hi slimshady. i didn't get the links but am interested in anything you've got. re-post 'em!
thanks.

Wow. Judging from the slim cross-section this post represents, Democrats (progressives? liberals?) have been torn asunder. Mission accomplished!

Only Americans are capable of dragging down and disemboweling America. It has ever been thus.

BTW ...
KaneJeeves sez: "You know what makes me saddest about this… Thinking about kids in school learning about American History, and Democracy, and elections. I'm sad about the day they find that they've been fed a line."

Would you feel better to know most of those kids are learning no such thing?

gingkofig, did you miss my post of 9:51 where I posted the Obama info links?

I see you asked sLiMsHaDy to repost the links, so here they are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Glad to hear you're a medical student. Also sorry because when I worked as an R.N. in a teaching hospital, I saw how residents were treated. Brutal.

Hillary's universal health care plan of 1993 wasn't going to be single payer. It was so complicated that even without Harry and Louise it was doomed. It just doesn't make sense to anyone but politicians and people freaking out over socialized medicine to give 1/3 of our health care dollars to the insurance industry as profit. HR 676, the Conyers/Kucinich bill would only make the government the payer. Medical decisions would be returned to medical professionals and their patients where they belong. The financial burden would be shared by all of our society, for the benefit of all our society. It's affordable, practical, and includes DENTAL! And there are no layers of plans "to fit your budget". All that means is some worthless cheap plans to fulfill the criteria of "being insured". With the bean counters still deciding what health care you get. Watch SiCKO, listen to what some of these CEOs are saying, it'll make you sick. That's one thing Michael Moore is good at is eavesdropping. You'd think these people would have the sense not to send memos or talk out loud.

kathyodat

Ginkofig,

I was referring to kathyodat's BeForKids March 17th, 2008 9:51 pm remark regarding links. I am probably where you are at with regards to being wary of some of the over the top "you're either with us or you're wrong" partisan displays of allegiance to one or the other Dem candidate.

Because of my POV, I have been subjected to some shrill, hateful slaps by some posters/poseurs who think that they know it ALL. I was extending an olive branch to kathyodat because I recognize her total commitment to Sen. Obama and her disdain for Sen. Clinton while still being able to explain her position much more gracefully than certain others.

" i think health care is a right and that universal health care is a must. it was hillary who made that her clarion call back in '93 or so."

I remember that, too. Politics is a dirty, DIRTY business
and while she is certainly no saint, I just do not believe that Sen. Clinton is the devil incarnate. I have relatives in Illinois, Democrat and (eww) Rethuglican affiliated, and they tell me that while Sen Obama is certainly not the devil incarnate, he is no saint either.

Time is running out to find a proper consensus because I do know that the current administration is evil to the core as would be John McSame.

By the way, sLiMsHaDy, thank you for your kind and generous words about me. I'm not very popular with some posters because i won't let up on Hillary. But I think some other posters are right. People will believe what they want to believe, and ignore facts they don't want to look at or have to defend. I've noticed when I ask about things Hillary has done, I get no answer, I just get called a Hillary hater. Not a very effective debate method, to my thinking.

I still think it's all about her. When she ran for reelection for the Senate, with no major challenges, she spent a fortune on her campaign, stashed away a huge war chest for herself while other Democrats were campaigning and donating some of their war chests for those in close races. It's hard to respect that self centered kind of behavior.

I remember when I was riding the bus, a passing driver yelled that the bus was on fire. The driver threw open the doors, yelled "Everyone out!" and was the first one off the bus. I looked around and everyone was racing off the bus, no one was looking to see if anyone needed help. As it turned out no one did. I think we need more people who think about others and fewer people who only think about themselves. Certainly in leadership positions.

kathyodat

kathyodat-

Sen. Clinton wants everyone to be able to utilize the FEGHB plan. Like you, and most everyone else who cares about people, I want the Single Payer concept. That day is not here yet.

As an enrollee in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, I can tell you though that it is as good of an insurance program as there can be under such an inane system. I have had cancer- the services proscribed by the doctor are readily made available, the bills do get paid, and that is at the easily affordable level of $20.00 bi-weekly. There are lower costing plans and there are more expensive plans that individuals/families can choose from to suit their needs. It's a start. It definitely cuts out the profit driven insurance industries ability to decide what kind of care one is entitled to.

