee and she will beat McCain. Now that's not because it what I desire, it's what I believe will occur.

Yeah if that's Edwards main theme__ so what?

Those gambling odds are a bit out of date Kem. The University of Iowa Electronic Markets (a serious wager site) is currently showing market rates for an Obama win of the Democratic nomination at nearly twice the probability of a Clinton win.

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Nomination08_Quotes.html

You get $1.00 if your candidate wins. As of today, an Obama win bet costs .63, a Clinton win bet costs .35, and an Edwards win bet can be had for .002.

(Compare on the Republican side a bet on McCain being the nominee--for which you will receive 1.00 if this happens--costs .94.)

Obama is therefore favored at this moment nearly 2:1 over Clinton by current bookie odds.

A graph of the price history going back to early 2007 shows Clinton way ahead of Obama in odds for practically the entire time (Obama was ahead for a couple of weeks in March 2007), until February 6, 2008--only three days ago--when Obama soared WAY ahead.

Clinton's odds as assessed by investors appears to be in free fall. Closing prices on Clinton in the last few days:
Feb 5 .59
Feb 6 .44
Feb 7 .44
Feb 8 .40
Feb 9 .35

The impression I have of Hillary is one that I believe is shared by at least a few Americans, especially Obama supporters, and hopefully these people are among the super-delegates. I won't get into political issues here, since there are hardly any significant differences between Obama and Hillary.

My impression of her is that she is arrogant and cold(shocking, I know!). She doesn't seem to enjoy campaigning like other politicians do. This is because, deep down, she feels annoyed and betrayed over not being coronated "Queen" of the Democrats, and this half African upstart Obama has nearly usurped the Throne she believed was hers! That bastard ruined my coronation, how dare he! I'm sure the super-delegates and other people within the upper echelons of the Democratic party might have experienced some of this arrogance of hers, and might explain an Obama victory.

Coldness and arrogance are great qualities for a monarch, but not an American politician, take Queen Elizabeth for instance. Perhaps that explains Hillary's personality, she is modeling herself on the current holder of the British Crown.

We'll see. James Corvel does not seem to be worried. Thank you for that chart ~Scroller~ very interesting. Hillary was about 90 ahead today and it looks as if Obama has picked up about 40 more delegates and Hillary about 20. If that's accurate, she's still about 70 up and Ohio and Texas will be the key for her. Keep in mind, she did not campaign or do any TV ads in the states which voted today and Obama did spend tons of TV money in La and Washington. Hillary was not concerned about those states. Pollitics is a hard ball and very tactical game. We'll know when Ohio and Texas vote.

Edwards may be against Hillary, he may also be against Obama ~Riverman~. You don't know what he knows, or why he has not endorsed anybody. That's his call, but for you to call Edwards a phony is not sensible and you are making a fool of yorself with your goofy posts on the subject. What exactly is your point, Edwards dropped out?

I think riverman may be right. My precinct today here in WA went 4:1 for Obama and this was several hundred people, about 100% white. Apart from some determined older women for Hillary, nearly everyone was for Obama. In 2004 this same precinct went first for Kerry (and second for Kucinich). Washington is a highly "white" state with a long history of electing women...but Democrats still went for Obama 2:1 statewide. I felt the tsunami today.

The swing to Obama won't be later this month. It was tonight.

This is relevant to this thread seeing as how Obama's youthful drug use will likely become an issue in this campaign:

Phillip Emafo, President of the UN's narcotics interdiction branch has stated that: "Marijuana vending machines in Los Angeles violate international treaties and should be shut down". This puts a weapon in the hands of many Americans who want the US to withdraw from the UN. The UN is too important to world peace to lose any US support. UN anti-drug crusaders seeking to make criminals out of millions of Americans who safely use marijuana are alienating public opinion against the UN.

The American public increasingly shows it understands that in other countries where street drugs are decriminalized and taxed to raise government revenue, drug related crime disappears, AIDS and hepatitis cases decline, hard drug addicts seek medical treatment, drug addiction wanes and drug problems are greatly and economically reduced.

