C’mon, people.  Let’s leave la-la land behind here, shall we?  If McCain is the nominee then Hillary is the piece of toast, assuming the Republicans don’t self-destruct by withholding the conservative vote.  Given their long tradition of nose holding and voting the party ticket, I sure wouldn’t count on that.  McCain’s strength is in the middle with Independents, exactly the terrain on which this battle will be fought.  Independents generally hate Hillary and Bill, fair or unfair.

She’s already ceded John the upper hand on Iraq, which was supposed to be our signature issue and the one that was going to guarantee a Democratic victory.  She disappointed the anti-war base in her own party with her votes on Iraq and Iran, and they will be less than enthused about her in November.  McCain will say she is just your typical flip-flopping poll-driven politician, voting for the war before she voted against it.  Hillary won’t be able to hang Bush’s mismanagement of the conflict around John’s neck, because he broke with Bush and Rumsfeld early and took a lot of flak from his own party doing it.  Now he looks like the principled one who consistently stuck to his guns, and the “success” of the surge vindicates his approach.  Hillary can fumble around about megalomaniacs all she likes, but with those crucial Independents and even many members of her own party, it’s game over, with no swiftboating required.

I love this... Every media circle before the results came in ALL said "whoever wins California" is going to be the Victor on Feb.5th... This is of course with every media moron using the Zogby poll that said Obama was going to win by 14% POINTS...

What happened? That's right, Obama got his butt kicked and what did the media say? Nothing...

This is sexism at it's finest....

Never contributed to a campaign before... I just contributed to the Clinton campaign...

This is the first presidential election in US history where a leading candidate's (Hillary) platform is self pity.

Barack Obama - the black version of Jimmy Carter.

More debates? Gee, what don't we know about these candidates that hasn't come out in the previous 672 debates? I guess Hillary needs free airtime so she can cry.

You guys kill me. When writing about Obama you remind me of middle school girls talking about a boy they have a crush on. Poo-pooing their rivals all the while. Hillarity will win the Democrat nomination. And you know what that means...can you say President McCain? Unfortunately for all of us there is, once again, no real choice.

Next debate with Hillary? Lets talk about her "Experience" - year by year. Don't leave out the 15 years as a corporate union busting lawyer either.

He will say anything to get elected!  

OBAMA ISSUES 'SUPER' THREAT TO TOP DEMS
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent

Pow Wow On Democrats

Post columnist Charles Hurt and Post corespondent Geoff Earle discuss the Democratic race for president.
February 7, 2008 -- Barack Obama fired a warning shot over the heads of lawmakers who get to cast crucial votes at the party's convention as uncommitted "superdelegates" - saying they shouldn't override the will of the voters in their states.
Obama said superdelegates "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.' "
The message: If you're an elected member of Congress, and your district backs Obama, casting a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton could be bad for your political career.
Obama delivered the message at a Chicago press conference yesterday - after he battled Clinton to a draw in yesterday's Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, carrying 13 states and barely besting her in the count of pledged delegates.
But when superdelegates who have pledged support for Clinton are counted, she gets the lead.
Pledged delegates have to reflect the will of voters in their states, but superdelegates - who include members of Congress, governors, and various party functionaries - get to vote for whomever they want.
Obama also said there was "a whole dump truck" full of dirt that Republicans could use on Clinton if she becomes the nominee - countering her repeated claim that she has been fully "vetted" whereas he hasn't.
He said Clinton's research operation was "about as good as anybody's," and it hasn't found much dirt on him.
"I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year, that they've pulled out all the stops. And you know I think what is absolutely true is, whoever the Democratic nominee is, the Republicans will go after them," he said.
"The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true," he said.
Clinton, in her own press conference yesterday, said "this is a vigorous two-person contest now," and called on Obama to agree to more debates.
"We're going to be able to showcase our records, our qualifications, the differences, the contrast between us, because voters are really tuning in now," she said.
"If voters start to think about who would be the best president, to be commander-in-chief on Day One, to turn the economy around and who would be the best Democratic nominee to win in November, I am very comfortable with the answers to those questions," she said.
Clinton said there's nothing in her past she has to try to paper over - including the years she represented big corporate clients as a lawyer for the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark.
Clinton unfailingly touts her time working on behalf of children and providing legal aide, but doesn't talk much about time serving on corporate boards or representing big companies.

Debates=free advertisement,  espically when you have not managed your money wisely.  