I know that that is only one area of concern among many regarding Sen. Clinton, but she is not being devious with this particular model for health care.

"I think we need more people who think about others and fewer people who only think about themselves. Certainly in leadership positions."

Agreed and then some!

sLiMsHaDy, glad you were helped. I wish you well. I know that here in Oregon the taxpayers heavily subsidize public employee health insurance. It's a major financial burden for many people whose own plans fall woefully short or are prohibitively expensive. There's a huge bill to be paid, and with the insurance industry involved, it's skyrocketing every year.

kathyodat

Clinton is right out of the Rove playbook. The "fun part" for her is plumbing the depths, pandering to the lowest human lizard brain reactions--fear and hate, while projecting all her flaws on others. The Bush agenda promoted their own version of "reality" using the corporate-Zionist media as their bullhorn. Now the chickens come home to roost--and the fairy castle built in the airy realms fade under the hot blazing sun of stark reality. The war, the economy, all built on fabrications... Witness Clinton repeating the same pattern of operating within false constructs of her own reality to mold consensus--again using Bush-Rovian ploys to prop up the Bush-Clinton dynasty. She might be able to smear Clinton crap on our highest hopes of the Left, but it comes at the cost of losing to the Right. That is some consolation--preservation of the status quo while maintaining the grip on the Democrats--even if it means a McCain presidency--which she has already stated, in so many words, that she would prefer.
You couldn't get me to vote for Clinton if you held a gun to my head.
Drive out the Bush-Clinton dynasty!

I believe that this post, from Be For Kids, typifies the Obama voter:

"Obama has brought me out of the woodwork, but if he isn't the candidate, I'm outta here. And so are a lot of young people. it isn't just his message of change and bottom up involvement that fires them up, they are seeing something they've never seen in politics before. Someone who actually feels trustworthy."

The duty of every citizen to participate in the process is seemingly overlooked here. That the tearing down of our constitutional rights, the illegality of the Iraqi War, the shrinkage of our Middle Class, the loss of jobs across our economy, the migration of our money to fewer and fewer seems secondary to this poster to the cult of personality of Senator Obama.

I ahve been politically active for a very, very long time, perhaps longer than this poster has been alive. I do not see anything of value in this type of support, basically a version of, 'if we dont play by my rules Im taking my ball (vote) and going home to sulk'.

All I can say is, you have two choices Be For, you can be a good citizen and make intelligent choices or you can go home until you grow up enough to do the former......

That's rather patronizing Ardee.

It does seem to me that Obama is the anti-Clinton. Considering your post, it is with some irony that the newest, most politically naive posters seem to defend Clinton. It is because they know less and we all suffer because she exploits their ignorance. It is no wonder that the least educated support Clinton. Supporting educational opportunity is one thing, but it would actually benefit clinton to keep people dumbed-down.

vern, i find it interesting that you accuse clinton supporters of being uninformed and/or uneducated. beforkids thinks the same thing. i think a lot of clinton supporters agree with me that here is a bright, hardworking, progressive, competent candidate who has demonstrated an ability to work across the aisle and an unbelievable ability to ignore the hateful comments of her detractors. the difference between hillary and barack is that hillary is a known quantity while barack still has not shown us what fires he would be putting out in a fall election. they are both politicians. i trust hillary clinton to work hard and competently for the people of the united states of america. based on this set of comments, most of those people do not deserve someone they so revile.

ardee, I am 65 years old and have voted in every presidential election I was old enough to vote in. With the exception of 1 election, I always voted for the person I wanted to win (and that was the first and last time I held my nose - for George McGovern who threw Thomas Eagleton off the train). It is my Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of my choice and I do not need to be told by you or anyone else who I am supposed to vote for.

