Mirf59, that's what some of the Talking Heads were saying over the weekend and Dean himself hinted that he would step in to avoid a brokered convention. Democracy is supposed to be messy and I don't know what the big deal would be if the Dems had a brokered convention, except that the Big Media likes everything in neat Wonder bread slices with the crust cut off; easier for them to chew on with their toothless corporate analysis.

Dmgreenaz, I hope we get there some day -- run the Big Money Boys out of politics, and stop the BM from lining their pockets by airing political commercials that tell us nothing and sometimes do us harm. Maybe Obama will be a step in that direction.

RSJ,

Interesting idea about Howard Dean. Is it his job to rally the superdelegates behind the candidate of the people in the interests of Party unity? Sounds great if it's true. Thank God we've got Dean in that role and not some corporatist wonk like his predecessor.

Zxvtrp: "...[L]ets get some honest Third Party Candidates that will give the anxious voter a real choice, someone that will instill confidence in our vote."

Zxvtrp, you find her or him and if he or she has a viable chance of winning in November, you've got my vote. In the meantime, Obama is the most progressive candidate in the race, and has a good chance of winning.

Ti, I took one of those online things too; I think I ended up with Edwards, Obama, Paul and Clinton. BTW, Obama has promised to get us out of Iraq within 16 months, and to close down all permanent US bases there. Hillary has also promised to get out of Iraq, but she's vague about exactly when, although she said she'd start withdrawing troops in the first six months of her presidency. Of course, she could replace those withdrawn forces with fresh troops, but I'll try not to be so cynical.

Allyourbasearebelongtous: "yeah well newbie obama just better win the freakin' election if he does get the nomination or i'm going to be really pissed. and if he does win the election he better do a better job than newbie bush did or i'm going to be pissed."

Allyourbasearebelongtous, did you see Obama on '60 Minutes' last night? He was intelligent, articulate, clear and he didn't giggle. He is about as far from President Bungle as you can get. I have no doubt he'll do a great job as president and restore our lost standing in the world.

As to the second part of your comment, we've come a long way from that racist claptrap -- sure, there will be the Good Ol' Boys who will never vote for anyone with dark skin, but they are a small and dwindling minority. I don't think race nor gender will ultimately be much of an issue in this election as it would have been twenty years ago. I heard in the '50s a Catholic could never be elected, then there was JFK; I heard in the '60s that Richard Nixon was finished and would never return to politics after being defeated by JFK, and then he was elected in 1968; I heard in the '70s that a right-wing divorced actor from Hollywood could never get elected, and then Reagan happened; I heard in the '80s that a black man would never be mayor of a racist city like Chicago, and then Harold Washington was elected; I heard in the '90s that a redneck from Arkansas could never beat the Bush Machine, and then there was Bill Clinton; now you tell me that a black man can't get elected. All I can say is look at history; times have changed.

Tailcap, FDR made a difference in 1932; Reagan made a difference in 1980 and Bush Junior has certainly made a difference in the last 8 years. Yep, I think Obama will embolden some Dems to do the right thing if he's elected. If you want to check his record, go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues

And don't be too sure that another terrorist attack will be good for the GOP -- why should anyone trust them to screw up again? It won't be like 9/11, that was a one-time event -- if it happens again, I think most Americans will want to know why the 'tough on terrorists' Republicans were asleep at the switch. Don't buy the Media Urban Myth that the GOP is better on fighting terrorism -- that theme is outdated.

Conscience, Obama has promised complete health care for anyone who wants it, and he wants to move toward single payer, but that will take some time.

Read his position on global warming; it's at his website and I posted the link above.

Obama has promised to restore habeas corpus, and that's a good start. If he came out and said he was going to start throwing half the GOP in jail, he'd be marginalized and treated like a nut by the Big Media, just like Kucinich; you know that and I know that. But don't be too sure he won't hold them responsible down the road, especially with a new Attorney General running Justice -- we might have all kinds of Special Prosecutors popping up.

Riverman101: "the TIE vote in new mexico with the state with the BIGGEST percent of latinos shows something incorrect with the calif vote and some more.."

Riverman, the CA vote could be the result of chicanery -- I'd never trust Schwarzenegger -- or just that Californians were allowed to vote very early in January, when Hillary was ahead by thirty points and looked to be the inevitable winner. In the states where there was no early primary voting, Obama has been winning; he's also won every caucus by pretty large margins.

I think Dean will force the early Superdelegates for Hillary to switch to Obama in the name of party unity, if he continues to stir excitement, bring in young voters and independents, and win states. Voters who vote their first time for a party tend to stick with that party for life, so it's a matter of long-term Dem success.

Tailcap, Obama doesn't take PAC or lobbyist money and most of his campaign contributions are under a hundred dollars. Meanwhile, Hillary has been scooping up all the corporate and lobbyist cash she can find, even taking money from Rupert Murdoch. There is a difference; Obama will owe less to the corporate and Wall Street elite if he is elected.

Rtdrury: "Could we have all the shrinks in America stand up and volunteer to talk to these people who claim to stand for progress but who can't bring themselves to write in third party progressives because they are afraid to be labeled LOSERS???"

That's not the reason, Rtdrury, although I would like to vote for a winner for a change. We need someone not Republican in the presidency this year or we might very well lose the whole damn country -- we're that close. And we need to change our standing in the world to insure our future. Obama is our best chance to do that, by my lights. Besides, do you seriously think any third party candidate has a chance of winning this year, or even affecting the outcome of the election? At least, under Obama, he'll listen to a Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney -- you can bet none of the other top candidates will. And, BTW, I am voting my principles -- Obama has a progressive record, even if I don't agree with him on every detail. To reiterate: If you have a candidate who agrees with me on everything and has a chance of getting elected, tell me who it is and I'll vote for them.

