dontcha love how the GOP and RNC think we won't notice the myriad promises unkept?

make more promises, win an election.

nope.

mr. ressner, does half of your article really need to be about winter basking or hollywood entertainment? and cd puts you in the headline act for this type of writing?

how about a bit more analysis on the rnc's discussion of "lowering taxes?" for who? perhaps more information on "...more esoteric matters such as water rights."

cd, where is the editorial review committee on such schlock?

If the above article is prescient, then the Republicans have gone with a strategy that will not resonate with the younger voters that Obama has been turning out in droves. It may appeal to Boomers & their parents who already have doubts about Obama, but ignores the concerns of the generations after the Boomers. As for the Dave Berg digression at the end, Mr. Berg should be reminded that for most of its' early history, Hollywood was solidly Republican company town. That changed when talent was able to call the shots after the demise of the studio system. His sour grapes are either historical ignorance or obfuscation for a readership and a reporter who don't know the background.

"...Obama's days in the Illinois state Senate, noting how his "pattern of voting 'present' offers many openings to question his candidacy."

Some on CD would say not voting on controversial issues is pretty smart. I say it's pretty cowardly and unprincipled.

Some will say he had to do that to get elected. I say he is a sell out.

Some here will say he did for the greater good. I say if elected he will continue selling out because the first four years will be consumed in bi-partisan compromises designed to ensure a second term. The greater good will take a back seat to politics.

Some will say he couldn't really oppose the war as a US Senator because that would open him up to being accused of not supporting the troops. Supporting the war by funding the war and the thousands upon thousands of deaths of innocent people in order to get elected is my definition of selling out. Saying or doing whatever it takes to get elected is immoral and unprincipled.

Some on CD will say I am a holier-than-thou, self-righteous idiot. I say tell that to all the mothers of the people who got murdered in an unnecessary war designed to enrich a few at the expense of many.

Some here will claim he will end the war. Not so, just go to his website and read the part about staying in Iraq if al-Qaeda doesn't fold its tent and leave. They won't fold so he won't leave.

We need a break with the two-party system that is really one party of big business for profit to profit. We need to dump the Dims and start voting 3rd party. Anything but a Democrat or a Repug. Go Greens, Socialist or whatever!

"This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nations
homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into
veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and
bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged,
cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love."
– Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

First, I'd like to remind everyone that Obama maintains he voted "present" on bills he thought that, if passed, would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, talicap's point on getting out of the two party system still stands.

In any event, I'd also like to point out that the delusion of the Republican Party still remains if they think they are having a serious campaign strategy meeting with top officials and they think that "we can be confident in a campaign about issues." Which issues do they have an advantage in right now? Iraq? Economy? Health care? Environment? They don't even agree amongst themselves on immigration. It seems likely that McCain's position is going to cost him significant support within his own party on immigration.

You have to commend their optimism. I never thought the Republicans would be the dreamers, but, here they are. Unfortunately for them, their implementation over the last 7+ years has ensured their dreams will be on the backburner for quite some time.

Sorry tailcap, the republicans need to be shown the door, arrested, tried and sent to the firing squad; many democrats belong with them, sure. But as of this moment in US history, no 3rd party is going to gain the presidency, nor establish a working majority to support it in congress. Change is going to be forced upon whomever is president, which is why I would much rather have Obama than Billary or WarforeverMcCaine.

So Obama's inexperience is going to be the big issue. No surprise there, but after 8 years of Cheney and 6 of Rumsfeld, I wonder how it'll play. Experience didn't keep them from totally screwing up everything they turned their hands to.

This cadre of backhearted dum-dums are every bit the role of outdated, political throwbacks. Bash! Bash! Bash! No vision -- no inclusive forms of engagement. No relevance to facing the real, life issues that face us. No empowering people. Just bash and more of the "be afraid!" I'll bet they're mostly white guys -- just like the facescape of McCain supporters. Well, guess what? Enough is enough! We're sick and tired of fear-based, negativity of these guys. The best they can put forth is this flip-flop of an out-dated idiot to sings Beach Boy Tunes to stupid lyrics about bombing people! And in the final analysis -- McCain hasn't the backbone to even fight for a true ban on torture. This is presidential material? Hah!

As long as people are exploited as human capital, regardless of what that clown above says about the writers, Marx will always be relevant.