I am not a typical Obama voter. I don't believe there is one, with the exception of one commonality. We want to see a change which Clinton is not offering, a shift from fearmongering (3am phone calls) and a call for us to rise up and make our voices heard for what we want. Obama attracts a wide spectrum of people; people who have been apolitical, independent swing voters, recovering Republicans, Democrats who in the end will vote for any Democrat (many while holding their noses if Obama isn't the candidate - being that Hillary isn't making herself very popular with Obama supporters), and people like me who vote for Nader or Green candidates. It amazes me how undemocratic so many Democrats are, assuming they have the right to tell me who I must vote for. I'm not even a Democrat. Why should I vote for someone I don't want to see elected? I've been a political activist since 1965, marching against the Vietnam War in countless demonstrations, outrunning police goons in Berkeley, vigiling and demonstrating at the Redwood City napalm plant, releasing doves at the Stanford stadium during the military show (they were smuggled in under my coat). I've surely written more letters to the editor than the years of your life, however old you might be, unless you're as old as Methuselah. I've worked on progressive campaigns, three of us in Eugene started the organizing committee for Nader for President in 2000 which grew large enough to have a storefront, I've worked on progressive state initiatives, I promote progressive candidates and the National Initiative with almost everyone I talk to, including billing clerks (I just start out easy with a comment about how things are going and if they respond, we're on a roll - most people do want information). Don't tell me I just go home and sulk. And I will keep on working for what I believe is right and I will never sell out for the lesser of two evils and if more people did the same we wouldn't be in this fix. Go look in the mirror.

kathyodat

mary lou, if Clinton is such a known quantity how come we are not allowed to see her tax returns? That has been a tradition. What other traditions is she planning on breaking, or will that be on a need to know basis?

You left out a big difference between Hillary and Barack. He wants a positive campaign focussed on issues and themselves, she wants a negative campaign focussed on her opponent.

kathyodat

KUDOS TO: TIM BOYLE, IAMMYSELF, RSJ, BR-001 (US suffers an "empathy deficit" on a mssive scale), KATHYDOT (10:10 posting, in particular).

I lean towards Obama for lots of reasons. The hope factor, the unknown factor, that he's less bought by the "old" elite interests, that he will talk to our "enemies," that he presents at least the SEMBLANCE of choice.
Hillary is a female warrior and our nation is in drastic need of OTHER. Its soul is on the line.

Republicans are starting to love Hillary because they know that McCain has a better chance to beat her in November.

Siouxrose, you brought up good points about Obama vs Hillary. Unfortunately some people aren't paying attention. I doubt these posts back and forth have changed any minds.

BR-001's post about the empathy deficit is actually scary. i couldn't understand how Americans could blithely go on their way while this horror in Iraq was going on, but that's it. In SiCKO, and when I talk about single payer health care, people say "Why should I pay for someone else's health care" In Europe and England, they say "We all have to help each other". What a tragic difference in outlook. And Americans don't understand what this outlook actually costs us. Remember Reagan's pretense that trickle-down economics would lift all boats? All it did was just make everyone care about their own damn boat. And we're still there. Well, Obama is offering something different, that we're all in this together, and our young people are responding to it. And so are others who choose inclusiveness over divisiveness. Hillary and her supporters don't get that.

kathyodat

And KUDOS back to you!

kathyodat

It's sad that the idea of helping each other doesn't fly for single payer health care, but when I explain the costs and benefits that does fly. Is there any hope for this country? Americans can be so unbelievably self-centered.

kathyodat

I will vote Democratic regardless of which one is running! Because I will under no circumstances vote Republican! I have grown to loathe their party and every corrupt thing they stand for. It is so riddled with fascist's now they don't even look like they are an American political party!

United we stand, Divided we fall. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

If everyone will stop for a minute and realize we've been divided for a reason -- control, we may be able to unite and defeat this New World Government. If we don't, we'd all better just hunker down with the best cache of supplies we can get in a short amount of time and wait for them to show up at our front doors to see OUR papers!

Just because the Real ID was delayed from May of this year to 2016 doesn't mean they'll wait that long; more likely they're considering a chip into us instead. Be careful fellow traveler; we're all being manipulated so that we'll continue to stay asleep and work toward our own demise.

Don't think for a moment that this mortgate crisis is due to over a million Americans waking up one day and formulating a new financial product to sell to the banks with intentions of going into foreclosure. People were lied to, just like going into Iraq for oil and it's just another way for them to start bickering amongst a people intelligent enough to ban together if they're not diligent to see that doesn't happen.