Kem, I can only say what I heard on TV over the weekend; one plan is that the Dems would seat delegates from both Florida and Michigan, but the rules would be that the delegates would be spilt according to the total national vote, which at the moment slightly favors Obama. I agree with you -- I can't imagine the DNC taking a chance of offending voters in MI or FL, especially union auto workers up north, and the retirees down south -- it would be suicide in November.

There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.

Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.

Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html

Well, I was disappointed when Kucinich dropped out. I didn't even have a chance to vote for him. I had to make a hard choice between Hillary and Obama. I went Obama, because I am sick of the Monarchy and the Elitist attitude. I think if Hillary is on the ticket, my vote will go third party. I never voted for a Clinton, and I won't start now.

"they changed the rules to not count them"

That's different from changing the rules now that the campaign is in full swing. Are you a Hillary/Democratic establishment apologist? (you sound like one)

Well ~Cicero~, they changed the rules to not count them. I cannot imagine the party would allow any states votes to go uncounted when push comes to shove. __ We'll see. __ If they are counted, it won't be Hillary's or Obama's fault.

I can't imagine allowing Michigan and Florida to use their delegates at this point. This would amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. If Hillary wins with that kind of trickery, a loss in November would be guaranteed...and deserved.

The party WILL be divided if Obama has the most votes and the super delgates nominate Hillary MEGARONIN. In fact divided may be a tame word to use, shattered may be more appropriate.

Ummmmmmmm, ~Riverman~ I do believe you are mistaken about Mich and Fla. They already have voted, but because they held their elections prior to Super Tuesday, the Democratic leaders ruled their votes wold not count at their convention. Hillary took the majority of the votes in Mich and Fla. I'm not sure what happens to the votes Kucinich and Edwards recieved.

That ruling can change and there is a lot of presure on the Dean and the other Democrat party leaders, to have those two states votes counted. If they are, Hillary will pick up lots of votes, enough to put her ahead of Obama. So it is not over til the last turd is flung.

I dont see why being excited in two different candidates necessarily means the democratic party is divided. Its not like they are as divided as the Republicans over Bush W.

I think people are just generally excited, as they should be, about two really awesome candidates. To suppose that all this excitement and enthusiasm will ultimately have some sort of terrible outcome is entirely insane and the sort of defeatist attitude that both candidates, and other candidates of the Democratic party such as Edwards have been working so well at avoiding.

The attitude that what is happening now is somehow dividing the Democratic party is a MEDIA FARCE and it is the exact opposite attitude, an attitude of enthusiasm which is the result of what we are seeing in the primaries today.

I'm not afraid to be labeled a loser by another voter ~RTDRURY~, and I don't need psyco therapy to determine whom I wish to vote for.

During my lifetme, I've voted for the loser more often than the winner and I've twice voted for the winner and they both lost anyway. I'd vote for a good third pary candidate in a flash, if there was a glimmer of any possible hope they would win.

I have never voted with the presumpton, that I was voting for the best of the worst. Never! I ALWAYS vote for the one I believe will be the BEST choice, knowing they always were far from perfect___ as were, I may add, any other candidates who were running as an independant.

I don't allow others opinions to bother me when I cast my vote, that's my business, my free will, my right and my opinion. I am not afraid to express my opinons and don't fear being labeled a "loser" if my choice loses.

Until the day comes, if ever, when our elected in Washington DC are limited to no more than eight year in office, have a set amount of money allowed to campaign, and no TV ads allowed, and Congress have no better health care and retirement benefits than the least of us. Until lobbying is outlawed entirely, and the elected must stay in session for at least 44 weeks of the year, until that all happens, we will never have a true Democracy, or a viable third party president. If that ever happens, the two party system will evaporate and our Constitution and Bill of rights will always be adheared to.

Does anyone have an opinion if the Michigan and Florida votes will be counted at the Demo convention? If they are, Hillary will be the nominee. Because of the fact that Hillary did show up in Florida to campaign just prior to the primary, the party leaders may not allow the Fla votes. They may not allow either state and they may allow both for many political reasons.

My opinion is Mich and Fla will be allowed to vote at the convention. The issue will not likely end up in court, for the Supreme Court has already previously ruled, that political parties may make their own rules and any court challenges would be a moot issue.

This is NOT over, contrary to what our well informed blogger RIVERMAN states. He is right about the current count, I was incorrect. Personally, I do believe there are some vast differences between Hillary and Obama on some issues and Huge differences between both of them and McCain on every issue.

I do see a very possible blood bath split of the Democrats, if Hillary is the nominee, unless she has garnered more delegates than Obama, without the Mich or Fla votes and without counting the super delegate votes. We'll know after the Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania votes are in. Until then, it's still a near tie and a fight to the finish line. Right now Obama has the momentum and three more states he will win the most delegates. Hillary has James Carvel and the real possibility of the Mich and Fla votes.
Interesting.

Could we have all the shrinks in America stand up and volunteer to talk to these people who claim to stand for progress but who can't bring themselves to write in third party progressives because they are afraid to be labeled LOSERS???

Teach these people that the fear of being labeled is the RING IN THEIR NOSE allowing them to be LED AROUND LIKE A BEAST OF BURDEN. Do you want to be someone else's beast of burden? I don't think so. VOTE YOUR PRINCIPLES, people.

And if you can't bring yourself to vote your principles then please stay home and don't vote, and also please stay home and don't work because when you work for your capitalist master, you're helping to destroy this society, and the planet.

