Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is Cardboard. Also Entirely Recycled, Water and Fireproof, and Dirt Cheap.
- Sen. Sanders: Wall Street CEOs are the 'Faces of Class Warfare'
- Change Is Coming: Factory Farms' Days May Be Numbered
- The Rise of the Sharing Communities
- Sec. of State Hopeful Susan Rice Reportedly Holds 600k Stake in Keystone XL Decision
Popular content
Today's Top News
Many Voting For Clinton to Boost GOP
For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.
A sudden change of heart? Hardly.
Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.
Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.
"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."
Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.
About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."
Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.
Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.
But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.
Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bête noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."
"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."
He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."
Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.
Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.
"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."
Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."
In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.
John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.
"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."
Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.
"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."
Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.
It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.
Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."
"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."
Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.
If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.
"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.
Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.
"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.
Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.
© 2008 The Boston Globe
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


148 Comments so far
Show All"i hope she does become the nominee so that she can show us what a good administrator looks like. a lot of people have forgotten. and i wish she would focus more on her economic ideas, whose time is ripe."
mary lou,
You may want Clinton to be the nominee, but so do the Republicans. Rightfully or not, she carries way too much baggage for many Americans and the odds are very long for her. If she is the nominee, then we most likely will get McCain and his hundred year war.
Also, while she may be a good administrator, I don't think the present time calls for that. We need someone who can coalesce the American people (well, at least a critical mass) and Hillary is not the one to do that.
Hillary Clinton is smart, but apparently not very wise. If she were, she would do what is best for her party and her country.
"And Obama's minister is right. Our international behavior is obscene, Obama knows it, and is forced to pretend it isn't or get crucified by the corporate media. What a sick joke."
Jeez, I watched part of the minister's speech. Can't find much to fault with it either.
Everywhere I turn I hear very ardent Obama supporters speaking / writing about Hillary Clinton with the same irrational hatred and arrogance I hear from a "typical" ardent Bush supporter. Regardless of your party affiliation, she seems to be the go-to target for your venom. 90% of the posts for this article are from a rabid group of politico-masturbators full of the same shit - be it left or right.
What a joke. The fact that this article appears here at all means "mission accomplished" - more infighting, more spittle.
Get your heads out of your asses! The election will still be months away after the nomination is finished. Plenty of time to regroup. Vote your conscience and let others do the same without your whining. You fucking idiots.
KaneJeeves, I agree with you. This is absolutely pathetic!
Also, I thought when someone "crosses over" they have to sign a statement at the time that they are committed to their new party?!
I could not detest Limbutt more if I tried!
Nobody wanted to take Kucinich seriously, huh?
"The election will still be months away after the nomination is finished. Plenty of time to regroup. Vote your conscience and let others do the same without your whining."
Hey, I'm with you - vote your conscience. I've just come to realize that there is a cost and you should be prepared to pay it.
My conscience: Obama or McKinney.
Another time, another year, you'll see everyone on the left doing exactly the same thing.
Picture a year where the Dem nominee is already decided, but a challenger is giving the Republican front-runner a hard time. You'll see everyone on the left bragging about how they 'crossed-over' and tried to put a monkey wrench in the other party.
So, to me this whole debate is hypocritical nonsense.
Besides, these are the rules. These states have 'open' primaries. This is the way it works. Deal with it.
-----------
Anyone remember the classic advertising adage ... "there's no such thing as bad publicity." Think of the way Obama and Clinton are dominating the news right now and all the 'publicity' they are getting. That's a good thing. The stupidest thing the Republicans could do is to drag this out further. By doing this, they've pretty much assured that Obama and Clinton will dominate the news from now to the convention.
If the Dem nomination was over, then the corporate media would shift to general election mode where McCain would be on the news every night and every crazy utterance would be fawned over as if it was the greatest nugget of wisdom. Meanwhile, the constant attacks and jibes at the Democratic nominee would begin.
The fact that this is going on and on and on is the greatest blessing the Dems could have. It keeps their candidates in the news, and McCain has to work hard to even get his name on the news (see trip to Iraq). Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Its better to have your name in the news as a candidate than to not have your name in the news.
"How about some real electoral reform..."
The Dems have a majority in both houses of Congress, so what have they done with this issue?
Nothing of course is the answer. They like the same corrupt system that's easily rigged and that blocks alternatives. The Dems are as adept at rigging it as the Rethugs, and the only important thing to the Dems in 2006 was that they could then go to the lobbyists and say 'pay us now!'
Like with everything else, if you want reform, voting Dem is not the answer.
"Like with everything else, if you want reform, voting Dem is not the answer."