IF Cheney isn't impeached, it's likely he'll send old George on a JFK limo ride, call martial law to suspend elections and then where will we be? So go on, argue with each other -- call in on your neighbor because you don't like their views -- that's what they want us to do; turn on each other. And everyone on this site is doing just that.

mary lou: That isn't an accusation. It is common knowlege who her voting bloc turned out to be. A bit of a surprise to the DLC "New Democrat" controlling wing whose strategies included selling out the working classes(they never even uttered the word--"working class" it was always "middle-class")to pander to upscale Yuppies and the corporate class. they count on people being ignorant to their record and their agenda. Otherwise you would know she is no "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination. If her campaign is any indication of her ability to manage, she flunks that test--although she started out with the name-recognition, the funds and the presumption that it would be a cakewalk. I do not think she is particularly smart--although that was another deliberately planted meme--in opposition to the perception that Bush is stupid. In fact, she is "smart" similarly to Bush in that she is shrewd, unethical, calculating, unapologetic and brazenly ambitious. Bush was actually remarkably successful--with the exception of privitizing Social Security, precisely because under the DLC, there wasn't really a strong, persuasive counter-argument. The Bush model eventually imploded because it was not sustainable. Eventually reality, as the great taskmaster, exposes the fabricated construction and we are where we are--bogged down in war with no cause and a looted economy--both with no accountability.
Don't you think, Mary Lou that it would be worth our while to risk even a smidgen of a hope of a possibility of change? Hillary Clinton's forays across the aisle were for anti-flag burning issues and violent video games, while Obama worked for ethical reforms and was known for his bipartisan accomplishment in Illinois and the US Senate.
Google Hillary Clinton right here on the Common Dreams website search option--and then get back to us.

On March 17th, 2008 4:05 pm, adrienrain wrote:

"Hillary is the most hated woman (if not person) in the US - and deservedly so."

Most hated woman? Poor Ann Coulter...she worked so hard at her trade, and now she's going to learn that she's not at the top of the list.

No, with statements like those from adrienrain, one can't help but wonder how this nation got into the shape it's in.

Obama is supposed to be giving a live speech on race fairly soon (within the next half hour). Not sure if Clinton is speaking after or not. She may wait a bit to give her reaction to it.

Ann Colter - one has to take her seriously to hate her. Who takes this joke seriously!

Stephane Dion (with Rae and Finley) is supposed to give a speech any time too. I wonder if they will preempt Dion for Obama or Obama for Dion.

Just goes to show that the average Joe-Republican is just as much a piece of scum as the leaders of the party. None of them respects (or even knows about) the Constitution, human rights, or democracy. They certainly reflect one another's "values."

Don't be too hard on goppers. Cheating, stealing, lying, obfuscating, "outing" undercover CIA agents, etc. is the only way they can hope to win. It's mathematical. Goppers seem to understand this, even while attacking Dems for doing the same things they routinely do. That's why I left the GOP in the late '90s; the hypocrisy got to be too much to stomach.
I blame the Dem leadership (what a joke) more. Mendacity is what the GOP is all about. Dems have enabled these criminals by allowing themselves to be so easily manipulated. Impeachment is off the table? Unbelievable.

The back and forth between Hillary and Obama is pointless. The bottom line is that Obama can beat McCain and Hillary cannot. Our choices have been narrowed down to Obama or McCain. Even the Repugs can see that.

If it's Obama, McCain will lose in 50 states.

If it's Hillary, McCain will lose in 44 States.

Anyone see Obama's speech?

Such eloquence. Lincolnesque.

I have to object to the conclusion that only Obama can beat McCain. The polls are so close right now, any of the three could conceivably win. In fact, currently, Clinton averages slightly better than Obama, beating McCain where Obama loses. (Though this has changed repeatedly and could change again.)

More pertinent to this article, I note that in Ohio, Repubs voting in the Democratic primary split about 50-50, for Obama and Clinton. Part of our strategy has to be to get our former opponents voting for us, so Repubs voting for a liberal candidate is not inherently suspect. And if Repubs are duplicitously voting for Clinton, why were equal numbers voting for Obama? If Clinton is truly more right wing than Obama, disaffected Repubs crossing the line would be far more likely to go a little bit left (Clinton) than farther left (Obama).

And as for the contention, offered above, that Clinton and her ilk sell out the working class, while pandering to the "yuppies" (please forgive the general terms, but I'm writing a post, not a sociology paper) why is it that the greater part of Clinton's support comes from the working class, while Obama's comes more from the white collar "professionals" or "yuppies"? Are those in the working class who support Clinton mystified and unable to determine their owen best interest? Are the upper class Obama supporters unaware that their "interest" lies more with Clinton than Obama? By the measurement of who their supporters are, Hillary is actually more progressive than Obama, in that she enjoys greater support among the working class.