Will the superdelegates be as selfish and smug as Hillary? Voting based on the distribution of fanatical muslims money going to Clintons and ignoring the voters? I thought Democrats were responsible to the needs of the downtrodden, poor and oppressed. These are the people who are voting for Obama. Republicans are starting to vote for Obama because Bush so obvioulsy used his presidence for wealth of his family and the Cheneys aka Halleburton. We saw them lead young Americans to slaughter to appease the muslim sense of killing infidels for the sake f getting to paradise.
People now see Clintons as the same as Bush, with a more heinous and evil side- She will continue to slaughter American troops for Dubai and imprison the rest of us for not giving up our meager wages to appease her medical/ pharmaceutical industry supporters. According to the entitled one, Billary Clinton, we either die in Arabia or we die in prison for the sake of the new royalty- The medical/ pharmaceutical industry, many of whom are from where? Oh that's right Arabia.
Obama seems to be willing to take the Presidential office without allegiance to Arabic oil and money and he is talking about limiting or minimizing fees of the medical/ pharmaceutical industry.
SUPERDELEGATE HYPOCRITES- ITS YOUR TURN TO DO THE SAME- REPRESENT THE AMERICAN VOTER AND STOP PANDERING TO ARABIC MONEY AND OIL!!! BACK OBAMA, IGNORE THE EVIL UNCONSCIENCE EMPIRE OF THE CLINTON RIGHT. Here's an idea you can be proud of- Take Billary's money, invest it in alternative energy, save the environment and vote for Obama. You will be responsive to the voters and environmetal heroes.
Always remember what experience did for Germany from 1933 to 1945,France during Napoleon, Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Czarism and Communism, any African country and finally, etc.,America from 2001 until January 2009. The Clintons are experienced just like these dictators were. Americans will pay dearly for it if she pays the superdelegates to go against the American voters.

Knock yourselves out, sonambulists. This is a fucking farce.

http://www.youtube.com/v/kJ4SSvVbhLw&rel=1

Another round of Dweedledistic Debates that evade the fact that both are establishment candidates as evidenced by their financiers pouring millions into their campaigns. If either were a threat to the status quo they would have met with same fate as Kucinch. These are the best candidates money can buy.

Agree that the way the campaigns are run to "lock in" delegates doesn't serve us well in the end.

NEITHER Hillary nor Obama is going to give America single-payer health care. That's why they have been pushed by
corporate-media.

NEITHER will do what's necessary reGlobal Warming;
that's why they have been pushed by corporate-media.

NEITHER will push for criminal investigations of these
past years of political violence, stolen elections,
and distorted use of government agencies, including the DOJ.

NEITHER will hold this administration responsible for the
"illegal" war on Iraq -- with 2 million Iraqi civilians dead -- and our government's involvement in TORTURE.

That said, they have now stuck us with two lemons ---
if we want to make lemonade of this, it would be wise
to run them BOTH on the same ticket.

RIVERMAN101...
QUOTE: and what is being pro choice really about.. its about the powerful robbing the weaks lives…. not a democrat principle AT ALL of helping the weak not be harmed by the powerful….UNQUOTE

Since you threw this in, rather being "pro-choice" is giving
women and their families the decision rather than the government. As for the "weak" ... please reflect on patriarchy, its violence and its destruction, especially in regard to females. NATURE gave females dozens of ways to produce effective birth control, to limit conception, to interrupt conception and to bring around miscarriage or abortion thru the use of natural plants. All or most of
this information and plant material have been destroyed by
patriarchy. In fact, RU486 is based on one of those plant
chemicals.

There can only be so many ducks on a pond --
so many birds in the sky ---

Overpopulation is a taboo subject in America though it
should be a primary subject. Patriarchy/Corporate
violence and destruction have brought us now to Global
Warming's threat to our own species and the planet.

Just in: Bend-over_crats cave in on the "Stimulus Package" and vote overwhelming to approve the White House version of the bill after they failed to overcome a fillibuster against the Democratic version. It passed by a vote of 81 to 16 in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The House voted by 380-34 for the Senate version and sent the measure to the White House for Bush's signature.

Have you noticed that even when RepubliNazis are in the minority they still get their way because invariable the craven Bend-over_crats crumble and appease. Check out this link if you want to read about it:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/stim-f09.shtml

TRUTH: The Republican machine wants Hillary to get the nomination because a Demo win is assured. Hillary Clinton in the White House only 4 years, won't bring that much change; change that can't be undone as the Republican Machine gets running again for another 8 years or more -- that's all they need to really unhinge our country and Our Constitution. Hillary Clinton is so ambitious that she can't see what's really going on, and will fight like Lady Macbeth for what she sees is her destiny as the first Woman President, hang the future of this country.
A vote for Barack Obama is real change that will improve life for us all, rich and poor alike. He is assured an 8 year run, and by that time, this country will have healed sufficiently enough to elect another great president, man or woman. Vote this time for a united, United States; there is no other good alternative; the stakes are too high!

We've already seen "The Media" predict one thing and have the actual results be entirely the opposite. Was it Hillary's tears, or was The Media just plain wrong? Vote for who you believe in and forget the strategic thinking.

This process of giving candidates lots of money so they can, in turn, give lots of money to the Media is a mess. Use PBS to provide free time and outlaw all the signs, commercials, and other items whose cost makes candidates beholding to corporate contributors.

What a stupid electoral system. Instead of electing a president by popular vote, like humans are doing in other countries, they have some 700 super delegates (super chaperons) cutting deals (!) to elect for us who to vote for. It's degusting.

allyourbase: All the Republicans have to do to take the election is allow a real or domestic terrorist attack on our country. The scared voters will vote McCain because they will believe he will protect us! I don't put anything out of order with those weasels Bush, Cheney and Rove.

Democrats are Milquetoast. What is it allyourbasearebelongtous that the Bend-over_crats have done over the last 8 years- [of caving in to everything the RepubliNazis wanted including stealing elections, illegally spying on Americans, invading and occupying other nations illegally, torturing prisoners and enriching their cronies like Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater to name just a few]- that would make you delusional enough to think that electing Obama will make a difference?

What has he done as a Senator, I specifically am referring to his record not his rhetoric, that gives you such hope? I hear him claim to be against the war but has nothing but vote to fund it.

Can one of you hopeful Democrats please make a list of the of the accomplishments of the Democrats in the last 8 years starting with the most important and post it please. That just just take you a few of seconds. Then make a list of all the wonderful accomplishments of Sen. Obama in the senate, that should take even less time.