COMarc,
You make a valid point, and I agree to an extent. The Democratic Party has whored itself out and most can see this.
The thing is, I think there is a small opportunity at this point to harness a lot of young energy that is going with Obama. If Obama wins, hopefully that energy will carry through after the election and some reform can happen. It will be up to the elders to keep the light on and lend a hand. I am slightly hopeful that something might change if this happens.
If this doesn't happen, if the Democrats continue to whore themselves and another generation is suckered, then I will withdraw to my garden and tend to my planting. There will be nothing left to do.
wrong comarc: crossing over disingenuously is a class four felony in ohio...it's AGAINST the rules
mary lou: you're right with Klinton, the trains vill run on time... perhaps we should tap old Alexander Haig. Is he still alive? I always thought he'd be an effective administrator.
FACT: There are at least ten percent of the GOP that LOVE RON PAUL and I know plenty more that abhor Bush... refused to vote for him in '04. There is a VERY REAL REPUBLICAN ANTIWAR SENTIMENT. Those are Obama supporters too. The other crossovers are documented above.
Ya'all should get out more and talk to your neighbors.
With the economy going the way it is, I think people would vote Chelsea over McCain.
Don't think there's much to worry about when the country is sliding this bad economically, but I won't underestimate the American electorate.
Vaudree (March 17th, 2008 12:43 pm) wrote: "It is the Multinationals (rather the Republicans) who seem to fear Obama more than Clinton. I think that this is because they know what Clinton will and will not do in office but Obama is so new to the scene that he is an unknown (and, to be honest, unknowable) factor."
Good points in your post, Vaudree. Hillary Clinton is a proud member in good standing of the Democratic Leadership Council -- AKA 'Republican Lite' -- and she's received more corporate campaign donations this election than any other candidate, Dem or Republican. I think it's telling that Clinton's campaign manager, Mark Penn, draws a paycheck from the same parent company as senior McCain advisor and lobbyist Charlie Black. The 'Corprocracy' doesn't really care, in my view, whether McCain or Clinton is elected: their interests will be protected, as well as their tax cuts. Obama is a wild card though, since he doesn't take money from lobbyists or PACs and has sponsored and passed laws to make government more transparent and ethical. I think his sudden jump to the front of the Dem pack shocked the Plutocrats, and now they are pulling out the stops to secure the nomination for Hillary. (Hence our corporately-owned trying to make Jeremiah Wright Obama's vice president.)
One way to look at all of this 'cross-voting' is that it reveals the desperation of the Republican Party and the weakness of McCain's candidacy. The right-wing media audience is dwindling -- Bill O'Reilly has lost more than a million viewers since 2005 and King Rush himself is being beaten in some markets by Air America Radio -- and the Republicans are saddled with abject failure on all fronts -- the economy, foreign wars, the housing crisis, jobs, a president who can't avoid his foot with his mouth, you-name-it -- and I don't think even another terrorist attack would bring the majority back into the fold -- why wouldn't Americans just as well angrily wonder why the GOP didn't protect them better after all of the extraordinary measures the Bush Adminstration has put in place to, allegedly, fight terrorism?
As this article by Eric Lotke at the Campaign for America's Future lays out, the American right-wing is collapsing under the weight of its own delusions, false promises, and incompetence. (Read "Conservatism is Dying" here:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/conservatism-dying-old-age-ill-health-and-neglect )
The question is: are we going to have DLC-Dem Hillary retarding progress on behalf of the corporate interests that have invested in her campaign, or Barack Obama who, accepting his flaws as a 'perfect progressive,' is the better option for starting us down the path to reclaiming our government and our indepedence from multi-national corporations?
BTW, Vaudree, I didn't realize Canada was that close to new elections. Good luck with getting rid of the noxious Harper.
Maybe Obama will sweep the nation with a significant vote count victory, uncontestable, but the GOP figure with Clinton the vote may be close enough to let Diebold do the rest to pull in McCain. A paranoid moment.
I must live in a different America. I heard a lot of hateful talk about him, about his race, about him supposedly being a Muslim, how he must be a trained terrorist - before the news broke about his minister. I work with a bunch of xenophobic right-wingers, they were practically foaming at the mouth today. Obama as the Democratic nominee would tear this country apart. I don't see him beating McCain, if he did, he'd be lucky to survive til inauguration day. I'm so sick of all the ugliness.....
Yes! The Republican "dittoheads", as Rush used call his followers, believe the war in Iraq is a wonderful thing. Iran is next! The ones who don't are starting to say the Democrats started it! We are the good guys and we are saving the Iraqis! Obama tells them they are wrong (uppity!)and will probably deal with the obscene tax cuts Bush gave the very wealthy and corporations.
