Lessons of the Chesapeake Sweep

The trends Amy points to in her article are present across the nation. In Ohio I'm hoping for a big voter turnout especially amongst the younger generations and the anti-war/progressives to get behind Obama and not waste a symbolic protest vote on Nader or whoever...there is a difference...policy aside we can see how the two candidates comport themselves in the televised debates...and I cannot help but feel the excitement that Amy hints at by referring to the "epochal shift in US democracy"..that is a surge of voter participation/and a sense that we the people can control the fate of this nation..

hazmat February 15th, 2008 10:56 am

re Lobo Gris

"the poster in question (the questionable poster?) is overly fond of pronouncements such as "it's now our responsibility" and "we have to" and "we can't allow ourselves," when what is plainly intended is that "we" are to fall quietly in line and follow orders. it should be equally plain by now where those orders originate."

I certainly agree Hazmat, which is why I continue to challenge him on those posts that contain those types of statements.

Lobo Gris

riverman101 opined...

"… what do YOU think made obama win in virginia by 29 points when the last poll was he would win by 17 points?? folks it was an open primary… meaning independents and others could vote….. now maryland was a closed primary and obama just barely beat the last polls…"

You can't be serious?! Obama now has to beat his poll numbers to win? With the vote in he won the popular vote 60% to 37%!!! He won 16 counties to her 8. Obama didn't need an open primary to win convincingly.

And even if though I do not accept your false frame, I will say that if the primary results are truely influenced by crossover voters in open primaries to the extent you assert then such a dynamic bodes ill for the Clinton in both the primaries and the general election because the anti-Clinton sentiments harbored by non-Democrat voters was intense enough for them to ACTUALLY go through the effort of voting against her.

Here in Maryland, the breakdown wasn't as bad for Clinton as the popular vote breakdown would lead one to believe, with delegate totals currently standing at 43+3, Clinton at 27+10 and 16 available. So Obama, maybe has a 9 delegate advantage in MD.

In MD, Clinton blew out (>10% popular vote lead) Obama in 4 lower population density fringe counties (Garrett, Allegany, Washington & Cecil) and Obama blew out in 7 DC and Baltimore Metro counties (as well as 5 bayside eastern shore counties).

In VA, Obama has 54+4 delegates, Clinton 29+6 and 8 up for grabs. However, the geographical divergence is the same, Clinton won 34 most south-western counties and cities, whereas Obama won 100 Cities and counties, everything east of the Appalacian trail except Colonial Heights City.

What is the genesis of this pattern? what does it portend for the general election?

Daniel David February 14th, 2008 4:47 pm

"The fact that you feel a need to distance yourself from me in any definition of "us" does not mean that there is no collective "us" and that we (all citizens) would not benefit from Barack being nominated instead of Hillary"

It's not that I feel any need to distance myself from you, I just don't acknowledge your self appointed right to speak for others without their permission.

"I do have some unadopted pet critics that just follow me around for lack of something better to do."

Now you're becoming delusional.

Lobo Gris

Hopefully you've noticed "NRA Freedom" is a troll.

-matti

Actually, Hillary was incorrect and in fact a liar on several counts. First, she is a liar when she claims to be against this war. Aside from empty words, she has done NOTHING to stop the war and refuses to commit to bringing the troops home. Second, she is wrong when she says there are "other choices". She was caught on camera after one of the debates essentially conspiring with Edwards on keeping "not real candidates", like Kucinich or Gravel out of the debates. She effectively was admitting that she supports indefinite war. She wanted to keep Kucinich out, since his and Gravel's honesty made her look bad. As for Obama, he talks a good game but he has also voted to fund the war and shown every willingness to bomb or even nuke (all options on the table) Iran.

Therefore, the democratic party leadership has effectively rigged the election before it is even held, by marginalizing the 70% of the people who oppose this war. Not to mention the stout refusal to hold bush and co. accountable by impeachment.

This election is a diversion of people's energy from facing the problem of the military industrial complex plus the duplicitous banking industry driving the Democratic Party base into bankruptcy.

To think that the Democratic candidates Clinton or Obama represent "change" is fantasy.