Time to Dump the Dims, they are toast. Progressives need to start looking at 3rd parties.

yeah well newbie obama just better win the freakin' election if he does get the nomination or i'm going to be really pissed. and if he does win the election he better do a better job than newbie bush did or i'm going to be pissed. i'm not just tired of radical rightwing politics. also i'm tired of presidents who need remedial training in dealing with national problems when they get in office.

if obama wins the nomination, mccain will hit him with the experience issue and it will ring even more true with mccain than with clinton. also there will be the racist underground whispering campaign about a black man leading the country. and no we really haven't gotten past the racist crap yet in this country. no more jim crow laws does not equal no racism.

i just want a democrat in the presidency and i want that democrat to be effective in cleaning up the mess left by the bush presidency and the gop congressional leadership which gave bush a blank check when they were in the majority and is obstructing democratic cleanup efforts now that they (the gop) are in the minority.

the lesson from this is that if the democrats do not win the presidency, they do to the gop what the gop is doing now that they are in the congressional minority -- no cooperation at all.

but most importantly if the democrats don't win the presidency, we need to really organize to start doing something about dealing with climate change in a mass movement kind of way. maybe through move on for example. if we have to wait 8 more years before we do anything about that as a government, we will be well on our way to being toast.

RSJ, I took some kind of online quiz thing somewhere, where you were supposed to fill out a questionnaire about your own political viewpoints and you would then be matched up with the candidates whose ideas were closest to your own. You were given three candidates in order.

The first two didn't surprise me at all. Number one was Kucinich and number two was Gravel. The third surprised the heck out of me, though. I was kind of expecting Edwards or maybe Obama, but it was McCain.

I could never vote for McCain because he wants to stay in Iraq for a million years, but this seems kind of telling to me. What it looks to me like what a lot of the candidates are doing is trying to appeal to the left by offering them things they want, EXCEPT for getting out of Iraq: "We'll give you SOME health care reform, we'll try to do SOMETHING about employment, we'll try to do SOMETHING about the environment, but there's no way we're going to get out of Iraq. Take it or leave it, gang. It's the best you're gonna get."

This election cycle is probably the best time that a Third Party my have a good chance to send a message to Washington. Over 1/2 the Republicans are dissatisfied with McCain and the Democrat Party is split down the middle. As for me I don't care for any of the top 4. Instead of voting the lesser of two evils, lets get some honest Third Party Candidates that will give the anxious voter a real choice, someone that will instill confidence in our vote.

Scroller, if that story on MyDD is true, I stand corrected, but remember the source is John Kerry, who has been known to stretch the truth in the past. Not only did he promise to "fight for every vote" and then cave like angel hair pasta when the time came to fight, he also told Mark Crispin Miller that he knew the Ohio vote had been stolen and then later had his staff deny he had said it. From a Buzzflash interview with Miller:

BUZZFLASH: "That's the story with John Kerry, for example. He told you privately, and has told others privately, that he believes the race was stolen, then lets his staff deny he ever said so. He likewise told a Democratic gathering that Bush should be impeached, and then his office took it back. It isn't leadership to make such statements privately and then deny them publicly."
-- "Interview: Mark Crispin Miller Part 2," Buzzflash, Feb. 9, 2006.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/02/int06005.html

So, I take anything that Kerry says with a large shaker full of salt. But I agree with your analysis of Obama and Hillary.

Militantliberal wrote: "I'm concerned that working class and less well-educated Democratic voters are preferring Clinton to Obama while better educated are going for Obama, whereas I don't see either as very useful to common folks. Are those working-class voters seeing something good in Clinton we well-informed sophisticates are missing? Or is it just name recognition and Bill's popularity?"

I think much of it is the Clinton name, but I meet plenty of blue-collar folks who like Obama -- I think the 'only Dem elites support Obama' thing is another Media Urban Legend, probably gleaned from old polls that were conducted when Clinton was the only name that registered. Obama certainly has done well in Kansas and Nebraska, definitely not bastions of highly-educated, Volvo-driving, latte-sipping liberals. Aside from that, think about it -- how many Americans go to college these days, even working class kids?

Chunga, your bookie may be right -- she's the corporate candidate and, if you read the story at the Buzzflash link I provided, Bush's HAVA Act voting machines with proprietary codes and no paper trail is still in effect in much of the country.

In New Hampshire, Obama beat Hillary in those areas that had paper ballots, about 20 percent of the vote; in the parts that used Diebold machines, including college towns where Obama was strong, Hillary somehow won. An Italian newspaper said Obama actually won, and Ron Paul came in second on the GOP side. Kucinich filed a suit to recheck the vote, but I understand he's run out of money to pursue it, so we'll likely never know who really won the primary in NH.

CanadatoImperium, yes, Obama has no substance -- I understand he weighs less than a tassel on a K Street lobbyist's loafer, so there is absolutely no reason to take the time to read his positions on the issues. barackobama.com/issues/

Learnfromthepast wrote: "Hillary is looking better each day."

Learnfromthepast, you should live up to your screen name -- have you checked Hillary's record on AIPAC issues? For God's sake, she signed on to that Kyl-Lieberman monstrosity that Bush can use to start a war with Iran.

Kem: "1. Our Neo-con press and media favor him. Why?"

One possibility: he's the flavor of the month; another, the GOP probably thinks he'd be easier to beat than Hillary, since they're closet racists and think every other white person is as well.

But the third, and most likely by my lights, is that this is a typical Rovian tactic. Nixon once cynically said, "I'll be for or against the man, whatever will do the most good," and Karl Rove learned at Tricky Dick's knee. The right-wingers go soft on Obama so that the Dems wonder what is wrong with him and vote for Hillary, so the GOP gets the candidate they really want to run against. Yep, it's Machiavellian.

Kem: "2. John Edwards has not endorsed Obama. If Edwards did not believe Hillary was ANY good, he would have."

As good as he may be, Edwards is a politician and may be trying to make the best deal for himself with both candidates, and he may have waited too long. I think the likelihood he'll run as an independent is zero and nil. He wants to run again in the Dem party -- for something.