The US had no marijuana, cocaine or opiate problems until the turn of the century. American prohibitionists lied and coerced the public into adopting their regressive laws in order to control Hispanic, African and Oriental immigrants by making their drugs of choice illegal, Before that, tinctures of hashish and opium were used medicinally and sold over the counter with no apparent problems and Coca Cola contained real cocaine Like with Alcohol prohibition, drug prohibitionist laws have resulted in the imprisonment and murder of thousands and the growth of a multi-billion dollar drug trade that corrupts justice and governments.

Of particular interest to the UN, America's draconian drug laws have given the US an excuse to invade other countries, destroy their crops and ecology, murder their people and contribute to the spread of weapons in the hands of third world dictators. Like alcohol prohibition gave us the Mafia, drug prohibition has given us drug Mafias as well as the private prison-industrial complex, a growing counterproductive trillion dollar War on Drugs that the US can hardly afford, a way to suspend our constitutional rights against search and seizure, to stifle dissent and to place a jack boot on the necks of the Black and Hispanic communities.

Mr. Emafo may be responding to pressure from the Bush Administration, its pharmaceutical industry's drug patent protectionists, religious fundamentalists and other conservatives. Or he may sincerely believe that marijuana use is immoral and is trying to use the language of international treaties to legislate morality and crack down on harmless marijuana users yet again. In any case, his interference on behalf of our country's authoritarian drug warriors is unwarranted and harmful to our people and to the UN.

"Some hope the two could form a dream ticket - Obama and Clinton or Clinton and Obama, depending on one's loyalties - an arrangement that would see the two most exciting candidates in years running together for the White House."

Are you kidding me? Where is this coming from? This year's race is about the most exciting candidate (singular) in years, who is waging a largely grassroots, popular movement against the machine candidate, who is fighting to preserve the political dynamic of the 90's that has all but sounded the death knell of the Democratic Party. Hillary's strongest support comes from those partisan Democrats who desperately want believe that the Republicans are the source of all evil in the world; Obama's strongest support comes from those independent-minded Democrats who are tired of the politics of demonization and blame, and who are ready to accept responsbility for our own past shortcomings (those of the Party and the nation) so that the Democratic party can be re-born as an institution that stands for principles and ideals rather than expediency and re-election.

Only an idiot would vote for a Democrat after the stunt they pulled after taking over congress in 2006. We're still in Iraq, Bush hasn't been impeached and our civil rights are still being taken away, etc., etc. And after all this, after all this deceiving, the clowns here, CommonDreams of all places, are actually debating who to vote for, Hillary or Obama, as if there were any real difference between them or between them and McCain and Huckabee.

There's only one party in America, the Corporate Party, with two wings known as Republicans and Democrats, designed specifically to create the illusion that there is a choice. For God's sakes, break out of this charade and wise up, support a Third Part candidate, or something. Anything. Stop voting Democrat or Republican.

Well maybe your right ~Riverman~, but I see on the CNN news right now, that in Washington, Obama picked up nine or maybe ten more than Hillary, so I don't know if your figures are anywhere near correct, or if the TV newscaster are correct. They also said today she was 92 ahead without counting the super delgates. Maybe you are right and they are wrong.

I still fail to understand what Edwards has to do with it? Unless the delegates he garnered are up for grabs at the convention. I understand they are.

The Democrats will continue to be divided down the middle until August convention, when there is a good chance we will be involved in some action in Iran, which will insure election for McCain. The Repubs may not even need to rely on their voting machines this time to win the Presidency.

The Republicans cannot win in November. The Democrats could put Danny Quale up for thieir candidate and whip McCain.

So far the Demo vote is almost double that of the Republicans and that trend will continue. There will be a runoff at the Demo convention and the super delegates will decide who the candidate will be. Both Obama and Hlillary will be cutting deals, selling off cabinet posistions and makng promises behind closed doors. If Hllary is selected, it will split the party wide ooen. Therfore, Hillary will be forced to have Obama as her VP runing mate.
That's how I see it. Of course I thought and hoped, John Edwards would be in first place by August.