Its obscene selfishness. A retiree with a pension, investments, and social security will vote for the Republicans to save his $1000 +/- per year tax cut even though he knows the deficit is bankrupting us.
A single issue antiabortionist will vote Republican because they tell him they will somehow magically change the Constitution or the courts, and he doesn't give a flying f##k how many children have died in Iraq.
A doctor owning a multi million dollar practice will vote Republican because he gets to cry about the insurance money while he makes a fortune. Who knows what insurance reform might bring, and who cares about the uninsured, the war in Iraq or global warming? I've got mine!
We live in a very selfish country and the Repubs pander to that. They can do anything they want as long as their (expletive omitted) constituents get what they want. It isn't just the big corporations. We live in a fat know nothing country that seems totally clueless about the multiple disasters we are creating.
I think the crossover voters are afraid of Obama. There is a Clinton track record and things weren't too bad when Bill was president He pandered to the selfishness too. Obama is something of an unknown.
gingkofig said: Everywhere I turn I hear very ardent Obama supporters speaking / writing about Hillary Clinton with the same irrational hatred and arrogance I hear from a "typical" ardent Bush supporter. Regardless of your party affiliation, she seems to be the go-to target for your venom. 90% of the posts for this article are from a rabid group of politico-masturbators full of the same shit - be it left or right.
What a joke. The fact that this article appears here at all means "mission accomplished" - more infighting, more spittle.
Get your heads out of your asses! The election will still be months away after the nomination is finished. Plenty of time to regroup. Vote your conscience and let others do the same without your whining. You fucking idiots.
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The war is a wonderful thing as long as the troop I'm supporting is someone else's kid.
Voting for Clinton to boost GOP?
Scott, your article is another blatant attempt to taint Hillary's candidacy with the same personal attacks used so successfully by the GOP.
The fact is we have no way of knowing how Republicans voted in the Democratic primary – in my conversations with my Republican friends they believe Hillary (and Bill) to be a stronger candidate against McCain.
In Virginia where I live I can report knowing of Republicans that voted for Obama because they want McCain to win. They 'know' that America is too racist to vote a black candidate into the White House.
And perhaps that is why Limbaugh rushed to 'support' Hillary. In a single stroke he pissed off the progressives against Hillary and with a wink let his listeners know that she was the real target. They know the code.
But given the recent negative press for the Obama campaign due to his Pastor's sermons Rush may have been too late.
The biased media hoopla attacking the Pastors comments and Obama is occurring despite the MSN's effort to go easy on their scrutiny of him while savage in their attacks of Hillary.
This problem for Obama is not something Hillary's fabled attack machine cooked up.
It was Obama's own words that called media attention to his Church and Pastor (no - it was not Ferraro) and as a consequence he is dealing with a white racist backlash surely to have been part of the GOP 'swift-boating' by McCain during the Presidential campaign.
Unfortunately for the GOP the racist dam broke a bit early and it is now giving Hillary a real chance to win the Democratic primary.
Oh please. Let everyone vote for the opposite of who they'd want in the White House and leave them to it. The Republicans who vote for Obama because they think a black man can't be elected and those who think Hillary can't be elected, or those who actually think either of those two candidates are better than McCain. Let them chase their own tails. We can't actually know the truth except by anecdote, and that is no truth at all.
I am somewhat surprised that so many here would believe this article, it's bullshit. So was Rush "Lim-baws" comments. It's a designed ploy and tactic used by the Gop "rat fu##ers", which is a vulgar term they use for dirty political tactics. It is not Obama the GOP fears as an opponent, It's Clinton.
And ~Learnfromthepast~, you are right on.
Maybe most of you haven't heard about the Obama campaign policy of instructing people how to be "Democrats for a Day" to vote in primaries, or participate in caucuses. Happening now in PA, has happened in Texas and elsewhere. In Texas the instructions were particularly anti-Clinton, and aimed at Republicans: basically let's get rid of Clinton by supporting Obama. So lots of his support is temporarily crossing over Republicans and Independents that have no intention of voting for him if he gets the nomination.
The contempt for Clinton is based upon her inhumane, extensive voting record. It is a reasoned and fact based disdain for the corporate lobbyist dominated DNC. People want AWAY from it.
People that are honestly dissuaded by these smear tactics are few... really.
Republicans will vote Republican in November and that's that. No real Democrat or anti-War Republican is going to be deeply effected by all this hullabaloo in the General Election. This is all about the primary... They'll ramp it up for the General but it will have negligible effect this time.