Peaceistruth, there are a couple of differences between Obama and Hillary that are important to me: He has vowed to close Gitmo and stop torture, restore habeas corpus, as well as end the Iraq War and withdraw the troops within 16 months. He said he will also close all US permanent bases in Iraq. Hillary has said she will end the Iraq War, but not exactly when, and I haven't heard her directly address any of these other issues with anything other than vague platitudes.

Claudius, don't despair: The writer's strike is over, so the new episodes of "Gray's Anatomy" and "Ugly Betty" will be on the air soon. ;)

Ticonderoga: "Why do conservatives do so much better at getting together for their cause than progressives do for theirs?"

Jebas, Ti, have you been reading the reaction of the GOP far right-wing to McCain? They hate him.

Genaman, don"t you think Hillary would have dug up the 'Swift Boat bomb' by now on Obama if there was one?

i'm supporting obama..........but i still think hilliary will get the nomination.......but let's be truthful.....obama sure made it hard for her to get the nomination....bill and hilliary thought it would be easy......remember she was WAY AHEAD ONLY 3 MONTHS OR SO AGO...HILLIARY THINKS SHE IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESIDENCY

Hubby Bill had the perceived identity of Southern Governor; educated gentry but Washington outsider... so he won. No non-Southern Dem has held office since JFK.

When, oh when, will the ethnocentric classists of the DNC get their heads out of their asses?

Clinton has the electability of Hubert Humphrey, get it? The list of DNC backed losers from the past fifty years, reads like a Biblical "Begats" list of WASPs. Hillary has the mantle of Washington Insider, Eastern Seaboard, establishment "liberal." She is hated by many even in her own party for supporting the War and Bush, even in recent weeks with the Iranian issue.

Even if she won, do you think her megapharm and war profiteering supporters are going to let her get away scott free?

We've been trotting out these losers for decades. Although he's far from ideal, Obama is persuasive across a greater demographic that we NEED for certain victory.

Although, it IS interesting, that when the future of the whole world is on the line, the DNC thinks it's a good idea to support a woman and a person of color. Take that anyway you want.

IF, the popular and delegate count give Obama the lead, but not sufficient for the nomination; then the "super delegates" decide the matter by voting for Clinton... THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY.

You can blame disillusioned young people or progressive Democrats or whatever you like for Clinton's defeat in November. You can weep and wail and gnash your teeth.

But the ONLY fault will lie directly on the shoulders of the DNC and their Corporate paymasters. No one else. They deserve NO LOYALTY.

Cynthia McKinney looks better every day. I ain't kiddin'.

How so many people can be fooled by the same Tactics Bush used in 2000 is beyond me? Have we all forgot Bush and he is such a likable guy. Said no wars or nation building for him.
Sure he would sign the Kyota treaty.

And here we go again Obama using the same tactics.
Only he will lose Big time The Republicans are chompin at the bits to get their Swiftboaters after him.
And all Obama's supporters will say HOW Why Did We ever support someone I reallty did not know.
Then children all will be right with the conservative world. They will finish up destroying our Earth and enslaving the masses in indebtiveness. And The Deemocratic Party will ,only be a footnote in the history books.

Hey People you will be there so Applaude yourself

I find it amusing after reading all these posts that the same people who have consistently expressed ( legitimately)distrust the MSM are now using them as sources for the delegate count. These numbers are all over the map and frankly I would simply take a wait and see attitude. Just assume that whatever numbers they are reporting they have an agenda, or they haven't done any real research on their own and are taking the figures from campaign sources. They are frickin lazy, my friends!

I have become so sensitive to the propaganda element in MSM and for me that is NPR because I do not watch TV, that I have to periodically turn it off in disgust. I cannot believe the kinds of unsubstantiated statements they make and the sweeping generalities that never are backed up by any sort of date. It is a sick joke. I have watched the gradual demise of one of the last bastions of "quality" journalism in the last few years.Apart from Pacifica Radio, there is just nothing except the Internet.

Just do your own homework folks. MSM cannot be trusted for anything but the weather and Mother Nature fools them most of the time on that one, as well.

Why is McCain way in the lead for the Republicans, and Obama and Hillary just about tied for the Democrats? Why is there so much bickering between the progressives on this site? Why do conservatives do so much better at getting together for their cause than progressives do for theirs?

Is it because the conservatives cause is war, which any one of their leaders will happily give them (McCain the warrior, et al), while progressives hate war, but there's no one out there to give them no-war, except candidates like Kucinich or Nader, neither of which progressives will vote for.

I think there's only one answer, and it's not a quick fix. Progressives need to get together and vote for who will really give them no-war, without worrying if that person can win or if that person belongs to the Democratic party. What will probably happen if progressives do this is that the Republicans will win again, but if progressives do this long enough the Democrats will realize that they'd better give those pesky progressives a no-war candidate if they ever want to get elected for dogcatcher again.

Yeah, I know: folks will argue that it's too important to beat the Republicans to vote for a Kucinich or a Gravel or a Nader or a Green Party candidate, but what difference does it really make if you don't dare do that? All we get is endless bickering over whose prediction as to which of the lesser of two evils gets in is right. And whether the Repubs or Dems are the same or not. If they weren't the same, everyone on this site would be happily agreeing with each other as to who to vote for, and happily anticipating a Dem victory, but no one is (at least not that I can tell).