Hillary is this how you plan to manage the peoples money.  I thought you were the policy detail 'wonk".  It's called spending more than you have.  On the national level it means increased deficits

Not good..... What is it with these NY candidates.  BTW McCain didn't do so well handling  his money in the beginning either.

Who has shown the best ability to manage a large organization and the peoples money(his contributors)

Obama 08

The Media shoved the war down our throats now they are on the obama for president bandwagon.  It will be non stop, they will pound us with a daily eat drink and sleep with Obama! Keep it up guys, we do remember how you pulled the same campaign to go to WAR.
Raise the tents sing the gospel, suck 'em in for Dejesus!

There have already been 18 debates - we need 5 more in 5 weeks?  I don't think so.  I've watched all but one of them and there's just not a whole lot more to say. One or two between now and March 4th should be MORE than enough.  Personally, I think the candidates would be better served by actually getting out and talking to real people instead of the political pundits that run these debates.  I look forward to the opportunity to see the candidates personally when they get here to Texas.

The Ted Kennedy Factor - it is more subtle than people realize:

# 1: Barack Obama was NOT going to win Massachusetts. Everybody knew that. There was no ground campaign for him here. He DIDN'T campaign here, other than an election eve rally. It was ALWAYS about trying to get some delegates. Boston Mayor Menino "owed" the Clintons. Terry McAuliffe was the DNC Chairman back in 2004. Despite not being ready for it and against opposition here, McAuliffe gave in to Mayor Menino and Boston had the Convention here. Hence, the large support for the Clintons.

Barack Obama was behind Clinton I think by about 20-25 points in MA just 2 months ago. In the end, he did very well here delegates wise, thanks in large part to Ted Kennedy.

# 2: Barack Obama was NOT going to win California. He won I believe in California with people who voted for him on Tuesday. The absentee ballots went to Clinton, which was before Obama became a viable candidate.

# 3: Ted Kennedy shut Bill Clinton up which allowed Barack Obama to stay on message. Ted Kennedy opened the door to Barack being seen as a viable candidate, not just an African American candidate, which is what Bill Clinton wanted.

#4: Ted Kennedy & most of the Democratic Party do not like the Clintons as they feel Bill Clinton sold out to the Republicans with the Contract w/America nonsense.  Which he did. Just ask Tom Daschle. That is why you see most of the Democratic Party behind Barack Obama.

Looking at the map yesterday, I just don't see how Hillary Clinton is going to win the election if she's the nominee. Her support is minimal across the country.

And if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I hope Barack Obama does not take the VP position. That would put him third in line, not second.

I don't blame Barack for not wanting to give Hillary FREE media via Debates. Make her EARN the Respect of voter's the old fashioned way.

Threatening Superdelegates, how do come across that definition?The evidence is how these Superdelegates constituents are voting.

Barack is slowly making inroads on Hispanic's vote.

Time is on our side, as the song goes!

Now your comment, "the campaign with historic clout" in apparent reference to Hillary and Obama's outraising her is totally biased. You analysts need to udnerstand that raising more money is a sign of increased popularity, given that Obama increased his base of donors rather than the amount of money given him.
You guys need to stop your acts of favoritism toward either candidate and focus on the underlining factors influencing the direction of where each candidate is heading. No need to persist with your guessing  game.

COULD THE KENYAN CRISIS BE REPLICATED IN USA

The 2000 USA general elections generated considerable controversy when the then Democratic candidate al gore accused President George Bush of election rigging. This accusation generated considerable tension among Al gore supporters. However, in his characteristic statesmanship, Al gore chose to settle the matter in court and when the ruling went against him; he gracefully conceded defeat and the matter ended there.  However, one question that may be disturbing and beg for an answer is, supposing the cast then was President Bush against Barrack Obama? What would have been the likely scenario? Could we have for the first time in the history of electro politics in the USA witnessed massive riots and mass action across the cities in USA?

A number of clear parallels can be drawn between the campaign themes mounted by the ODM candidate Raila Odinga in Kenya last year and the current themes surrounding sen. Obama’s campaign. Raila Odinga’s election platform was change, and the economic empowerment for the so called “marginalized”. His core support groups were the youth especially the un- employed lot. His candidacy also appeared to enjoy massive support from the leading media houses and was perceived as a media candidate. On the other hand Obama’s campaign platform is also anchored on the theme of change, economic empowerment for the youth and his campaign also appear to enjoy considerable support from some of the leading media house in USA and else where. His core group of supporters is also drawn from the youth.