The Obama opinion against the war converted to voting for all the war bills while in Congress and supporting Kerry's pro war vote. The Obama's anti war stance is a fairy tale. Read what he really thinks:

Senator Obama in his own words: "So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." [The New Yorker, 10/30/06]

"Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." ["Audacity of Hope," 2006, p. 294]

dougwagner: Thanks for your posts. I read every word.

They were well worth a few moments.

In my opinion, Amy Goodman, who is a public figure, should concentrate her efforts on exposing the corruption of the 2-party system. The exclusive 2-party system needs to be eliminated. Why not write articles on the need for this? It is what no one is talking about. It is what needs to be talked about.

I am an Obama supporter, and I'm encouraged by recent events. Three things worry me, however. I don't trust the superdelegates not to throw the nomination to Hillary Clinton, even if Obama is ahead in the delegate count. I'm concerned about Clinton's current substantial leads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and I'm concerned that Clinton will put so much pressure on the Convention to seat her delegates from Michigan and Florida that the party insiders will cave. If Clinton hits the trifecta, she will be the nominee, and I will vote for the Green candidate. Fortunately, I live in a deep-red state where my principled stand won't matter but where I'll still mourn the death of hope.

once again thank you for your stating the obvious, i found d edwards comments on dem now were incouraging. i've listened to your interview of b clinton (2000) on numerous occasions, i would love to see h clinton deteriorate to the point where she would agree to be interviewed by juan and you to plead for the PA vote (all of us can dream).

bush, mccain, clinton authorized this war. mccain will be tied to this in the election (as kerry was in 2004). clinton loses (at least based on polling at this point coupled with her own vote as a dem to authorize war).

obama isn't just attacking clintons. the candidates that are pro peace (like d edwards), and are at least listening to the public are benifiting from mr obama's surge. i don't believe this surge is being forged in the backrooms of media conglomerates and fortune 500 companies. in this case i see the media nyt's, npr, etc.. actually being very sympathetic to ms clintons plight, the mass media may distort the message but they can't deny the reality of mr obama's victories to other americans.

in fact, obama's fundraising (mostly from small contributers as has been noted by numerous news outlets, also obama refuses to accept pac $) and ability to pull voters to the caucuses in the primaries shows exactly how obama understands 'the grassroots'. it's really on our shoulders folks. if we can write letters to the fcc and give money to our favored 'leftist' causes we can continue to pressure the next democratic president of the US, obama. who ever said the mission would be over when the dem won. however a dem pres and a super majority (maybe mid terms 2010) in the congress would allow prog activists to influence the politicians, from a closer vantage point than the status quo where the loony tunes neo-cons (remember the letter in 2000 by project for a new american century)have refused to listen to anyone, the repubs will lose in 2008. if the dem party splinters i'll go with the masses away from the party, as t roosevel'ts supporters did in 1912 when they created the progressive party.

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

thank you sen harkin for lambasting the superdelegate process today and thank you sen kohl and sen feingold for refusing to fall into the fray, by reserving your endorsements until the convention.

also please listen to juan gonzalez interviewed by bob mcchesney this last sunday on mediamatters,

http://www.will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm

gonzalez is sympathetic to the more 'nader' oriented posters here. a great interview (he calls both candidates neo liberal)...............

riverman101;

please quit Spamming the comments. you put up the same cut/paste comment in three different articles now. try an original approach please.

The lesson of the Crabcake Primary is that there truly is a sucker born not every minute, but every second. Clinton, Obama, McCain, Shuck-A-Bee . . . it's all the same shit.

Does anyone read these 1000 paragraph long post? Not me

Thanks for the advice, Hillary. We'll take you up on it.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cmzm

Washington, D.C.

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it's produced.

It's a Washington where George Bush hands out billions in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don't need them and don't ask for them – tax breaks that are mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt; tax breaks that could've gone into the pockets of the working families who needed them most.

It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years.

It's a Washington where politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for a war in Iraq that should've never been authorized and never been waged – a war that is costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars a week that could've been used to rebuild crumbling schools and bridges; roads and buildings; that could've been invested in job training and child care; in making health care affordable or putting college within reach.