Think thousands of dead and injured... think Trillions in debt... think homeless, formerly middle class people, unable to take THEIR kids to the doctor.
Whether or not Obama's Pastor is more feisty and divisive than the Christio-zionist backers of McCain is going to be utterly silly after the Convention.
I DO see the inroads that the xenophobe Dodd has made into the minds of Democrats, and frankly... THAT is alarming.
"I must live in a different America..."
No, you live in the "real" Amerikkka. Those are the things that the public is saying at the moment.
Unfortunately, the heavy hitting is only getting started.
This forum here represents a slice of the "left", and the acrimony and divisiveness is highly palpable where there should be unity in, and clarity of purpose.
It will be a rough ride, but perhaps, as others have stated, it is best time for this boat to sink. It has inflicted too much damage upon the world.
I suspect this corporate media piece is a response (pro-Obama of course) to Wayne Barrett's extensive piece on the extensive right wing support for Obama-- http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html
Before you all carry on like the useful idiots you are, you might want to read it. Here's a key excerpt:
"Sixteen of the 45 Democratic primaries and caucuses held before this week were open affairs, allowing Republicans and independents to take part, and Barack Obama has won 11 of those contests. He almost invariably carried the Republican vote, which accounted for as much as 9 percent of the total in Wisconsin and Texas, and frequently ran even stronger among independents, who represented a fifth or more of Democratic primary voters in state after state. The 75 percent of the Republican vote that he won in Missouri, for example, may have pushed him over the top, and certainly, when combined with his 67 percent of the state's much larger independent vote, it delivered many of the district-apportioned delegates to him. Republicans in Obama states like Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia were even freer to cross the aisle, since by the time they voted, John McCain had already sewn up the GOP nomination. While Obama often won some of these states so handily that Republicans and independents could not have provided his margin of victory, there is no way to know how many delegates in close congressional-district contests will wind up in Denver because of the impact of Republican or independent voters. And there is no exit-poll data to measure their impact on the caucuses."
Yes, apparently in the minds of many posting here today (nearly all convinced Obama is uniquely chaste among politicians) a republican vote for Obama comes from the heart, whereas a republican vote for Clinton comes from further south.
annika - I object to your choice of 'idiots' but you make me laugh.
"Before you all carry on like the useful idiots you are, you might want to read it. Here's a key excerpt:"
Perhaps watching that capitalist training cartoon 'Thomas and Friends' with my kids is good for my humor :-)
So is this what Obama learned from the Great Communicator? The simpler the message the more loyal the followers.
Thanks for the link!
Watch The Hour (cbc.ca/thehour) tonight (video should be up in a few hours) because there is a very funny piece in the news section (half way through) about Rapper DMX and Obama:
RE: - vaudree, Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez. How come that was no big deal? Oh yeah, because he wasn't talking about America the Great. Way too many people still think we're the most wonderful benevolent country on earth.
Kathyodat, I thought it was because the Americans were so successful in their many attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. On the CBC, there was some talk of whether the show violated CTRC (ie FCC) guidelines because of the call to off someone. CTV was honest for the reason why Pat Robertson, an American comic, figured democratically elected Chavez should be offed:
Robertson, 75, told a Monday broadcast of "The 700 Club" that U.S. operatives should consider "taking him out," saying it would be "cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.'' ...
Robertson said Chavez is "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050824/Pat_Robertson_050823/20050824/
Assassination has been a policy of both the Dems and Repugs for at least the last couple decades if not longer and neither is going to point a dirty finger at the other over this issue. Does Nader ever speak out on this issue?
Sicko simplifies things. If you wish to privatized something, you can either starve it so that people will stop fighting to save it or do so when no one is looking (disaster capitalism style) - Paul Martin and Stephen Harper have done both.
RE: - It's now clear that obama is fighting a war on two fronts: the republicans (i.e., traitors to the constitution, violators of ethics like limbaugh) and the hillary democrats.
Diana, the same can be said of Clinton fighting a war on two fronts - the whole thing resembles Chinese checkers right now.
RE: - Hillary Clinton is a proud member in good standing of the Democratic Leadership Council — AKA 'Republican Lite' — and she's received more corporate campaign donations this election than any other candidate, Dem or Republican.
I don't like Clinton and the Pug-lite comment seems fairly consistent in that she definitely doesn't represent the Wellstone branch of the party. But Corporations do try to influence the winner. That said, the longer the Dem race continues, there more money both Clinton and Obama will have to spend fighting each other rather than fighting Repugs. McCain isn't spending any Repug money right now - his world trip is being funded at taxpayer expense.