And WE should be planning on attacking McCain as "Bush-version 2.0". His rubber stamps of the entire Bush agenda. His walking away from the torture ban in the MCA, and not a comment from him when Bushwa issued that signing statement. Being a loyal Republican means he has foresworn himself- violated his oath to defend the constitution against all enemies.... Any Democrat who can't win by an unstealable margin against THAT doesn't deserve to win!

Aside from what the rightwingers say, leave it to the Dems to end up choosing between two candidates ill-suited to run against McCrazy. Hillary was always terrible choice, and with the deliberate marginalizing of Edwards, the alternative is Obama, who's only strength aside from the wads of corporate cash he gets is his mythical appeal to youths and progressives. Sure, the base will turn out for either Hillary or Obama, but national elections aren't won that way. Will the older, whiter, moderate middle Americans choose a young state legislator/law lecturer turned senator over a war hero? I doubt it, and don't count on some outpouring of the youth. There is more likely to be an outpouring of racists who don't trust the young, liberal-sounding african american. Whatever Dems might think of Obama's appeal, and what they think is based on what they hear in the media, not entirely an accurate, unbiased source of info, I doubt it will be enough to overcome what will be a desperate and dirty fight by the Repubs.

It's striking how the Republican talking points look like they took them straight out of Hillary Clinton's campaign. I'm sure they have been pleased by her help.

As a proud member of "leftist Hollywood," I would like to say that it's true, you outted us finally, Mr. Berg:

We hate capitalism. We desire a world where creative people - writers, actors, directors, musicians, etc - all work for free or for the collective. We believe we are paid way too much and wish for a future where all monies are distributed evenly throughout the entire population, where Disney and FOX and Viacom and Sony and GE are all non-profit corporations. We live to destroy the "free market." We hate money. And, of course, we hope our "leftist" values also destroy marriage and the stock market while busing in as many illegal immigrants as the country will hold.

Yup, that's how us "leftist Hollywooders" think.

Oh, and on a side note, until Mr. Berg is fired, Jay Leno will not be watched by us Marx-lovin America-haters...

Change is the only hope for this country and the world!

The people, who want us to have a different candidate who is completely pure who could possibly change this country for the better with the help of the people, want more. Instead, they want impossible candidates who could not win under any circumstances. They want purity, perfection and change according to the highest of demonstrated actions impossible in any democracy.

But they would want it from Obama, who must vote in a congress, and a system that is impossibly imperfect, not democratic, an oligarchy and against change. The level of unrealistic thinkers and idealistic anarchists never cease to amaze me with their perfection.

They have helped elect the despots, like Bush, because they insisted on purity in a world that has none. The ultra-democratic reformers! Look at the debacle that Nader caused at what cost these past eight years? ! Lets get real folks! Lets elect someone who holds out the possibility of change rather than none at all. I vote with the young people they deserve it!

Torture, war, global warming, racism, recession, depression, mercenaries, humvees, perpetual deficit, cloned food, parochial public schools, gay bashing, mega churches, Diebold, taser toting cops, Jay Leno, demagoguery, corporate media, corporate republic, corporate welfare... let's see is there anything left? I'm mean right? Do we really want this dog? Shouldn't we just let them kill it and put it out of its misery? What's left/right to save? I say we offer ourselves up to McCain. Let them finish what they've started.

INEXPERIENCE? Who the hell cares?! We've had an EXPERIENCED MORON in the White House for seven years! Anyone with the mental faculties to visit the Common Dreams website is more intellectually equipped to be president than Big Dumb Brother, with his 91 IQ. 'Don't think he's an idiot? Well then, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya'. Although the president would probably contend that he's the rightful owner.

Just use this for McCain as this is where his family's loyalty lies:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html

And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6eVMkd9GHQ

Actually, I find this article, although it doesn't really give us much information, heartening.

Why? Because of this sentence: "Forgetting who will be the easiest to beat, I've got to tell you, a President Hillary doesn't scare me nearly as much as a President Obama."

As to Marx, World Book or Britannica (about as middle-of-the-road as they get - I forget which one I read this in) sums up today's economists as acknowledging they just can't describe the modern Western economy without significant credit going to Marx as the originator of foundational material. Marx was supposedly buried for good after the fall of the Soviet Union, but that just didn't last very long (if they were going to give credit where credit is due).