No she doesn't. Ever hear about the folks who voted for Bush "against their own best interests?".

I urge everyone to go to the link below for an excerpt of Obama's speech on race or to the link below for the full speech (longer). The power, honesty and vulnerability of that speech stunned me. More than ever I want to see him President. I long suspected he could heal the racial wounds of this country, partly because he brings people together to solve problems and partly because he himself is a Black man free of the history, the baggage, of slavery. Now I see what is his real power. He doesn't react to situations with anger and vengeance, but rather seeks solutions. I'm not suggesting he's Christlike or perfect, but he is a political rarity, a grownup, who is not being dragged around by his ego.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/obama_race

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/america/18obamaspeech.php

kathyodat

you guys are major tools, such suckers.

Kem - seems either way McCain loses - which we both agree is a good thing.

RE: And as for the contention, offered above, that Clinton and her ilk sell out the working class, while pandering to the "yuppies" (please forgive the general terms, but I'm writing a post, not a sociology paper)

At least you didn't use the acronym for "Dual Income No Kids" in your statement. ;)

Thanks for the links Kathyodat, that was a good speech!

It must have been a bit surreal when Obama heard a faint echo of his grandmother's words in the reverend's sermon but directed at a different aspect of himself. Reminds me when me and my son were watching the battle on the Plains of Abraham on Canada: A People's History when my son asked me which side our ancestors fought on. I told him that we were the people in the middle everyone was shooting at (that grandma's people were fighting grandpa's people).

What was inspirational was that Obama saw his grandmother's racist views as a distraction and her love and devotion to him as real. It would still have messed him up a bit as a kid, but, as an adult, let him see past the talk of fear to the issues we all share.

What Obama refers to as a "distraction" others would call an attempt at divide and conquor.

RE: you guys are major tools, such suckers.

As long as they are the cherry ones - don't really care for the yellow or orange ones.

Vern and Kathy, I agree. Fabulous, brilliant, moving, sincere speech. This is the leader we've been waiting for! He just went up in my book twenty fold.

Here was Andrew Sullivan's reaction to Obama's Philadelphia speech (which sums it up much better than I ever could): "this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history... I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity."

As a strong supporter of Obama, and as someone who is familiar with the viciously anti-Clinton hatred of many white conservatives, I expected this cross-over voting. I wish every state outlawed it, because it has allowed dirty tricksters to defeat good people many times. Cynthia McKinney was done in by rabid right-wing crossovers in Georgia. And, if Hillary wins the nomination, she is sure to lose against McCain and we will suffer the horrors of more years of repressive Republican mis-government. Under George W. Bush they have set us back a generation. Under McCain, well meaning but wrong-headed, we'll be pushed back even farther. Poor America. Hillary, please come to your senses and quit this race for the good of your country.

anne faith, thank you. I googled Andrew Sullivan, a conservative Libertarian, I learned. Imagine, left and right coming on board with the candidacy of Barack Obama.

ejmurphy, I agree, it would be an act of grace for Hillary to withdraw. Her quest is hopeless and destructive, but as this speech shows, Obama refuses to let her damage him. Talk about turning swords into plowshares. From here on out, I believe she can only damage herself.

That speech affected me deeply. The courage, honesty, the penetration into the core of America's problems which as he pointed out are beyond race, do make me think of Lincoln's speeches. And what Linoln wanted to accomplish. I wish everyone in America could hear that speech.

kathyodat

It's the deeply Christian part of the speech that bothers me.

Our Corporate Masters must really be scared. They're getting their $5000/hour whores like Limbaugh & Ingraham to quit trashing McCain and to get the Democratic Party nomination for Clinton. As good as the Corporate Cannibals are at fear-mongering, the reality of the past eight years of their larceny is so bad the whores might have to find honest work next year. I forgot who in FDR's administration said "... if someone is sleeping on the floor, you can't scare him with fairy tales about taking away his bed."

ezeflyer, I'm not worried about that. He doesn't go shoving his religion down anyone's throat. Did you read his speech?
kathyodat

Gingkofig (March 17th, 2008 5:03 pm) wrote: "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. ... Vote your conscience and let others do the same without your whining. You fucking idiots."