What's the big idea giving us horserace coverage. We can get that from the corporate media.

Obama's advisors (as well as H. Clinton's) are all centrists. How is that real change?

I have an important question for the people who would have us support Obama and the Democrats, because they think it is of utmost importance to fill national offices with Democrats, and because they think Obama really might deliver on the progressive agenda:

If Clinton gets the nomination instead, should we support her then?

If no, why not? - she's a Democrat, and it seems to be top priority for you to get those Democrats elected, even if she's not your first choice for president. As you have repeatedly said, this is no time to play spoiler and indulge in ego voting for unelectable candidates. Could it be that, in the battle between being true to one's values and getting a questionable victory, that there is a cutoff point? If there is a cutoff point, why is it between Obama and Clinton? Wouldn't Clinton and a Congress full of Democrats satisfy your fundamental criterion of Democrat asses filling leather chairs? If you grant there is a cutoff point, couldn't reasonable supporters of progress then make a strong argument to you (and have been making it) that the cutoff point is actually in front of Obama?

If yes, why? - she's not Obama, and you clearly feel there is an important difference between the two candidates. Would a Clinton administration actually act on progressive values strongly enough, and is the chance of that happening good enough, that we should not throw our passions and energies elsewhere?

The logic of compromise really bites, doesn't it?

"an arrangement that would see the two most exciting candidates in years running together for the White House."

...just because this is an Aussie news outlet, that's a total crap statement. In fact, the international news usually knows better!

Kernel is probably correct; the Repugs never miss a "tried and true" trick. Of course the only reason it can work is because there is that part of the right that can be counted on to beleive whatever they are told.

That's why the Repugs don't like McCain. He won't be the sockpuppet they require. Oh sure, McCain is now trotting out all the platitudes they want to hear but if elected they better watch out because old McCain has a very deep vindictive streak.

good insight, Kernel.

The top Democrats don't even have the decency to honor the UN charter in their rhetoric toward Iran, leaving all options on the table:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dfe8gxusBUI

Both parties are pro-war, plain and simple.

Yep--all it takes is some foreign terrorist attack-a major hit against troops in Iraq might do it too.
It would go to McCain (although with Billary people might feel that with Bill there the country is more safe).

But it favors McCain. maybe bush and him made a pact--keep low until 08 and then Bush will rattle the saber in time for November.

I think if Hillary is nominated we'll see McCain as the next President. People hate her too much. If its Obama he has a better chance against McCain. I don't know if I could press the diebold computer screen for Hillary this fall if she is the nominee. I might just stay home. Her arrogance at being named the front-runner is obvious. She and Obama are very similar but on principle I do not want to see any more Clintons or Bushes on the ticket as I am sick of Americans monarchies. Like everyone else on commondreams I'd love to see Kucinich or even Edwards or Ralph in office but it ain't gonna happen. I know like everyone here knows the democrats have failed under Pelosi at being an opposition party to Bush's policies. I'd love to see Cindy Sheehan beat her in the race! I just think the democrats might be slightly better once they get in office and I'd rather have a fresh face in office. I think the rest of the world outside our borders would welcome Obama as our President but would be upset at the election of another republican. I'm just trying to be realistic here but I expect to be attacked for this post. I think we are all just backed into a corner with this decision.

Obama can beat McCain in Nov., I don't believe Hillary can. I have to say Obama seems to have captivated interested spectators from outside the U.S. I hope he has done the same with the young folks in the States. We need the young to be more engaged and anything that can aid this is a good thing. Just MHO...

This is politics. Push both horses in the race a bit to the left. Now is the only time for maybe 4 years that they have to listen to real people.