RE: - BTW, Vaudree, I didn't realize Canada was that close to new elections. Good luck with getting rid of the noxious Harper.
Canada has a Minority government so they have been minutes away from the start of an election for over a year and a half. If the NDP, Bloc and Liberals (aka the chicken shits) voted together on a Confidence Motion they can bring down the government and Canada would have another election. If the Liberals win 3/4 by-elections, they will cooperate with the NDP and Bloc and bring down the government at the very next opportunity. If they win only 1 or 2, the Liberals will continue to prop up the Harper government. Check cbc.ca or ctv.ca around pm central and you will have your answer.
I looked at your article - brings back memories of that Blackout that hit Ontario and a few American states a few years back.
RE: - Think thousands of dead and injured… think Trillions in debt… think homeless, formerly middle class people, unable to take THEIR kids to the doctor.
Not even to a walk-in free of charge to get the ear drops or the amoxicilian! Come on! It can't be that bad.
RE: - I DO see the inroads that the xenophobe Dodd has made into the minds of Democrats, and frankly… THAT is alarming.
There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with Lou Dobbs, but Dobbs is unhappy with NAFTA - which is a good thing that should be exploited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MR7tL7tWs
Scott Helman thanks for letting me in on the dirty little secret americans don't honestly express their opinions in the polls (as though americans honestly expressed their opinions about anything - seems one of the prerequisites of capitalism is secrecy). as a nation we've watched too many game shows like let's make a deal and the price is right.
personally i think clinton/mccain yields quite a bit of entertainment value but i'm starting to see hope of some serious humor w/ an obama candidacy...
(satire on)
lets cash in before the election shall we..... join cnn in 8 days when we unmask the real rev wright, the comments we didn't hear a couple of months ago. rev wright slamming poor little whites CEO's and former slave owners..... then straight from SAN ANTONIO recent revelations revealed from haggee's book published 2 years ago. hitler went to catholic schools (and the pope is german.. connect the dots folks). this summer before the conventions, CNN brings you the important debate moderated by john king, the debate america wants to hear - the ideological standard bearers of malcom x (if he was a christian) and john birch. the economy, the occupation of iraq these issues are secondary folks it's hagee on wright only on CNN...CNN welcomes both republican and democratic viewers... don't miss it... back to our new commentator geraldine ferraro......
(satire off)
...peace....
No, gingkofig, Obama is not uniquely chaste, that's reserved for Kucinich. but he does energize the young people and he refuses to resort to the slime tactics of the Clintons or accept lobbyist money, which is Hillary's main financial pipeline. Consider the old adage "follow the money". She's a DLC founder, who needs more of that? Bill Clinton accelerated the migration of ntional wealth to the richest Americans, and the Clintons are now part of that group and obviously intent on increasing their take. Hillary refuses to release her tax returns, first time I've heard of a candidate doing that, but I could be wrong. And when Obama challenges her to do it, she screams "Ken Starr!"
It's amazing to me that all you Hillary apologists have no problem with her behavior. Is this the model we want to set for young people, to look the other way when politicians use lies and smears about their opponents and cheat and lie about their own finances? They're howling about Obama involved with Rezko in buying a house, what a can of worms would be opened if the Clinton finances were made public. Fat chance of that happening. Don't tell me they made $60 million in 7 years selling autobiographies and giving talks.
I'm sure Republicans had their own reasons for voting for either candidate, but my own family and friends know Republicans who told them they are disgusted with the Republican party and are planning to vote for Obama for President because they like his message. Same with independents. And he has coattails, something we will need. Hillary has neither. And she's not making friends with her bloody war on Obama. Of course Clinton loyalists don't care what she does. But if she manages to win, they will find out what she will do. Pick everybody's pockets. like Bill did.
kathyodat
RSJ and cranky_chatter, you are both right with your posts. Thank you for speaking out.
now i'm a 'hillary apologist"? thanks for the spittle kathodat.
gingko, what do you call yourself? And do you approve of Hillary's behavior?
kathyodat
this is silly kathy, i won't label myself. i voted for clinton both times, gore and kerry after that. hate me for it. it doesn't matter. what i'm uncomfortable with, and feel compelled to ridicule, is this rigid fervor that makes one feel justified in hating - actually hating! - the other fellow because he doesn't think like you. or labeling them or marginalizing them. i haven't read any of obama's books. he's certainly an exceptional man. its not him i'm really focusing my energy on with these posts. its his followers. there's something frightening about people that write posts with such authoritative sounding proclamations about the evil of one side or the other.
what a mess it all is - our political system. its corporatization, the flaws of the lobby, the comical sense that there is actually a difference between left and right. it feels hopeless.
this is rambling i know but if you want to change peoples minds, don't preach at them. don't label them or come across like you're here to save them from their own ignorance.
i'm rolling over now - you want to make another obama convert? i'll be your experiment. tell me what to read and where to look. but you won't make me hate hillary.