Gee, Gingkofig, for a minute I mistook you for a venomous hate-filled Obama supporter there: "politico-masturbators full of the same shit" and "You fucking idiots"? We will vote our conscience and, at the moment, we're letting others know what's in our conscience and why we're voting that way. If that's whining, then so be it. Is anyone forcing you to read it?

Mo42 (March 17th, 2008 6:08 pm) wrote: "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..."

Mo42, I'm tired of the ugliness, too, and I've met the rabid right-wingers who are similar to your co-workers, but we can't cower in fear from that minority which has held the country hostage for eight years, and those people, BTW, aren't likely to vote for a woman, either. Any real opposition candidate, if they are doing their job, will 'tear this country apart,' but the majority is on our side this time, on issue after issue. I have no way of knowing if Obama will survive until inauguration day, but I do know that he will try, as he has so far, to unify the country and minimize the pain of a transition to a more progressive government. There will always be bigots among us, but they are a dwindling minority.

Learnfromthepast (March 17th, 2008 6:21 pm) wrote: "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."

I'll agree with the first part -- we have no reliable way to know why a Republican would vote for a Democrat. I know of a couple of 'recovering' Republicans who are disgusted with Bush and the GOP and voted for Dems in 2006 and are planning to vote for the Dems in 2008 -- the reverse of the old 'Reagan Democrats.' Also Bill Foster won Denny Hastert's old seat in Illinois' 14th, a very Republican district, so that was obviously due to cross-over voting. In various Red States across the country, such as uber-GOP Montana, Democrats are winning state offices, so the tide is changing, as it did in 1932. As to the second part of your sentence, in 2004 Obama won a record 70 percent of the vote in Illinois. While it's true that the GOP was in disarray, it still doesn't explain why rural, white, conservative Republican voters in downstate counties would vote for a black man from Chicago. I wouldn't pay attention to Republicans advising you on who the strongest Dem candidate is -- it's kind of like Bin Laden's videotape endorsement of Kerry in 2004 when he really wanted Bush in office.

Kem (March 17th, 2008 6:28 pm) wrote: "It is not Obama the GOP fears as an opponent, It's Clinton."

That's assuming facts not in evidence. As I posted here, Hillary is the candidate with stronger corporate ties and she's taken more corporate money than any other candidate in this election, so it would seem she would be the candidate the GOP would want elected, if a Dem has to be president. Hillary also has 16 years of Right Wing Noise Machine hate built up, which means that nearly half the voters say they won't vote for her, and she has now managed to offend many black and independent voters, groups she would desperately need to get elected. And the clip of Hillary praising McCain for his leadership and experience will be aired repeatedly by his campaign. How does that translate into her being the candidate McCain would most fear in the general election?

Becky L (March 17th, 2008 6:33 pm) wrote: "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."

(Big Al Gore sigh) I haven't heard that Obama's campaign is doing this, but don't you think Hillary is doing exactly the same thing? Of course the Clinton campaign is 'particularly' anti-Obama and instructing people how to vote for her and against him -- so what? Is Hillary is refusing the votes of Republicans or independents who are temporarily crossing over to vote for her but have no intention of voting for her in the general election? This is a big nothing dressed up as a news flash.

Annika (March 17th, 2008 7:17 pm) quoted: "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."

So Wayne Barrett concluded there "is no way to know" how many Republicans provided Obama's various victories, or his delegate count, and that he won some states where GOP votes weren't part of the margin of victory. You also forgot to quote the next line: "Nor can the exit data reveal the motive for so many crossovers. These voters may have been attracted by Obama's message of transcending politics as usual, or they may simply have been trying to tilt the scales to help nominate the candidate they believe Republicans can most easily beat." There is also no way to know how many Limbaugh Republicans provided Hillary's victories and delegate count, and the rest of Barrett's article quotes conservative Republicans who have attacked both Hillary and Obama and, somewhat naively, assumes the neocons are being truthful. (See my comment re Bin Laden's videotape endorsing Kerry right before the 2004 election.) One thing we do know is that, in 2006, independents voted by large majorities for the winning Dem candidates, and Obama is popular with independents as well. So, what point are you trying to make to us "useful idiots" -- that Wayne Barrett doesn't know why Obama has won so many primaries and caucuses? If so, then I agree with you -- Wayne Barrett doesn't know why Obama has won so many primaries and caucuses.