Facts are facts. Only in the US is Marx the bugaboo we're hypnotized to think he is.

The attack line of Obama's "pattern of voting 'present'" while in the Illinoi State Legislature must be rebutted each and every time with: Under the Illinoi constitution and unique rules of its legislature, a vote of 'present' has the same effect as a 'No' vote. However, a 'present' vote reserves the right or shows the desire of the senator to revisit the bill for ammendment rather than just vote it down.

Senator Obama must not let himself be "Swift Boated" like John Kerry did. He must strike back at these attacks immediately and completely. Had Kerry immediately explained his "I voted for the bill before I voted against it," completely and often, the Swift Boaters would have had their feet cut from under them. Kerry's 6-week wait and lame response cost him the election (well that and disenfranchising voters and stealing votes and secret software and sleepovers of election machines and Diebold and Ken Blackwell and Ohio, but I digress).

To repeat, several interpretations can be attributed to a 'present' vote in the Illinois Legislature. The senator could agree with most of the bill and want it returned to committee for ammendment or as stated in the article, Senator Obama believed a bill would not pass constitutional scrutiny. Regardless, Obama's 'present' votes were affirmative, direct, and participatory actions as practiced in the Illinois State Legislature.

Why do the Republicans still revere Karl Rove? He should have been sent to work in a sweatshop in some petri dish of capitalism.

Good point, GKL. If Karl Rove were really all that good, the Bush team wouldn't have had to cheat to win.

Rove is a successful criminal, and the GOP biggies admire that in a man. Or a woman. Maybe that's why they are more sanguine about Clinton than Obama. She's got a history they can use. to have their way with her administration. And she is a determined elitist. What I CAN"T understand is why feminists see her as one of them. She was an enthusiastic supporter of her husband's welfare 'reform' - which no Republican president would have dared to attempt, and which really amounted to the screwing of poor women en masse. She also supported the almost weekly gratuitous bombing of Iraq during Bill's entire presidency.

people listen............VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA !! THE ONLY CARD HILLIARY AND THE REPUBICONS CAN USE IS THE INEXPERIENCE ONE..........WE HAD RUMSFELD,CHENEY,POWELL,BUSH,ASHCROFT,TENET,AND THE LIST GOES ON ...(ALL OF THEM HAD YEARS OF EXPERIENCE) COMPARE THE YEAR 2000 TO THE YEAR 2007....THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS

A third party is the best hope McCain has for winning.
The digital blackorwhite view at the bottom of this tailcap thinking is way beyond naive to the point of simple arrogance. Are we trying for a grassroots collaboration, or the imposition of a particular point of view at any cost? Sure I'm willing to share in decision making. This isn't about some chrystalline ideological thing, it's about empowering people to be able to put their individual 2 cents in. There are lots of reasons for voting "present" other than those you pose. It's no clever and heroic achievement to pose leading questions requiring the use of magic words and incantations in response.
On a more personal note, I inquire into the significance of your name selection. Is it meant to induce a picture in one's mind of someone with their head so far up their tail that all one can see is a tailcap, or what?

As powerful as we all believe the word of change to be - because it can be powerful, the Rove/republicans will not have to work too hard to tear down either Hillary or Obama - they will do enough damage to each other as this primary season drags on.

Unfortunately there is enough hate/fear out there that when people get behind a curtain, a great many of them will go visceral and vote McCain. Add to this the republican hijacking of the judicial system that can rule on state and local raodblock maneuvers to manipulate elections (all elections) and the republicans will bring McCain to office on a 50.01% margin (a little lower if Bloomberg enters but still they will win).

Our hope has to be in rebuilding Congress. The executive branch's extreme intimidation and domination have gone unchecked. 23 whole members of the house are calling for investigation - just into Cheney. Why? Because principles went out in the name of expediency and intimidation. Listen for impeachment candidates to push the issue prior to November - maybe if there is enough noise an investigation will at least get started. We must reestablish the constituion starting with the three branches and then regaining some of the liberties lost.

Ike Kay - let's look for underdogs, heroes in waiting. For now there must be some within the "D" label. As much as that may be abhorent to some who believe in 3rd parties as the only way out - we have to do something that will win. And that will be to find a no name, appeal to the grassroots efforts (the people who pay attention) and make her/him sellable to a broader audience.

I love the passion of greens and independents of all sorts. For now, the only real opportunity has to be within a truly progressive candidate who is a D - who will likely have to come from a solidly blue state.