And it's a Washington that has thrown open its doors to lobbyists and special interests who've riddled our tax code with loopholes that let corporations avoid paying their taxes while you're paying more. They've been allowed to write an energy policy that's keeping us addicted to oil when there are families choosing between gas and groceries. They've used money and influence to kill health care reform at a time when half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and then they've rigged our bankruptcy laws to make it harder to climb out of debt. They don't represent ordinary Americans, they don't fund my campaign, and they won't drown out the voices of working families when I am President.

This is what's been happening in Washington at a time when we have greater income disparity in this country than we've seen since the first year of the Great Depression. At a time when some CEOs are making more in a day than the average workers makes in a year. When the typical family income has dropped by $1,000 over the last seven years. When wages are flat, jobs are moving overseas, and we've never paid more for health care, or energy, or college. It's a time when we've never saved less – barely $400 for the average family last year – and never owed more – an average of $8,000 per family. And it's a time when one in eight Americans now lives in abject poverty right here in the richest nation on Earth. "- Barack Obama

Healthcare, Education, and Minimum Wage

"I'll change our tax code so that it's simple, fair, and advances opportunity, not the agenda of some lobbyist. I am the only candidate in this race who's proposed a genuine middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans. This is a tax cut –paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens – that will offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying, and it'll be worth up to $1000 for a working family. We'll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect. Since the Earned Income Tax Credit lifts nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty each year, I'll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. And I won't wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage – I'll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it's not just a minimum wage, but a living wage. Because that's the change that working Americans need.

My universal health care plan brings down the cost of health care more than any other candidate in this race, and will save the typical family up to $2500 a year on their premiums. Every American would be able to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves, and we'd ban insurance companies from denying you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And the main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton's plan is that she'd require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she'd 'go after' your wages if you don't. Well I believe the reason people don't have health care isn't because no one's forced them to buy it, it's because no one's made it affordable – and that's what we'll do when I am President.

If we want to train our workforce for a knowledge economy, it's also time that we brought down the cost of a college education and put it within reach of every American. I know how expense this is. At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending more to payoff our college loans than we were on our mortgage. So I'll create a new and fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, a benefit that students will get in exchange for community or national service, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university. And I'll also simplify the financial aid application process so that we don't have a million students who aren't applying for aid because it's too difficult. "- Barack Obama

Credit Card and Bankruptcy Law

"Finally, we need to help families who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don't become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they're signing up for, I'll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we'll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement; ban rate changes to debt that's already incurred; and ban interest on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but they should pay what's fair, not what fattens profits for some credit card company.

The same principle should apply to our bankruptcy laws. When I first arrived in the Senate, I opposed the credit card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt. Five years earlier, Senator Clinton had supported a nearly identical bill. And during a debate a few weeks back, she said that even though she voted for it, she was glad it didn't pass. Now, I know those kind of antics might make sense in Washington, but they don't make much sense anywhere else, and they certainly don't make sense for working families who are struggling under the weight of their debt.

When I'm President, we'll reform our bankruptcy laws so that we give Americans who find themselves in debt a second chance. I'll close the loophole that allows investors with multiple homes to renegotiate their mortgage in bankruptcy court, but not victims of predatory lending. We'll make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, then you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet. And I'll make sure that CEOs can't dump your pension with one hand while they collect a bonus with the other. That's an outrage, and it's time we had a President who knows it's an outrage."- Barack Obama

Fair Trade

"It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can – or should – stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.

You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.

I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this – when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate – we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."- Barack Obama

Civil Infrastructure

"For years, we have stood by while our national infrastructure has crumbled and decayed. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a D, citing problems with our airports, dams, schools, highways, and waterways. One out of three urban bridges were classified as structurally deficient, and we all saw the tragic results of what that could mean in Minnesota last year. Right here in Wisconsin, we know that $500 million of freight will come through this state by 2020, and if we do not have the infrastructure to handle it, we will not get the business.

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead."- Barack Obama

Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.

What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27....

I like what i saw of Donna Edwards on Democracy Now (02-12-08 edition). Now Keith Ellison will have some company in congress! An unappologetic anti-war representative who won her office by ousting a long term incumbent by running on an anit-Bush, anti-war platform. Bravo Maryland!