Iowablackbird (March 17th, 2008 8:14 pm): LOL!

Those of you who saw Obama's speech this morning know why so many are drawn to him -- even some of the TV Talking Heads were calling it the best speech on race relations since Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech -- it had substance and it got down to cases about the racial divide in this country, given by a man who, due to his ancestry, understands both black and white America. Hillary Clinton, a product of the white upper middle-class, would give her left nut, so to speak, to be able to write and deliver a speech like that, and to be able to understand America the way Obama does.

This is one of the big differences between Hillary and Obama -- while Hillary says "Here's what I'm going to give you," Obama says "Here's what we can do together." It the difference between an autocracy and a democracy.

RSJ, awesome post.

RSJ---I second annefaith's motion. More light, less heat. I do not have a TV and gladly missed out on the Pastor Wright bruhaha. I listened to all of Obama's speech today and confess that it is the first full speech by him I have heard. I was deeply moved and agree with all those who posted here that this is a speech whose time has come. It is sad that this is where we are still at as a nation, since it seems we have progressed so little in the last 50 years. ALl the same, I have such a strong sense of purpose and hope that this man is sincere that he wants us to lead us to move beyond the divisions. He even dared to speak of the "corporate interests" who would keep us divided---divide and conquor. I was wavering some in my support of Obama---no longer---the more they ( all the usual suspects) attack him, the more I sense he's the real deal, a serious threat to business as usual.

I don't hate Hillary but I will not support her---she has proven beyond a doubt that she is very much a part of what ails us and unapologetically so. SO sad, really, but better to know.

"As to the second part of your sentence, in 2004 Obama won a record 70 percent of the vote in Illinois"

At election time, the choice was between Alan Keyes, an African-American "carpetbagger" republican freshly "moved" from Maryland, and African-American Chicago resident Barak Obama. Illinois is not New York, so unlike the Hillary Clinton senatorial saga, "foreigner" Keyes got trashed. Isn't it ironic that Sen. Clinton is really an Illinois native?!

One thing that we can all surely agree on is that Sen. Obama gave a beautiful speach. One would think that it would be impossible to be able to address EVERYONES issues, but he certainly did.

LOL @ myself- and yes, I do mean SPEECH! The speech of a lifetime, very personal to me as we have branches in our family tree that resemble Sen. Obama's.

I have similar branches in my family tree, Slim, so I understood exactly what Obama was talking about.

It was sad to hear some of the right-wing commentators later take bits of the speech out of context to criticize Obama, especially the false talking point that Obama didn't tell black people that they had to be responsible for themselves when, in fact, he did.

Today, the cable news channels showed only a part of his speech on Iraq. I guess they learned their lesson from his great speech yesterday and weren't taking any chances.

awe, thanks RSJ- I knew that we were really truly on the same team. Sometimes words get in the way of true understanding. This world we live in is killing me. It really is. And I will be one of the "lucky ones" who doesn't have to go through the final crucible because I am not physically able. But, strong people like many of us posters here will. Amd I know that the DARK side will not win. Amen and Amen.

The "New Democratic Party" of the Clintons has consistently been
in lock-step with the right-wing Republicans. For half a century, Republicans railed against the New Deal policies. Before moving into the White House, the Clintons ---primarily Hillary Clinton -- were actively working on dismantling the New Deal. It took the Clintons to begin "reforming" these policies by ending the entitlement to welfare (specifically, general assistance and AFDC), clearing the way to dismantle Social Security and other policies that made this a civilized, successful nation. This has had a profound impact on America. Voth Clinton's played a vital (propaganda) role to turn public opinion against the poor, stemming any resistance from the public. The public dollars that once went toward welfare were simply taken to cover the costs of years of "tax relief" for the very rich. The economic stability created by welfare, and the opportunities created by welfare programs (education and job skills training), brought our economic disparities to historic lows. Welfare (along with the GI bill, etc.) resulted in a vastly expanded middle class. The problem there is that this shifted the bulk of the nation's wealth (and power) away from the rich, to the people, and those in power were outraged. They demanded an end to aid to (in a nutshell) create a massive bottom-wage, no options labor force, maximizing profits at the expense of the American people. The collective wealth of the nation was returned to the bank accounts of the few.

The "radical right" owes a great deal to the Clintons.