I support Barack. What I hear from people is that they don't "trust" Hillary. McCain is now worried that if this contest runs until June, Clinton and Obama will get all the media attention and he will be forgotten. We can only hope. I have heard that the reason the republicans don't like McCain is because they can't control him. I have heard that the reason the republicans don't like the internet is because they can't control it. Sounds like they are losing control. For them, it seems to be a control issue period. This is the most exciting election of my life and I am 54 year old white woman. So much for polls.

Two comments.

Someone asked above if we must support Hillary if she's nominated. Of course. Because what is at stake is the veto power, judges, the agencies, the budget, the bully pulpit, law enforcement, education philosophy, foreign relations, union issues, entitlement philosophies and a host of other things.
And Mrs. Clinton, like her or not, would not bungle very many of these things--much less all of them.

But if young primary voters select Barack and then the older lord-it-over-voters "super" delegates flip the nomination to Hillary, the young people will be (rightly) so P.O.'ed as to possibly skip out and render the general election lost. This must not be allowed to happen, and at the moment, it looks like a BIG risk. We at DC should be leading the "Hey, Hillary! Drop out!" campaign.

As for a war trick to elect McCain, nah. To much risk of total backfire for GOP.

Do the democrats really need to win this election?

I don't think that McCain or Hillary can survive beyond one term in the white house, they just p-off too many people. Besides, how much damage can McCain do with a democratic Congress in four years? The democrats have effectively neutered most of the final two years of the Bush administration, so there's no way McCain could set off on some new conservative agenda. Maybe in four years, the stupid democrats can finally get it right and nominate someone who isn't an icon of the establishment. I have a feeling that if Hillary wins this year we will get an even worse republik nazi in four years. I just don't think that Hillary is a good investment in the long run.

The republicans will beat Hillary Clinton in november as she is strictly limited to the democratic base and can never attract independent voters who have given republicans their vote in almost every election since the sixties. Bill Clinton was elected only because the right had an alternative in Ross Perot. Remember Bill Clinton won but 43 percent of the vote. This sounds like what she would get.

But if young primary voters select Barack and then the older lord-it-over-voters "super" delegates flip the nomination to Hillary, the young people will be (rightly) so P.O.'ed as to possibly skip out and render the general election lost. This must not be allowed to happen, and at the moment, it looks like a BIG risk.

This is exactly what i'm getting at by trying to draw attention to the base supporting Obama. I'm not exactly convinced by Obama either, and he is definitely to the right of Kucinich or Gravel - but I do know obvious momentum when I see it, which I trust most CDers can see as well. Y'all have to remember that anger is the flip side of hope - you want to see people get really, REALLY pissed off? Watch what happens if there's a split at or before the convention along age and race lines, which probably means class lines as well in no small part.

Things are changing quickly, and the momentum that is pushing Obama right now may very well be pushing a challenging of the system overall in no time at all (remember the early 1960s?) I'm not saying "vote for Obama," I'm saying actually listen to the motivations of people who are swinging that way on a grass-roots level. Being right isn't enough, you have to pay attention as well.

PhoenixDown,

The damage that can be done by McCain in one term is to put the wrong judges on the Supreme Court---even if he had to compromise with the Dem Senate on selections.
That damage could last 20 years or more.

It wouldn't be a "dream" ticket of Hillary /Obama JHAYES, it may be expedient and appropriate, depending upon the outcome of the Demo Convention in August.

I wonder what would happen, if Hillary is selected at the convention and chooses someone other than Obama as a running mate. The Demo party would be in a shambles,split wide open. __Self destruct 101.___ John Edwards then runs as a independant, with Bill Richardson as his running mate. Not likely to happen, but it would be very interesting. An Edwards/Nader/or Edwards/kucinich ticket would not work, for too many Republican voters would not vote for it. Many Repvulicans would vote for Edwards/Richardson though and so would most of the Democrats and independants.

No Democrat will get my vote if Congress keeps funding the war.

The conservative RepubliNazis don't like John "100 Yrs. War is Cool" McCain because of his willingness to work with Democrats in the Senate.