Let's start planning 2012 now - we need to come together earlier - get our progressives into the house/senate this term and put a solid candidate up for the next term. McCain may win this one but in 2012, when he is 77 - it will be a lot easier to beat him in a solid, unified, vigorous camapign.

bobpomeroy February 18th, 2008 8:17 pm
Nope, actually it came from a parts list on a maglite flashlight. I lost the cap and was trying to buy a replacement and that is the official name of the part. I was looking for an email name so that is where I got it. Thanks for asking.

You are 100% right and 100% wrong.

If more people thought like me McCain could become president.

If enough people thought like me than Kucinich would be president.

Ralph Nader has addressed your lesser of two evils type thinking. Personally I think it's unprincipled but I respect everybodies right to think and vote their conscience. Tell me this bobpomeroy if I follow your thinking to its conclusion wouldn't you vote for Hitler Lite over Hitler Heavier Duty? You think I am naive, I think you are a sell out. Your thinking is as flawed as you think mine is (in my humble opinion). Go vote for your Obama and your war.

This is for those who think Obama has no chance against the dirty pool and desperate skullduggery of the GOP:

John Kerry, who generated nowhere near the following and excitement that Obama has, almost beat Bush in the 2004 elections, despite his poorly-run campaign and the machinations of Bush's team.

Does this mean I think Obama is the perfect candidate? Of course not. I think Kucinich is, but he can't win. But Barack Obama CAN win.

Amazing how the RNC seems to discuss the issues more clearly than I've ever heard a Democrat talk.

"Are we going to move towards socialized medicine or away from it? Because we can't move towards the middle."

Exactly. Have you ever heard a Democrat say something like this? Is it crazy to just say it and then fight for socialized medicine? Why is it that it is acceptable to call it "socialized medicine" only if you are against it?

"...as well as more esoteric matters such as water rights."

Water rights! Here's an example of an issue that will soon be big, so they're planning their strategy. Wonder if the Dems are talking about it.

" "We [conservatives] believe capitalism isn't a dirty word," he said. "If you've seen Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of a greedy, sinister oilman in 'There Will Be Blood,' it's just another example of the Hollywood left's contempt for capitalism."

He said the word "capitalism"! Have you ever heard a Democrat publically use this word, god forbid make some qualifying statements about it?

The RNC here is naming and defending what it believes in. Why can't the Democrats?

This bunch of neanderthals should have held their meeting in a cave.

And why does Obama scare the Repubs? Because he probably won't give them all they want, because he may call them on their criminal activities. And yes, there's Rove, so much for his resigning due to "family" issues or that he wanted to spend more time with family. This greasy slimball is still around and I would hate to see just what kind of slime he's cooking up to smear Obama. Maybe he will force the Repubs sons and daughters to enlist(not that I want a draft). So why does Obama scare these cowards?

If my choice was between hitler lite and hitler heavy duty, or whatever the choices you propounded, I might vote present. It sure isn't my war, unless the idea of "of by and for the people" imposes that on me, and then that status would urge me to accept responsibility for remedying the shituation rather than decrying it from a position of safety.
Ralph Nader gave us W, along with a little lying, cheating and stealing clear up to the supreme court.
Sell out? Naw. I think it is more like being willing to cooperate with my fellows if possible. I'm just not always right. I include the value of others' opinions in making judgments about political matters.
I don't understand the sentence structure of your Kucinich statement. McCain was better 8 years ago, but he's still "bomb iran, bomb bomb iran", and his statement about Chelsea several years ago don't indicate much character.
It was AuH2O who declared he'd rather be right than president, he got a lot better after he retired. The biggest problem we face is the utter public demoralization we suffer as a result of republican administrations which have lied and plausibly denied and compared Clinton's lie to W's lies to the point that nobody believes anything the government says. Look at what's coming out about and being supposed regarding the shooting down of a spy satellite. Power without credibility is pretty scary. Until that trust is restored, we ought to stay home and do a few more home repairs than wars. Read the wiki on Smedley Butler.