The reason the bastards are voting for her, is because Obama scares the hell out of them. The very idea of a "colored" president freaks them out. So Rush Limbaugh tells his sheep to vote for Hilary.
Neither Hilary or McCain will rock their precious (and dreadfully F'd up) boat, so they're voting for the monster to keep the colored man out of the way.
Also, sadly many women are emotionally thrilled by the idea of having a woman president - even though Hilary is Tweedle Dee in a skirt, and McCain is TweedleDum.
kathyodat one day at a time
It's mysterious eh?
The reason they seem so unreasonable... so crazy and wildly illogical... so intractable... so abjectly loyal, as if Clinton were Bush and they were Republicans... is that they're real reasons are unspeakable.
They don't like black people. They're afraid of black people.
It's that simple. I've been observing it for years. More often Southerners are far more teachable than Northerners; that are often only second or third generation Americans. They have no cultural affinity for African American people. They're incapable of getting past it.
There's no reason to talk to them sometimes.
Beforkids__ What basis do you have for stating (8:16)that if Hillary gets in we will get our pockets picked like Bill did?
Seems to me that he did just the opposite by raising taxes on the well off which was not appreciated. You may be one of those that got hit which means you are in good shape.
Everyone forgets (or never knew) that Clinton came in after Bush 1 had created a big budget deficit and every year for eight years the budget was improved until the last few years we had a budget surplus and talked of paying down the national debt. I don`t call that picking our pockets.
Part of the reason Clinton did a good job with our economy is that he picked his cabinet and advisors on ability instead of the Bush method of vetting them according to religious views.
gingkofig, I don't hate anyone, not even Bush. But some people behave in ways that are unacceptable to me. That includes Hillary and Bush. I've only voted for 2 Democrats in my life, LBJ who lied and McGovern who betrayed Eagleton. After that I promised myself i would never again hold my nose to vote for someone. Obama is the first Democrat since then who actually might get elected that I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for.
I appreciate your willingness to learn more about him. The more I learn about him the better I like him. And I don't hate anyone on this site. One of my best friends here is a Hillary supporter. He's open about it, he doesn't like some of the things she does, but he doesn't trust Obama. Well, I can't say I know Obama well enough to trust him but what I've read from his past, I'm willing to take a chance on him. I'm even willing to bet on him. Normally I only make sure bets, but these are trying times and I have a strong feeling about his sense of ethics and progressivism.
Obama has repeatedly asked Hillary to join him in running a positive campaign, not talking about each other, but about themselves and the issues. She's not interested.
gingko, below are the first links I read about Obama. Since then I've picked up information piecemeal. Such as, when Alice Palmer invited him to run for the state Senate seat she was vacating to run for the US Congress, he told her he didn't want to set up an organization and have her come back and change her mind. She assured him it wouldn't happen. But when she lost the primary, that's exactly what she did. He didn't back down and agonized over his advisers' telling him to challenge her petition signatures for the ballot. He ended up doing that, but didn't feel good about it. Well, all of his competitors had used out of date poll lists and none of them qualified to be on the ballot. There's a difference between playing hardball and using lies and distortions against your opponent, and that's where the Clintons have crossed the line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
kathyodat
Reading these posts on CD is like craning my neck to see a horrible traffic accident - I can't help but look, but it's a terrible thing I'm seeing.
I've come to the conclusion that nothing the Obama supporters say about Obama or about Hillary will change the Hillary supporters' minds one bit, and vice versa - the Hillary supporters aren't going to change the Obama supporters' minds.
It's kind of comical, but also sad and frustrating. It's frustrating, because a lot of this is perception. He's a race baiter. No SHE's a race baiter. You're only voting for him because you hate women. You're only voting for her because she's a woman. She's only voting for him because he's black. Blah blah blah.
You can't PROVE that one candidate is better, or more progressive, or more promising, or more talented, or more honest, or more intelligent than the other. You make your case the best you can, but all of it is filtered through our perceptions of these two candidates.
It's also frustrating, and sad, because this is exactly what the Republicans want, and expect, from Democrats. Democrats are so predictable, so good at shooting themselves in the foot, so good at circular firing squads.
The Repugs have the ability to rally around one candidate -- no matter how much some of them hate that candidate - because they're united in a common purpose, which is to stop the "liberals" from taking over the White House.