The Bend-over_cratic candidates O'Billarys are known for bending over or just not voting in order to demonstrate their willingness to work with Republicans in the Senate

Solution: Just combine into the Democratic-Republican Party and everybody will be happy because their will no longer be any need to compromise with the "opposition party". See, there.

Obama can pick up Republicans like nobody's business.

What are you thinking real Republicans? I guess our current President fails your test miserably as he is the worst President since all the way back to the last World War, worse than any liberal Democrat including even Carter, in growing government jobs faster than the private sector can produce them!

I'll tell you something. If I'm a conservative I'm hopping mad at Bush. I'm fed up at his wasteful spending, and his growth in federal government. And for what?? The man and everyone associated with him are a bunch of incompetents.

He has taken the Republican Party into the toilet with all his scandals. He has trampled over our civil liberties in violation of the Constitution.

He has turned a party that was against costly foreign intervention into a party of hawks. Hawks that can't even see straight as they let bin Ladin get away.

He has presided over the peaking of Fox and a bunch of prima donna pundits sell outs like O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh who demagogue the Republican Party to death every day with meanspirited, hypocritical, divisive, attack dog tripe all day long.

If I am a Republican, I am mad at Bush, Rove and crew, because all the party is left with is white, straight men with a chip on their shoulder blinding them to the reality that at this rate their numbers will shrink into a minority that will have more and more trouble keeping up at the polls.

Just look at this. If I am a Republican I know that the facts in the article below are real life real world facts that are a disgrace to the Republican Party and every single thing at the core of what they stand for.

As a Democrat, I am mad not because of the growth in government. I am mad because our President was too impotent and distracted with his frolic and detour in Iraq to grow jobs in the private sector for ordinary people. I am mad because with all the spending, of my money and yours, we haven't gotten squat from our government in return. I really would prefer that Bush stood to real conservative principles because any extra penny he spends in our government is a total waste, down the tubes on one of his contractor buddies or flushed by one of his crony hack incompetents running our various agencies.

Here's what we really need. We don't need a Democrat. We don't need a Republican. We need someone EFFECTIVE and MORAL. All the Republican candidates are lost. Lost to reality. They are too busy making up stories about how their legacy of power since their grandiose contract with America is somehow something other than a complete and total flop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09charts.html?sq=jobs&st=nyt&scp=7&pagewanted=print

"February 9, 2008
Off the Charts
Job Growth Where Bush Didn't Want It
By FLOYD NORRIS

IT is not exactly a distinction that he had in mind, but seven years into his presidency, George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World War II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector.

That is not because federal government jobs have risen at an unusually rapid rate over the last seven years — although the increase did reverse a substantial decline under Mr. Bush's most recent predecessor, Bill Clinton.

Instead, it is because job gains in the private sector were modest even after the economy recovered from the 2001 recession. In 2005, private sector employment rose 2 percent, the best annual growth rate during the Bush administration, but the rate fell to 1.4 percent in 2006 and 0.7 percent in 2007. In contrast, in six of the eight Clinton years growth was above 2 percent.

With the economy clearly slowing as the final year of Mr. Bush's presidency begins, it is possible that the overall rate of growth in private sector employment for his presidency, now at 0.53 percent per year, could fall below the 0.41 percent rate of his father's administration, which had been the lowest of any president since World War II."

Re: Daniel David February 9th, 2008 2:14 pm:

So, taking it further, if the other leading Democratic contender weren't Hillary Clinton, but rather Bill Clinton (in a non-term-limit world), or Lieberman let's say - whoever, however lukewarm, as long as they called themselves a Democrat for the election - progressives would be obligated to vote for them, because if elected they would be able to call the shots on many things as a "Democratic" official?

What's your limit here, Daniel.

Can you seriously support the contention that Hillary Clinton would govern wisely and well wrt "veto power, judges, the agencies, the budget, the bully pulpit, law enforcement, education philosophy, foreign relations, union issues, entitlement philosophies and a host of other things", well enough that progressives should support her in the general election just as they would support Obama in the general election?