If this is all the Republicans have to go up against Obama, very little to worry about, he's in. Except for possibly national security, the rest of what's mentioned will roll off like water off a duck's back, due to Obama's connecting with audiences and the negatives of the Bush administration of which McCain is a continuation. (In fact, that's a winner in the general election debate: pin McCain to the wall on whether he embraces Bush/Cheney the past eight years. He will say yes. He will then lose fifty million votes.) On the national security debate Obama can hit hard on his signature closing line that Iraq was a war that should never have been entered. Obama's vision of national security would be NO MORE UNNECESSARY WARS, because UNNECESSARY wars MAKE TERRORISM WORSE. (McCain being a defender of an ongoing unnecessary war.) For good measure, maybe consider having a committee of anti-Bush generals in full regalia behind Obama on a stage. There are enough generals mad as hell at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld that this could be done with great effectiveness, emphasizing the theme of "no UNNECESSARY wars".

But this was pablum to the faithful, feel-good words at a fundraising dinner. You know they aren't showing their cards when they mention nothing about painting Obama as a left-wing radical. They sound puzzled, still deciding what to do about Obama. The thing is, the mood of the country is with Obama, and their candidate, McCain, isn't exciting (even to Republicans) and the Bush administration he defends and proposes to continue is discredited. Expect major crossover Republican votes, including even some grassroots evangelical right, for the dynamic, younger, exciting Obama and ability to get programs accomplished if given the chance.

bobpomeroy February 18th, 2008 10:28 pm

Ralph Nader didn't give us W. The cowards in the Democratic party that sold out did. Your Democrats caved in, Gore bent over and you know the rest, we got W. Gore won, he just didn't have the "cojones" to keep fighting. Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman is campaigning or McCain. What have your Democrats done to stop W except bend over time and time and time again? Good grief, just look at their leader, Nancy Pelosi, your speaker, said impeachment is off the table. Green light W.

Just a very partial list:
Your sold out Democrats bobpomeroy:
1) Your Democrats voted to give W the green light.
2) Your Democrats funded W's war.
3) Your Democrats refuse to impeach W.
4) Your Democrats allow illegal spying.
5) Your Democrats allow W to trample on the constitution.
6) Your Democrats helped out Mukasey.

Look enough said, go vote for your God damned Democrats.

As is the case with most voters historically, how about if I just vote against someone? The answer is that such reactionary tactics are limited by that which they oppose (their own enema controls them) The same with ideologues who won't deign to play the game for fear of compromising their supposed ideological purity. Come on tailcap, the water's fine if you take the risk of swimming in it. On the other hand, preach to me from the shoreline and curse the darkness. There's lots of Democrats I don't like and there's lots of Democrats who voted against what you're blaming all Democrats for. There are valid reasons for all of the mistakes or whatever in your list. After the raping Republicans, it is no longer a matter of holding any vestige of ideological virginity up as a beacon to the masses. It's a matter of joining my efforts to a coalition which shares enough of my values to make "winning" a worthwhile and obtainable objective. I've never voted "present". Would you vote out of spite because so and so has a pimple on his or her butt which can be pointed at and taunted about? That does provide you with the advantage of no record, and therefor no mistakes, errors, gaffs or public flatulence. Will you prize your defeat as victory because a worse evil defeated a lesser not in goose-step with your particular druthers? Come on! Loosen up before the loud popping sound of yhpooya wakes you up to a plutocracy.

Sorry, the path you suggest just keeps taking us down deeper into the rathole we are already in. The good thing for you Democrats is that people like me are such a tiny minority that the two-party duopoly can and will continue basically unopposed. I see it and I know it.

About Nader:
The Democrats love to blame Ralph Nader for their woes. If Gore would have been a better candidate people like me wouldn't have voted for Ralph. Sorry, bobpomeroy Democrats don't automatically own my vote. They along with the Republicans don't own the political system try as they might to keep 3rd parties off the ballot. As much as the undemocratic Democrats hate other parties that are dissatisfied with them, 3rd parties have the right to run and we have the right to vote for them. Let's just wait and see if your undemocratic Democrats end up overturning their supporter's choice by their undemocratic use of "Super Delegates. Now that wouldn't be a surprise."

Lastly, living in California affords me the luxury of voting for a third party without getting a Repug elected.

just one thing. How can experience be that important. We had the stupidest, most ignorant man in the White House, who created this mess for the US, a phony war that was incompetently handled as was every thing else, and people have the nerve to ask if Obama or even Hilary can protect the US?