There's no real happy excitement here, like there would be if we really had someone to get happily excited about. And as long as we keep on fighting over which of the lesser of two evil candidates we should vote for so we can keep the greater of two evil parties out of the White House, that's the way it's going to be.

kem, there's a map and delegate count over at the nyt's i direct you there not because of the delegate count but because of the list of upcoming contests maine, the potomic primary (DC, VA, MD) and WI. all of these contests are projected to go obama, which will clearly push him over the top (i agree w/ riverman's #'s but the super-delegates at this point do matter) i hesitate to see this contest as anything but a dead heat at this point. up to this moment obama has fared considerably better than clinton in smaller states. w/ significant wins in WI,MD,VA and DC obama can balance wins by clinton in more conservative states in coming weeks(like TX and OH) although to this point obama wins in urban areas clinton in more rural areas, so ohio and texas could split their votes more evenly (like 54/46) which still means obama is in the race and it goes to the convention. this is what dean wants to prevent. this is what the clintons fear, the people demanding they step out of they way for generational change. it would be meaningful if gore, clinton and edwards (along w/ kennedy) all campaigned aggressively in TX and OH for the soul of the dem party, for that is what is at stake, edwards especially. the very premise of this government (the declaration) was a renunciation of monarchy/dynastic rule. i'm certain gore, clinton and edwards know this............we don't elect presidents for 3rd terms in the US, remember.

delegate count..

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

map of primary/caucus wins - point spread....

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html

please donate to kucinich and sheehan...
see you on the streets of denver.........peace..............

Hillary Clinton would add nothing except gender balance to a ticket with Obama. She's the most divisive figure in the Democratic party and sure to create more of the partisan bickering, triangulation, hardball politics and gridlock we've seen for the past 15 years. She's an unabashed hawk. Her long and lucrative service on the Wal-Mart board belies her alleged sympathy for working people--the company offers low pay and no benefits to most employees, outsources American jobs to China, busts unions and uses predatory business practices to drive local competitors out of business. Except in speeches, she is definitely not progressive. She promises universal health care, but we've heard that from her before, and she screwed it up with her high-handed, arrogant ways. It would be great to have a woman in the White House, and Obama should seriously consider a female running mate, but not Hillary.

My brother thinks FOX news is gospel and he says he can live with Obama as president but not with Hillary. With Obama there's a chance (albeit a small one) that this country can become one again. If Hillary is elected, it'll just stay as divided as it is now.

I have a sad feeling that Obama is just a better liar than Hillary

The two things, other than his actual voting record that bother me the most about Obama are.

1. Our Neo-con press and media favor him. Why?

2. John Edwards has not endorsed Obama. If Edwards did not believe Hillary was ANY good, he would have.

He didn't endorse Hillary either, but that would be a bad political move if she wants John Edwards to be the Attorney General.

Thanks for the Obama letter USAn.
Everyone knows the big money in our politics is pro-Israel and there are few politicians that do not shake in terror when the AIPAC crowd calls to demand their allegiance or else.
Of course this letter can be just a strategic effort by Obama to help himself with AIPAC neo-con campaign donations. Only time will tell. But I noticed that ever since Leiberman has been showing up with McCain, you hear McCain spouting off about the Islamofascist terrorists - maybe he will be the Republican conservative VP :-)
Hillary is looking better each day

So the liberal Toronto Star had an article today and after reiterating Obama's puffery said the guy has no "substance". Can anyone prove otherwise??
Perhaps the dream ticket is McCain and Rice (a real Black, a woman and white vet all wrapped in one flag!)

yohocoma February 9th, 2008 2:54 pm
snip/What's your limit here, Daniel./snip

snip/Do you see where the logic leads to?/snip

Dembots do not use logic.

palmeres February 9th, 2008 6:31 pm:
"Perhaps that would explain confusing the presidential election with a chance to make deep and substantial change. Deep and substantial change comes through local organizing and day to day work, not one presidential election cycle"

Palmers has it right. all this presidential election hullabaloo is a distraction. Put your energy into working on changing what you can close to home, where you can connect with your neighbors on things that effect your daily life. The next president will be selected for you anyway. Hillary Clinton will be at least as good or bad as her husband was, and that was marginally better than w.

militantliberal
you said "I'm concerned that working class and less well-educated Democratic voters are preferring Clinton to Obama while better educated are going for Obama, whereas I don't see either as very useful to common folks. Are those working-class voters seeing something good in Clinton we well-informed sophisticates are missing? Or is it just name recognition and Bill's popularity?"

Sounds very patronising - do you have tongue in cheek?

I consider myself reasonably well-educated (in Britain) and certainly intelligent, and I prefer Clinton to Obama, after supporting Kucinich and Edwards until they withdrew.

I see in Obama only a dream with no substance, good PR work, good record, and a potential leader in future years. I don't like the messianic flavor which has emerged. It worries me, reminds me of those religious cults of a few years ago.

In Clinton I see a reliable, bread and butter president who will change much that's wrong, not immediately, but gradually. I do not see any reason for the venom directed at her and her family.

And why are we supposed to get excited about this? Does anyone know when the next episode of "American Idol" is on the television? Damn, a corporation owns that too! Oh well, back to the library.

McDee February 9th, 2008 6:19 pm:
"The thing I remember most about the Kennedy years (I was a teenager) is not so much the policies but rather the attitude. It was hopeful, it was about the future, it felt like things could get better for the nation and the world."

Yep, and I am old enough to remember how all that "hope" was blown to smithereens in the back of that limo that day in Dallas. I was just a kid, and my parents had been Kennedy supporters, heck true believers. They were both so "hopeful".
I remember how hard my mother took the news about his assassination. She was devastated for months. This country has been headed downhill on greased skids ever since.

Dear Mr. Obama, and Ms Clinton, and Mr. McCain,

Throughout history, oppressed people fight back. The more ruthless the oppression, the more desperate and ruthless the response. Israel should remember the Warsaw ghetto, or at least, they should remember Masada.

If you have no food, no water, no electricity, your home is repeatedly strafed and bombed, your fields are bulldozed, you cannot even go to a market, or buy food or cooking oil. Just standing on a hill looking can get you shot, what have you to lose?

Generations of being killed and killing back is going to be hard to stop, but if Palestinian youth had any hope for an education, a job, decent food and water, medical care, a roof over their heads, do you really think they would prefer to put on a cordite vest and walk into a mall?

Wake up, people, endless killing and persecution reaps what you are seeing now. More persecution isn't going to stop it!