Wouldn't it be great if this is the 21st century equivalent of the 1932 election that changed everything for progressive policies and politics in America! Bush gets to be the 21st. Century Herbert Hoover--I love it!

"Assuming Barack does not stumble badly in future primary contests, whose coattails do those candidates want to be riding on? Hillary's? They'd have to be brain-dead."

The above thought makes sense to me.

Lobo Gris,

The fact that you feel a need to distance yourself from me in any definition of "us" does not mean that there is no collective "us" and that we (all citizens) would not benefit from Barack being nominated instead of Hillary. I do not have a pet mouse, but I do have some unadopted pet critics that just follow me around for lack of something better to do.

BeForKids:

You're referring to David Schuster. The Clintons wanted him fired, but MSNBC suspended him for two weeks.

I heard that Hillary Clinton managed to get the reporter on MSNBC fired after he referred to the Clintons as "pimping" out their daughter Chelsea. It was disgusting and inappropriate for him to say that - but it should have been the decision of management, not Hillary. She's vindictive and I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Clintons are looking for ways to blackmail the super delegates.

kathyodat

Amy is my hero.

The gamblers give Clinton a 30% probability for nomination. The Clinton campaign has unofficially (or officially) stated a strategy for a tie... lowering expectations and banking on the super-delegates.

I heard a rumor that an insider stated (totally apocryphal from a chat stream) that Clinton's campaign has hired a small fleet of private investigators to research the super-delegates' backgrounds...

How slimey is that? almost as nasty as endeavoring to seat the Michigan and Florida Delegates.

I don't trust Obama but with the Peace Candidates already getting "moonbeamed" and "dean-screamed" by the Corporate Media, he's our last little ray of hope.

Daniel David February 14th, 2008 1:45 pm

"There has been a lot of concern that the Democratic super-delegates might shoot themselves (and us) in the foot by flipping the nomination to Hillary at the Convention."

Who is this (and us) David? You got to quit carrying that mouse around in your pocket before PETA catches you.

Lobo Gris

Hillary has one excuse after another as to why she didn't win a certain state. It's starting
to sound like Bush's one excuse after another why we had to attack Iraq.

Barack did not take California.

At that time the girls and minorities did not seem him as a possible winner.
Even though he is just repeating his stump speeches after every count, he is being seeing more on National TV. That alone should get more minorities and Ladies out in his favor.

It will be close in Texas. And Ohio is very blue Collar, but they do have Cleveland. Barack can easily outspend Hillary in PA, OH and TX. In these three states, that is the only thing that will work.

I remember when she said that, "...there were others to chose from"...such royal hubris...you know what they say about pride coming before a fall.

Thank you Amy for helping to avert the terrible consequences for all of us, that a Clinton candidacy would involve. The Republicans are praying that we will be foolish enough to nominate her as it will revitalize, perhaps rescue their party. It also makes it thousands times more difficult for us to win. It would turn the election into a divisive rehash of the betrayals of the nineties, that would chase a lot of well meaning newcomers out of the process.
In the unlikely chance we would win such a mud slinging brawl we would find out first hand why she is so hated. She will teach us the meaning of betrayal.

There has been a lot of concern that the Democratic super-delegates might shoot themselves (and us) in the foot by flipping the nomination to Hillary at the Convention. I was at first rather worried about that.

But less so as Obama rolls forward in these primary victories. All Democratic Congress members and Governors are in the super-delegate club. All those House members are standing for re-election plus a third of the Senators, and some of the Governors.

Assuming Barack does not stumble badly in future primary contests, whose coattails do those candidates want to be riding on? Hillary's? They'd have to be brain-dead.

Since when does DC count anyway?

re usrcjp February 14th, 2008 11:32 pm

amy pays attention to this stuff so we don't have to. another 9 months? (gag)

re Lobo Gris

the poster in question (the questionable poster?) is overly fond of pronouncements such as "it's now our responsibility" and "we have to" and "we can't allow ourselves," when what is plainly intended is that "we" are to fall quietly in line and follow orders. it should be equally plain by now where those orders originate.

as to this quote, "Assuming Barack does not stumble badly in future primary contests, whose coattails do those candidates want to be riding on? Hillary's? They'd have to be brain-dead," "we" are still awaiting any sign that "they" aren't exactly that.