Last years Kenya’s general elections were very close to call and many opinion polls done throughout the campaign period appeared to suggest a very close race. Most political observers believe that the ODM supporters were never prepared to loose the elections since expectations were too high. The ultimate announcement that President Kibaki had retained his seat was therefore a major shock to the majority youthful supporters of Raila Odinga. His assertion that the polls were rigged only served to trigger massive riots and violence that have never before been witnessed in this country long considered as an oasis of peace and stability. The massive riots and violence caught almost everybody totally unprepared. Most Kenyan’s have never in their wildest dreams anticipated such large scale incidents of violence looting and absolute mayhem bordering on complete collapse of the rule of law.

Back in the USA, the current primary race between Sen. Obama and Hillary Clinton appears very close and vicious. There is a very real possibility that the race may eventually go to the wire and most American’s have not carefully thought what that may portend to the supporters of both candidates. Court proceedings might be considered as an option by any of the aggrieved candidate, but the worst case scenario might be political tensions and perhaps riot incidents especially if rigging allegations are brought up by either of the two candidates. This scenario might be much worse if this is replicated at the main general elections latter on in November.  

In other words, The Clinton's want more debates to try and steamroll Obama.  That is about the first time The Clinton's have come up with an idea that might just work.

The Clinton's going on a debate on Fox News?????  I can see George Soros cutting off the money to their campaign.  If Obama does not want to debate, then his replacement should be Sean Hannitty.  I'm sure Sean has a lot to debate The Clinton's about....

Hillary Clinton wants more debates because they are free.  It is the cheapest way to get her message heard.  After the CA debate there isn't anything new to debate.  They both just repeat their talking points.  Of course there needs to be a debate before the Texas/Ohio contest for the people who haven't been paying attention since their primaries are so far away.  But if Obama agrees to a bunch of debates he is just giving her free TV time.

Of course she wants to have a debate every week.  She's hurting for money and wants the free national air time.

Obama's too chicken to have more debates!!!  Is that kind wimpy attitude that we don't need in the White House.

Hillary supporters....she needs our help.  Contribute to her campaign by going to www.hillaryclinton.com

Contributing any amount will help.

Oh yes, please, let's have some more debates, as they've been such TREASURE TROVES of useful policy discussion.  

Way back in August the Obama wanted to limit  excessive amounts of debates in order for the candidate to be able to do the kind of retail politics that gets him face to face with the voter.  They actually did MORE debates than they planned.

Hillary, limited by funds, wants to stop Obama from getting to spend all this extra time in front of crowds in the upcoming states.  Its just a tactic.

Back in August ...

"Unfortunately, we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates,"

"Ultimately, the one group left out of the current schedule is the voters and they are the ones who ask the toughest questions and most deserve to have those questions answered face to face."

Campaign manager Plouffe

Now that Obama can do retail and Hillary can't really she wants to slow him down with these debates.  Not so much on issues but on taxing his resources to do retail while she gets to get free media.  Smart enough but he's not that dumb.  There will probably be another one but certainly not 4.

HIllary wants to rope-a-dope until she can get to Texas and Ohio.  What she does really care about is the fact that Obama is bringing Indys in wherever he goes stumping that will deliver te white house to the DEMS.

Guess what Hillary, the only states you can seem to rack up delagates are the states Obama will win anyway.  (NY, NJ, MA, CA) Good wins for sure but not exactly expanding the electoral map.  

You are staying close in the primary the same way the DEMS lose the general map electorally.  Why we all don't wake up to this and go with Obama as a national DEM party winner is to risk the general election.  

These primaries have been microcisms of electoral mechanics.

Iowa - Obama wins (kerry lost a squeaker)
New Hampshire Obama ties in delagtes (DEM barely won)
Nevada - Obama wins the most delagates Hillary wins the Blue area (Kerry lost a squeaker losing everywhere Hillary lost)
South Carolina - Loyal AA-DEM base gives Obama a landslide  (DEMS win big Blue states with the solid DEMS and Black/minority vote e.g. IL, PA, MD, DE, NY)


2004/08 battlegrounds closely lost by Kerry

Colorodo- Obama trounces Clinton
Missouri - Obama
Iowa - Obama

I find it funny about Florida which "could" go DEM with either candidate.  If it does go DEM it would go with either but might be more likely with Obama's INDY support.