Their hatred of liberals (or blacks or women) surpasses their hatred of Republican candidates that they think are not conservative enough.
The Dems, on the other hand, are so invested with being "right" about their candidate that they will fight each other to the death to prove it, even if they destroy themselves in the process.
I consider myself a recovering Democrat. That is, I've stopped being a Democrat because it's just too toxic to remain one. I care, but I have to force myself not to care, because I'll just be disappointed and heartbroken again. But it is like a drug: I want to believe that this candidate will be different, but I know better. It's hard to break old habits, and I've been a Democrat my whole life. But not anymore. And this back biting and pissing and moaning and name-calling and totally self-destructive behavior is one big reason (not the only one) I'm not a Democrat anymore.
I've been betrayed and disappointed and heartbroken and lied to too many damn ties.
Do we, the liberals, progressives, and those on the left (some of whom are Dems, some who are not) have the ability to come together, to rally for a common purpose: getting the criminals out of the White House, the halls of Congress, and the courts? I really don't think we do. But until we do, then we'll just have more of the same: McCain will be our next president.
Kernel, you're wrong, I was on the other end of the spectrum. Yeah, Clinton raised taxes on the rich - some - but he signed NAFTA, death warrant to our manufacturing base, signed the Telecommunications law, ending media diversity, signed welfare "reform" which moved millions of poor children from poverty into dire poverty and many others. The bills he signed came down on the side of the corporations instead of the working people. He and Hillary are the founders of the DLC whose first allegiance is to lobbyists and completely anti-union. He did put able administrators in the agencies which made them efficient. In stark contrast to Bush who was intent on destroying the Federal government and used cronyism to do it (my computer says cronyism isn't a word). I say Bush has made it a word. If you stack Clinton against Bush, he looks good, but then so does McCain or almost anyone short of serial killers. Can't we do better than that?
cranky_chatter, I can guess how you figured out my username, although no one else ever has. Not even my brother who has reason to be able to do so.
kathyodat
maybe its because she is a Republicrat, and if she wins it will read...
Clinton/Lieberman 08
cranky_chatter March 17th, 2008 9:22 pm
"There's no reason to talk to them sometimes."
and sometimes it's important not to avoid the truth.....
thank you for flushing out that very obvious point every one seems to carefully overlook.
those voters in mississippi, ohio, new hampshire, texas that live in white enclaves are having a difficult time overcoming their prejudices, i listened to a caller on cspan yesterday describe dutch country pennslyvania as bavaria between liberia and lebanon, he was proud of that (comparing philly and ptsbrg to lebanon) i do believe obama has done well in overwhelmingly white states - especially out west, WA state for example. i think this prejudice exists in areas where there aren't multiracial interactions, and where there are fewer educational/economic opportunities. there fore they feel threatened by outsiders (racism-anti immigrant).
this racism is masked when MSM frames the issues:
first that,republcans are voting for clinton believeing mccain can win against clinton in the general(i suspect some americans are offended obama made it this far)
and secondly, that clinton excels in poorer/less educated white areas b/c they're concerned w/ the economy and hillary has bills intuitive experience (right?). it's ironic that even MSM considers hillary wall street's lady. what's the disconnect the missing element that explains why the poor would vote for the candidate that actually is appreciated by the elites - when her entire family is leahcing off of long established political connections (maybe racial attitudes, islamophobia, and lack of education).
i realize this is very simple analysis. and some people may actually believe this isn't the case. regardless there's no question who has exploited this issue (clintons,limbaugh) and what are their motives?
the youth and and blacks of this country clearly know what's being said, what ferraros, clinton's comments really are about. back of the bus.....
in august they will express themselves en mass one way or the other.
in addition to the will of everyone else in the world (except maybe the israelis),
it's one more legitimate reason (yes jena bush your next president will be a black man) the democratic party should choose barak obama to be the next president of the US...
...peace.....
Barack Obama has said several times that he will talk to our enemies in an attempt to make peace with them. Hilary says that can't do that, that he's being too naive.
Barack says in reply "YES WE CAN!" We can and must talk to our enemies if we want to make peace with them. Arrogant as hell American leaders refuse to talk to our enemies, because peace is the greatest threat to the military industrial complex. If the corrupt politicians made peace with our enemies, the biggest and most profitable industry in the world go out of business forever.
Hilary says Obama doesn't have enough experience. Enough experience for what? Enough experience to be corrupted to the core? Experienced enough to be the property of the NY billionaire Jewish lobby, as well as the old mafia money in NY?
Hilary has truly acted like a monster. Rather than address the issues, rather than release her tax reports (as Obama did long ago), she has persistently attacked him.