That holds true for Gaza and Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, many African states and the world in general. The situation just gets worse and the arms makers increase their profit margin.

Do you all who refuse to vote for Clinton feel empowered to express your politics in your day to day life?

Perhaps that would explain confusing the presidential election with a chance to make deep and substantial change. Deep and substantial change comes through local organizing and day to day work, not one presidential election cycle - I'm not really sure I'd want it to.

Druthers has it backwards. But then I expect he/she is one of the "hopeful".

My bookie is giving 20 to 1 that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the good ole' USA.

I'm concerned that working class and less well-educated Democratic voters are preferring Clinton to Obama while better educated are going for Obama, whereas I don't see either as very useful to common folks. Are those working-class voters seeing something good in Clinton we well-informed sophisticates are missing? Or is it just name recognition and Bill's popularity?

Strangely, I feel sympathy for Mike Huckabee because the corporate media are telling him to get out of the race before it's over and calling McCain "presumptive nominee" rather than just "frontrunner" even before he's locked up enough delegates for the convention. The LA Times had a story today asking why Huckabee's still in the race when it should have asked why the Republican establishment is locking arms against him. I hope Huckabee gives McCain a real run for his money, all the way to the convention, and forces Wall Street to burn up more campaign funds ahead of the general election.

I am old enough to remember Jack Kennedy. He wasn't all that liberal when elected and if you remember some of his positons, i.e. the "missile gap" and his inaugural address "Americans will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden in the cause of freedam" you will probably cringe.

However, he did have the ability to grow with the job (American University speech, 1963) and also, and I think importantly, he brought a lot of enegetic and progressive young people into government in the lower, but influential levels. It's a tragedy that LBJ pissed it all away in Viet Nam.

The thing I remember most about the Kennedy years (I was a teenager) is not so much the policies but rather the attitude. It was hopeful, it was about the future, it felt like things could get better for the nation and the world.
A lot of that Kennedy-like feeling for the future is being touted as part of the Obama phenomenon.

I like to think I have been a hard headed realist when it comes to the utter worthlessness of the Democratic Party yet...yet with Obama there is certainly the nostalgic pull of what was an earlier, less complicated, and, dare I say, hopeful age. I know it's not about the issues. Obama is not that different than the wretched Clintons yet...yet the pull is strong enough to actually make me consider voting for Obama in November if he gets the nod.

What is going on? Is this genuine? Am I Charlie Brown and is Obama the Lucy who will yank away the football? Help!

It seems that Obama is already in the lead:

Clinton Delegates Obama Delegates
Super Primary Total Super Primary Total
Yahoo/
WashingonPost 213 841 1054 139 857 996
CBS News 211 865 1076 137 885 1022
AP 213 842 1055 139 859 998
MS-NBC 0 855 855 0 861 861
CNN News 223 840 1063 131 831 962
Fox News 213 842 1055 139 859 998

Only CNN disagrees, however they've been accused of being slow to update numbers.
NBC doesn't care about the super delegate count.

Here's some hard facts to balance the whole "horse race" aspect of this article - read this and draw your own conclusions:

January 22, 2008

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad:

I understand that today the U.N. Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in Southern Israel for over two years.

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this. Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel's destruction, and Israeli civilians are being bombarded by rockets on an almost daily basis. That is unacceptable and Israel has a right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel, and should make clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against such actions. If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,
Barak Obama
United States Senator

Yohocoma's points are very well taken. Where do we draw the line?

The reason the Republican party has moved so far to the lunatic-right is that the Democrats are so far to the right themselves.

As for me, I drew that line long ago. I remain filled with shame that I caved in to Daniel David's logic and voted for the dissembling war criminal Kerry in the last election. Never again, I'm through. I'd just as soon see a Republican get elected. The more speedy the USA's destruction, the faster we can rebuild it.

Hi RSJ, that would be a good ticket, except it cannnot happen now. After the last debate with Edwards present, John came out with TV ads, stating that he was the ONLY candidate who was adult enough to be the president. If Edwards was now Obamas runnng mate after that blunder, the Repugs would slaughter them with that. John Edwards would have to run as an independant. __ I hope he does.

I don't favor Hillary, but my over-all opinion is, she would do the best job compared to Obama and we cannot afford to have McCain as president. My gosh, he's as bad or worse than Bush on the foreign affairs issues. His platform on the economy, health care and education is horrible. He won't win unless Hillary is the candidate and does not have Obama as her running mate.

If McCain selects (Huck a bury) as his VP choice, the Republican voter turnout will be much higher than it currently is. Then it could be close. If McCain chooses Julie-ano, they will lose big time.

This is a fun debate, __ funny too.

Like another poster here said: this is pure "horse race" fluff news content. Filler. Mindless trope that the corporate media churns out day after day, week after week, etc. I liken the current "president everything, all the time" saturation fluff coverage to what we all must endure the day after Halloween to January 1st of every year: stores start CRANKING OUT the christmas music and the xmas props are everywhere. But instead of 2 months of christmas merchantile torture, we now are faced with 9 MONTHS of presidential election "horse race" coverage. This is a great way for corporate news agencies to avoid doing any journalism of intellectual significance or actual relevance. Just lower the IQ level of your coverage to a sports event level: "who's winning?". Issues, implications or those pesky details nobody know about? Why bother? Instead irrelevant "burning questions of the day" like "Obama outspent Hillary in the first quarter of 2008", or "Why is Hillary mad at Obama's wife?" are now news. Coverage of a raging war in Afghanistan, Kenya's civil meltdown--there are countless REAL news issues which have been deliberately ignored by the MSM. The current crisis the United States is facing is that it's media (essential to a viable and functioning democracy) has been subverted and replaced with special interest corporate propaganda-spin such as Fox News, NBC "news" (General Electric owns NBC), etc. The corporate mafia has subverted objective, quality journalism and replaced it with shockingly corrupted corporate smarm and spin. The world looks on, shocked and aghast as America is in free fall...

'the two could exhaust one another, deplete funds and damage each other'...