Do you see where the logic leads to?

Kem Patrick: "The Republicans cannot win in November. The Democrats could put Danny Quale up for their candidate and whip McCain."

That's what they said in 2000, and again in 2004. How well I remember in 2004: "The Democrats could pick a name out of the phone book and beat Bush."

The big three tactics: smear machine, hype terror threat, and game the voting ... they worked the past two times against all certainty that the Democrats couldn't lose.

McCain as the Republican nominee is a surprise--he has publicly attacked Cheney and Rumsfeld in the past, and much of the conservative base such as the loathsome Rush Limbaugh can't stand him. Furthermore, he approached Kerry in 2004 seeking to be the VP candidate on the *Democratic* ticket! And--he says he will end torture (and isn't that a signature Republican issue--defend Bush's use of torture?). How did loose cannon McCain end up the frontrunner this time? Have the oligarchs lost control of their own party, or what?

Possibilities: (a) the Republicans will use McCain just long enough to get elected, then discard him (he is 73, could have an accident...); (b) McCain will be president with everyone else who counts (VP, cabinet) being the same people of the present White House (McCain cuts a deal in exchange for support); (c) if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, they let her win this one (by not backing McCain) business as usual with defense lobbyists, proceed with war of choice on Iran, continue Presidentially approved torture, etc. (d) McCain still may not get the Republican nomination? (e) if its Obama versus McCain, Obama will be difficult to smear (the sincere, earnest Obama is too well liked across all sectors of America even by those not voting for him; sympathy bounce in Obama's favor), and Obama is headed to win big drawing votes from all grassroots sectors of America other than the hard right; Obama gets taken out. (f) against all appearances and fears America is still a semi-democracy and people power matters. Obama wins the Democratic nomination and the Presidency, and an Obama presidency will, after all, represent positive and real change toward a better America.

The above list of alternatives isn't exhaustive (e.g. Obama becomes president but there is no change, etc.), but these are the short list of possibilities I see.

Obama is a Tsunami. In the last two months he has gone from 20 points down to even. There is no reason to believe this trend will not continue and by the convention he may lead Clinton by 20 points. If the Clintonistas steal the nomination from him with superdelegates, or pulling some shenanigans with the Florida and Michigan delegations they will unleash all hell. The 2008 convention will make the one in 1968 look like a Sunday school picnic.

To: yohocoma

You asked
"If Clinton gets the nomination instead, should we support her then?"

I supported Kucinich, then Edwards, now Obama. But, if Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her. I am afraid of Republicans. Senator McCain has promised that he would appoint "activist judges". We already have several of those.

The status of women in this country is already going down. For example, right now a woman earns 73 cents for every dollar a man earns.

I am 71 and remember how bad it was for working women. I went to work at 16, got a good education by hard work (plus low tuition) and, until the last 10 years of my working life, made substantially less than a man. I also encountered a lot of discrimination in the work place and even in education. Back then, women were not supposed to be in science. Science and medicine were fields for men.

I will support any Democrat against any Republican. It seems to me that Republicans see women only as wives and mothers. That doesn't take into account all of the women that have to work.

Tom Joad February 9th, 2008 3:15 pm

You mean the same kind of unleashed fury from hell we saw when the Bend-over_cratic candidate Al Gore got screwed in Florida in 2000 and the Bend-over_cratic candidate John Kerry got hosed in Ohio in 2004? Is that what you are talking about?

I am sure the kind of fury Bend-over_crats can whip up has the RepubliNazi trembling in their jack boots.

tailcap, in this election cycle the young people are much more involved. Anyone who remembers the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago remembers the fury unleased by the young people and the Chicago Police Department. I only hope that this generation of young people is as brave as that generation of young people were. God help them, they are going to need to be to survive in this world.

You want a dream team? how interesting would it be if Obama reached across the aisle for his runing mate? Obama/Paul?

Seems like Obama's time has come and clinton's time has passed. Thank God.