Come on folks- these people ask this question all the time with a strait face and offer John McCain- a man who supported and still supports an asinine foreign affairs policy and an immoral and idiotic war.- which is not a war- it is illegal aggression and murder.

This is quite an endorsement for OBAMA!!

Capitalism, what the USA exported to China in ships(whole US factories) supported by subsidies, approved by Congress/Senate, paid with taxpayer money, by NAFTA rules.

Communism is looking pretty enticing for many Americans now...at least they will have some food, housing and a job.

If I vote, I would vote for Barack Obama, the reason being he DOESN'T have the Washington experience.

All the Repuks are war criminals and must be tried and jailed.

Sounds like the Clinton campaign war room.

Don't think the Right will get much traction on Obama's "present" votes charge considering McCain is known for his continual abscence.

endpoverty: I too have wondered about the 'match-up.' Not eight weeks ago I recall thinking that it would be the republiscum's dream to pit McInsane against Obama. And here we almost are.

Do you think the Republiscum/spooks/Rove/Satan et al are manipulating things to put Obama front and center?

Any thoughts, anyone? Thanks.

So, Repugs think there's some mileage in calling Obama's "undisciplined messaging" into question? They probably don't remember that their flyboy called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance," or that he called for a 100 year war in Iraq, or that he sang "Bomb, bomb Iran."
When it comes to "undisciplined messaging", Obama's a rank amateur

Obama actually has spent more time in the legislature than Clinton.

What's odder than all get-out is that the Republicans don't think McCain's 'bomb bomb Iran' event was an undisciplined message. Or that the '100 years in Iraq' was. Or that the admission that he does not really understand economic issues is.

I have enjoyed the byplay between tailcap and bobpomeroy. I have enjoyed it because each, at times, reflect my own ideas and opinions. I don't mean I'm a meld; I just mean I really see where they are coming from, even when I disagree.

Tailcap rocks when he points out that Obama is a "sell out" but, imho, misses that the only kind of politician who does not sell out (in someone's view) is a "dictator for life" who does not have to deal with conflicting forces. Saddam is a good example, imho, of a non-sell out politician. He killed anyone who didn't agree with him.

Politics in a democracy requires people of integrity and vision as well as pragmatists and compromisers. The interplay of all these forces becomes the history of our society, for better or worse.

These days I'm expecting to vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is. So I am in bobpomeroy's "camp" on this one. I don't at all blame Nader for Gore's defeat but I also think that W proved Nader wrong that there would be no difference between Gore and Bush!

I also don't expect any Democratic president to get us out of Iraq. If Obama wins then progressives are in for such a disappointment as to make Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" look like social faux pas.

Despite long and deep exposure to Marxist thinking I think that analysis is not useful right now. We are seeing a religious minority strive for power and getting more traction than anyone on the left is willing to credit. _They_ think they are at war with us (progressives, liberals, northerners, what have you). My question is simply this: do you think you are at war with them? If you do not then you can't hope to defeat them.

My remedies? Campaign reform eliminating non-public funding and undoing of the gerrymandered districts (state and federal) which prevent most congressional seats from being competitive. Not very excting, eh? Maybe not, but gerrymandering ensures that polarizers are elected and then the public debate is polarized, which is only to the benefit of those who use "us vs. them" to maintain control.

If you cherish democracy (which includes accepting sell outs/compromise because it means makings deals with people you don't agree with) then restoring it in our elections would be a good place to start. Not only would this be effective; it is achieveable.

Obama has more experience than the shrub had when he was elected, and Obama's no shrub.

mikepeters, very good, very good. obama surges to the front. mccain, so dead in the water several month ago, barely able to afford a bus ticket, certainly no first class air fare, flailing for his political platform, written off by all the press puppets.

the young black stud muffin with all the momentum. suddenly, as election day nears, out come the old balding mudballs, slinging their dirt. the stud muffin stumbles and falls, never to recover. four years with the beady eyed mad bomber.

The facts are simply this, the Republicans have not voted in the primaries like the Demos and independants have. They have been outnumbered almost "two to one". That trend will likely continue,__ no matter who the demo candidate is.

Right now Obama has the momentum, if he maintains that, he will be the Demo candidate. Hillary must win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, or she will be out of the race.

If they are almost tied when the Demo convention is held, Hillary will probably recieve most of the super delgate votes. If that happens, she had better have Obama as her VP running mate. If not, the Repugs might then out vote the Demos in the general.