But becuase of no campaigning there (something Hillary is trying now to prevent in these other contests she has a name ID lead in by asking for this slate of time robbing debates) Clinton won a meaningless contest.

This race is now by default in the hands of superdedlagates which is a problem for disenchanting the Obama support.  IF SD's pick CLinton they will destroy the new wave of support Obama is bringing in for the November victory.

Neither CLinton nor Obama can get 65% percent of the reamining pledged delagtes to secure the nomination.

With Obama peppering the map in swing states and Clinton peppering the map with large states primarily already secured as blue, superdelagates  will have a tough decision.  

Do you want to win in November? = Obama.
Do you want to lose a nail biter with the Kerry electoral map? = Clinton.

If i'm not mistaken, this campagin has had more debates than any other in history, with the last one being little more than a week ago.  Not that debates are a bad thing mind you, but this a fairly obvious spin on Obama "not talking to the people".

By all means have more debates.  Give em a chance to torpedo or bolster their respective candidacies!!  Heck, I'll volunteer to make the slingable mud pies!!

Should Obama be threatened by the Super Delgates? If he doesn't know by now, those delegates were handpicked by Howard Dean to support the Clintons. The only way Obama gets their attention is if he wins the majority of delegates the voters pick, then he can try to shame the Super Delegates into supporting him. But this will be a tough road because as we all know, the Clintons have no shame.

Surely superdelegates have some moral/ethical obligation to reflect the will of their constituents?! You can bet I'll be letting my representative know that if candidate A is more popular in our district and said superdelegate goes for candidate B, he/she will not have my vote again. Remember "Of, By & For the PEOPLE"

Forget debates...that's desperation because Clinton is out of money. Obama actually reaches more voters with his big rallies drawing up to 20,000 each. Yep, she wants to keep him off the trail and on these so called debate shows.

It is very disappointing Obama will not agree to further debates. He made a comment this week that people were just "getting to know" him. What better way to reach many, many more people than through a national television debate.

Candidates that don't have the financial resources to advertise turn to debates for media attention. This would explain why Hillary wants a 19th debate before the March 4 primary.

This debate ploy is lame.

There are virtually no policy differences between the candidates.  The few that exist are well-known and  heavily aired.  What is there to debate?

These Clinton campaign gimmicks have got to stop.  The Nevada lawsuit, the FL/MI "wins," the phony debate request, etc.  All of these disingenuous efforts reek of desperation and a recognition that the book on the Clinton dynasty is rapidly closing.      

Of course Clinton wants more debates; she doesn't have the money to get her own publicity.  Obama would be smart to agree to one or two in the next month, but there's no reason he should help her struggling campaign.  Unfortunately, accepting anything less than what Clinton wants will wind up that Clinton spin machine again.

I find it interesting that Barack does not want to engage in a number of one on one debates with Hillary.  Whatever motivation Hillary has in asking for them it just doesn’t matter.  Debates are good for the nation and for the electorate to further understand the candidates and their positions on the issues.  If Barack backs down from them now what does that say about his capabilities and willingness to take on the hard issues and questions he would surely face if elected.  Come on Barack, stand up and be the strong candidate you claim to be.  Let the debates begin.

               Ted Kennedy's Support


The reason Ted Kennedy and most of the Democratic Party are behind Barack Obama is because of Bill Clinton's presidency, NOT necessarily because of the Jesse Jackson comment.

The party rightly believes President Clinton sold out to Newt Gringrich and the Republicans with respect to the Contract with America.

And Ted Kennedy SHUT BILL CLINTON UP and made Barack Obama a viable candidate, not just an African American candidate, which was what Clinton was shooting for.

Barack Obama was not going to win Massachusetts - he didn't even campaign here, other than an election eve rally. It was always about picking up delegates.

  TED KENNEDY HAS HELPED BARACK OBAMA ENORMOUSLY.

I just gave to Hillary.  Don't worry about her having enough money.  Anyone who thinks that Obama is more electable than Hillary is smoking something.  Just people people like to beat up on Hillary doesn't mean that they can knock her out.  Obama people might just find out, after the Repugs get started on him, that he has a glass jaw.

Good Lord I hope this woman doesn't win.  Another Clinton is the last thing we need in the White House.  

Dominican Republic supports Clinton!
Admit, her husband's goverment was the best one i've seen in all USA's history! and guess who was behind him? Hilary!