Sorry, wrong. Obama won't run out of money (still donating to him as others are), he's 20 years younger and less likely to be exhausted, and no one would possibly damage do more damage to the Clinton's than their own track record.

There will be no 'dream ticket' that includes a Hillary.

kelmer February 9th, 2008 1:13 pm,
scroller February 9th, 2008 3:06 pm:

Both point to realistic scenarios that can't be discounted. Popular vote in the US? a Reichstag, Diebold, or Mukasey could put Johnny in office, along with Kristols and Podhoretzes in the cabinet.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02082008.html

RSJ, According to Kerry, McCain's people approached Kerry first about the McCain VP idea. See 4/2/07 Jonathan Singer interview with Kerry at http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033

Will someone explain to me what the attraction is about
Mr.O ???? I don't get it. I don't find him the least bit inspirational nor do I think he's a great speaker....what is it?

All these MLK platitudes actually bore me. I haven't heard one word of substance come out of either he or Hil.

They both sound scripted and too polite.

As much as I like Hil I can't bring myself to vote for her
and mainly because of Mr.BILL.

The Clinton campaign can say that Obama has "no idea how to deal with McCain" but he certainly seems to know how to deal with the Clintons.

Obama could win against McCain, Clinton will lose.

Yohocoma asks: "If Clinton gets the nomination instead, should we support her then?"

Yes, because she'd appoint more moderate judges and more competent cabinet and agency heads, such as at the Justice Department. She would also likely root out all of the pernicious Christopublican neocons Bush has salted the various government agencies with as his demented 'legacy.' As I've said before, she'd be a good Republican president, which is better than what the GOP is offering. Such is not the case with Joe Lieberman, who has embraced the neocon Bush agenda pretty much whole cloth, although he still likes to lie and say he's liberal on social issues. Lieberman is another religious nut who doesn't follow the teachings of his own religion. Hillary is, fortunately, not religious, and she is pragmatic.

As far as Obama's vs. Hillary's popularity, a couple of GOTV volunteers in Iowa I know said they talked to people who were paid to show up at Hillary rallies and applaud (no wonder she went through so much money); Obama never had to do that.

Kem, I hope it's an Obama/Edwards ticket -- that would be a sure winner, I think.

Restive, you make a good point -- the 1960s were ushered in by the election of JFK, who wasn't really that liberal in many ways, but his presidency, among other factors, laid the groundwork for the liberalism of the later 60s. Unfortunately, because LBJ was an idiot over the Vietnam War, Nixon got in and we can connect the dots to what we have today. If Johnson had ended the war in 1966, we might have been spared not only Nixon, but Reagan and the Bush boys as well.

Kelmer wrote: "Yep–all it takes is some foreign terrorist attack-a major hit against troops in Iraq might do it too."

Why do many on the left automatically assume this? The last leg on the rickety GOP stool is that they have protected us against another domestic terrorist attack. Were there to be one, why wouldn't the majority just as easily BLAME the Republicans for not doing their duty? This isn't 2001, and the idea of a massive terrorist attack inside the US isn't new anymore -- why assume that the GOP will be able to capitalize on further examples of its failure?

Scroller wrote: "Furthermore, he approached Kerry in 2004 seeking to be the VP candidate on the *Democratic* ticket!"

Scroller, that's wrong -- Kerry mentioned McCain first. Moveover, McCain is the vetted Republican candidate -- vetted by those who really matter -- the wealthy elite that owns the GOP. Of course, McCain may just be a Bob Dole sacrifice to get him out of the way -- let the Dems have it for four years, blame them for everything Bush bungled, and then come up with a Reaganesque winner in 2012.

Tailcap, Gore and Kerry were horrible candidates -- I don't think Obama, nor even Clinton, will lay down the way they did. Remember, neither one was a Yale Skull and Boner like Kerry.

Just to add this thought: There has been quite a bit written about getting Republicans to vote for the Dem candidate, as if the Dem can't get elected without the GOP vote. The number of registered Republicans has dwindled substantially since 2000 -- now, a majority of Dems and independents can easily put a Dem in the White House -- it's the GOP candidate who can't get elected without independents and 'Reagan Democrats' this year.

Wow, I wold sure hate to be on a committee with this bunch, only about two total here who agree on anything.

Go back and read all of the comments and it's pretty funny.

I never expected McCain to get the nomination, but now that he will, we have to consider which Democrat is more likely to defeat him.

There are a lot of factors involved in that question, but here's a subliminal one that shouldn't be overlooked: McCain's whole shtick is the "warrior" -- pilot, prisoner of war, "the surge is great," "let's stay in Iraq for 100 years", etc. Do you want to put Hillary up against this? Yes, she's been on the Armed Services Committee, but c'mon -- picture her saluting as she walks off the presidential helicopter. Convincing? No. Maggie Thatcher she's not (thank God). The simple fact that Obama is male makes him a much stronger opponent in this aspect of the race.

Remember that McCain has no new ideas: He wants to stay in Iraq, wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the obscenely rich (and elimination of the estate tax) "permanent," has no revolutionary plans to get us off oil and coal and on to renewable energy...and on and on. So how is he going to campaign? As the Warrior Candidate! Someone please tell me how Hillary is going to win under those circumstances.

what ? just because obama said he was "puzzled" by mccain in a letter ......does not mean he can not deal with john mccain.......the clinton people are desperate that's all.....I'M VOTING FOR OBAMA !!!!!!!! NUFF SAID

Duck Soup: Unfortunatley that is what the Repugs have become. They are now the ultra conservative religious right or the greedy, venom spewing (as mentioned)O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh bunch. They have taken over and anyone who is not of their ilk is a "liberal". I wouldn't put it past the bastards to try and take McCain out, but I bet you he is a lot stronger than they are. There pussies in comparison and I know John will have his revenge (he still owes them for 2000) if elected.

That said, I surely hope Obama becomes president. It would signal to the world that the real US of A is back.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.