I used to respect Hilary very much, but she has become almost as repulsive to me as GW Bush - as a result of her support of dubya's so called "war on terror" and her negative campaign against Barack Obama. Winning is everything to her. Even her campaign workers have been at each other's throats. If she gets a WH staff - would they be any different? She has clearly become corrupted and addicted to power and the limelight. She lusts for it, but she's far more emotional than mental and she's very hot headed. She is a recipe for disaster.
By the way, kernel, that Clinton budget was improved on the backs of the working poor. Clinton ran an austerity budget. Remember his campaign promises? Infrastructure, jobs creation? Now everyone can have two low wage jobs instead of one living wage job. Bill Clinton set that up. Not Reagan, Bill. Bush simply took the baton from bill and ran with it.
kathyodat
Gee, MaxheMust, if that happened, we would have to create whole new industries to employ people. You know, like alternative energy, restoring infrastructure and our manufacturing base, providing educational opportunities for more than the privileged. Just imagine seeing "Made in USA" on the products you buy. And at the rate our dollar is sinking it wouldn't cost any more either.
kathyodat
Our economy is messed up now. Who is going to be stupid enough to vote for another Mad Dog of War Republican, e.g. John McCain? Shillary isn't much better as she voted for the illegal attack on Iraq, is against the banning of cluster bombs, and will get us into a war with Iran.
Why does she praise McCain and trash Obama? She puts winning above the Democratic party. I guess if she figures if she can't win, no other Democrat should. She would rather John McCain won instead of Obama. She's a monster.
gingofig, you might as well give it up. These Obama supporters are hateful, as hateful as I have ever seen people. They say things that most of us would never say in public. We might think it in our darkest moments, but when we came to our senses realize that hate does nothing to convince others. For the past 7 1/2 years, I have felt strongly and sadly about the direction our country is going; I am learning through this primary season that hate gets us nowhere, but gets turned on ourselves. There is plenty of that displayed on this website.
Hilary Clinton and Rush Limbaugh sitting in a tree...
You know the rest -
:-) ;-)
But why won't she release her tax returns. Obama did that long ago. What could Hilary be hiding? What is she afraid of?
wow
Democracy is sure ugly.
While it surely does beat the alternatives can everyone please respect that we are posting on 'Common Dreams" and self-edit their language accordingly.
We all feel strongly about this race - and I don't mean to be condescending but we can support our candidate and express our views without the hateful language.
Let's not mimic Bush and the neo-cons and defend our views by destroying the very values we claim to uphold.
Beforkids__ You are right that everything was not perfect and there were problems during Bill Clinton`s years, but he had to fight the Repubs to get anything done at all, and was able to keep the government operating when they tried to shut it down completely. There is always some groups in any administration that thinks they have been short-changed.
There was absolutely no comparison then with the disaster we have now for every group except the super rich. Most people then felt they had some chance for a decent life, while now it is questionable our country can keep from going into depression, and no one will have a future , unless they have a fortune safe in a Swiss bank.
There is no harm in bringing out some relevant things about the candidates, but this incessant mud slinging at the Clintons is not warranted, and has become a ridiculous waste of time. Hillary and Obama both have problems, but if not one of them, then who? We have some chance with either one of them to get our budget in better balance again by bringing our troops home and putting taxes on the rich as they are getting a free ride. There are more billionaires daily in this country that should be helping out with infrastructure and peoples needs while we argue around about nit-picking nonsense.
I haven't read Obama's two books, but early on I did see a very good interview with him on Charlie Rose. His thoughtfulness and good character clearly came through.
Because I liked him did not cause me to 'dislike' Senator Clinton -- though I had/have questions about why she did not seem to do much in stopping the Rwandan Genocide. And, one wonders what happened to her husband's promises prior to the 1992 election to work hard for a 'living wage' for all Americans (as well as, good European-like technical schools for our non-book-loving young adults, also, Lathyodat has also pointed out several other of President Clinton's policies that may have been hurtful to our country.
However, some of Senator Clinton's campaign statements and tactics, as well as those of her husband ("you gotta do what you gotta do") and her staff -- have caused me to feel very uncomfortable about the prospect of Senator Clinton leading our nation and setting a moral example for our young (I do not feel that way towards Senators Dodd or Biden, nor towards John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich).
I would probabaly vote for her over McCain because of war and economy -- but I cannot imagine supporting her over Senator Obama.
gingko, below are the first links I read about Obama. Since then I've picked up information piecemeal
kathyodat
You are a class act. You state your position clearly, provide "real" links to support your position, and you are not nasty about it. THAT is the way to present your POV effectively. Cheers!