I highly doubt that Obama and Bush, if they were ever paired and Bush was acused of election rigging, would resort to the same kind of political and social unrest. You cannot compare America to Kenya or any otehr country. We have the resources and leaders to thwart the same events that unfolded in Kenya from happening here. To think of America through the experiences of less democratic, more corrupt, and far less powerful nations is way too much.

did anybody see hillary's reaction during the last debate when obama said romney has unwisely invested his campaign funds...there was something telling about it..look closely when hillary laughs it's normally with wide open teeth...guilty conscience?  anyways you can tell how your white house budget will be balanced in the future

Don't fall for Hillary's trap, Barack.  Hillary only wants some free media.  Tell her to use some of that $30M she has on hand if she wants coverage.

Hopefully, sometime before the race is over, the media will ask the Clinton campaign about their $30M (opensecrets.org; cnn.com) and quit simply writing everything they're told

Threaten superdelegates??  I wonder from whom he could have picked up that trick?  I am sure the Clintons have never put pressure on someone to publicly support them.  That would never happen.

However, when Obama wins a district by 60-70% it would seem to put some pressure on those elected reps.

How do you get somewhere you've never been by going where you've already gone?  SAY NO TO BILL-ARY CLINTON!

Hillary wants debate? Of course?  How else is she going to get free air time.  Give me a break!  We've had gazzilions debate already, go out there and campaign meet people one on one.

DEBATE!!! YA right!!  No MORE DEBATE... I'm sick of debates, especially when it's moderated by the MEDIA!!

Obama raised 7.2 million bucks yesterday.  The people of this country are sending a clear message to the Washington Establishment.  One by one, the little guy of this country is donating $20 or $50 to see change in American politics.  It's only just getting started.  We better join the revolution or get out of the way.

I am reading everything where I can put  my eyes, and  I became convinced that people go by the look and not by what is import .
Will be nice if  you or any pollster, ask the young voters “ less than 30’s” if they can define what is the views of Obama for all critical subjects, like economy, health care, war on  terrorism, and secure borders. TV and  Internet has been flooded with Obama, I understand he is the news, and news make’s money for the TV stations and Internet  web sites because it will attract advertising, but is time for all of us think what is import.
Our economy cross a very difficult times and the future of our country is at stake.
If this is a context  of populism then Obama will wan.

Why should Obama debate once a week? He has proven everything thus far and all Clinton wants to do is attack him in front of a national audience, because she doesnt have the fund to do it on the radio/tv airwaves, nor on the campaign trail, cause she cant visit all the states because of her cash crunch.

If I was Obama, I'll have no more than two more 1on1 debates with Clinton, starting after Sat...

Hillary only wants more debates because (1) it is free air time and she is having funding problems (2) She wants to keep Obama off the campaign trail b/c his strength is the big rallys (3) Though their policy platforms are alomst identical and they have had nearly a billion debates already - she does marginally better in the debates...they are her strength .... I mean come on - NOW she is willing to agree to a Fox debate, when no one would before??  What, has she finally got a believable response as to why she voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq (other than the obvious political motivation)?

I'm sure she is going to frame this as "Barack doesn't want the people to know his positions..." or something similarly attempting to make herself look magnanimous...Hopefully it won't work, I have seen more debates this campaign season than any before, I know their positions are very similar, it is time for them to go out and campaign and see who wins the nomination.

The best thing for the Clinton is to get out of this race now because there are more scandals on the way.

Obama is a dreamer.  He will never become president of the United States.  He doesn't have the background or experience that Hillary Clinton has.  The young voters are taken in by his charm, inspiration and youth. The Clinton people know their candidate has the experience and know-how to shape this country for the better.  Dream on, Obama!

What is so bad about having more debates?  Would prefer to watch campaign ads and more of the abysmal election coverage? I recently watched a lot of the coverage, and watched the California debate, and I'm hard pressed to think of anything other coverage of the actual voting that was anywhere near as useful or enlightening as the debate.
There should be more debates; there are topics that need more discussion and everyone needs to pay attention.

If the Democratic nomination is decided by the Super Delegates and NOT the Democratic voters, we have a problem. If either of the two candidates is ahead, even by a few votes,  and the Super Delegates swing it the other way - there will be a lot of angry Democratic voters. If either of the Candidates (Clinton or Obama) takes the win by this means, they will be "winning" the Democratic nomination in much the same way that George W. Bush "won" the Presidency in 2000. Appointed despite the will of the voters by an elite group who "knows best."

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):