TO: Dems, Independants, Republicans:  If you still have doubts about Obama, I urge you to read the excellent article in the December Issue of Atlantic Monthly "Goodbye To All That: Why Obama Matters" (can be found on line).  There you will find solid answers to the question "Why Obama", some you may not have thought of.  

Senator Clinton doesn't get it. Attributing her opponent's success to receiving votes from African-Americans is race-baiting. Keep in mind that the same votes were cast in favor for her husband in his elections. Those votes are still votes; they count. Instead of congratulating your opponent, you are making excuses as to why you do not attract the same votes your husband received.

You should be ashamed, Senator Clinton. You should be ashamed.

hillary is funded by the same lobbyists and pacs that currently control washington- we need transformational change, not incremental garbage from someone who uses self pity to propel a failing campaign.

Lance, looks to me like we have plenty of venom-spewing knuckleheads on both sides.  Those of us who have taken the time to get to know Barack are more than comfortable with our candidate.  It's only those who don't want to know that continue to try and paint him as a lightweight.  I very much doubt that Hillary herself would agree with your "she is smarter" statement.  It's pretty obvious you don't really know what you're talking about.  Try coming back with some arguments with a little more substance.

john doe,  Hillary was FOR THE WAR before she WAS AGAINST IT
Hillary FLIP FLOPPED on IRAQ !!
That's the FLIP FLOP
Originally, Hillary said she couldn't guarantee she'd have all our troops out by the 2012
Then, SHE FLIP FLOPPED

Nice try JD......   NO SALE

Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest, unethical, divisive..... AND BROKE !!

Hillary Clinton has done more for the middle class and lower income people than Obama has ever even thought about.  Sure he is charismatic and has great speech writers, but that is not what we need in this country.  What's left after all the great speeches are gone. We are trillion of dollars in debt, losing countless lives of soldiers in Iraq (a war that might could have been avoided if not for Bush) and in dire need for some kind of healthcare reform.  Obama, in my opinion, hasn't really set forth any solid plans that would work to help our country.  It's nice to see young voters turning out, but are they really looking at the issues we are facing or just riding the wave.  I don't think being inspirational is enough.  This country needs proven leadership and I think Hillary Clinton is what we need.

Winning caucuses in states where fewer than 5%
of the democratic electorate show is hardly
evidence of a powerful candidate. Hillary's wins
in states like California, New York, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, etal were with much higher voter turnouts.
For instance, about 7% of Washington state's Demorats
voted, on 5000 caucused in Maine and about 25% in
Louisiana where the black vote was 72& of that. In
Alaska, only about 500 turned out at it was at a
school in the afternoon. That was easy for the young
that back Obama but impossible for those who work
and support Hillary. There is no doubt that Obama's
machine can organize and stack caucuses, but it also
clear that he does far worse in states where there
is greater participation and people actually vote.

Hey CHUCK too bad the war in IRAQ ended we could sure use a few posts on it now ohh the surge isnt working more dead this month than last why no reporting and another thing why dont mattews and tucker and mica and joe post their political opinions anbd leave their BIAS off the airwaves then they would have the same impact as the rest of us NONE.

J M Stanley wrote
"How about asking if any single one of the Red-States that Obama won like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, or South Carolina would swing Blue just for Obama? "

Georgia and Louisiana can both swing.

Lance, you're right...they belong to a cult of NO personality and low intellect.

As a Black voter in Wisconsin, I'm pretty turned off by what Hillary Clinton has said.  

Somehow Ohio and Texas better represents mainsteram America than Wisconsin and Missouri?  Wisconsin is a open primary that allows same day registration and you can vote for any candidate from any party regardless of which party you register.  We traditionally rank top three in turnouts for all elections and they're hoping to eclipse 50%....which is unheard of in American politics for a primary.  Blacks are only 6% of the population (but 39% of Milwaukee) and Hispanics are roughly 3%.  And I believe women vote something like 60 - 40.

So if she loses Wisconsin with two weeks to prepare from Super Tuesday, what will be her excuse?  Blacks sticking with their own when we make up less than 8% of the electorate?  A caucus that never happened?  

Since she doesn't respect me as a voter, then I don't respect her to be the next President of the United Top Ten in Population States.  I'm voting for Obama.    

all of you who take the above reader's advice to read krugman's latest should also read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/krugman-claims-obama-supp_n_85999.html

very interesting take on krugman's take.

I will concede that she has an advantage in texas.  The demographics of the state (significant # of hispanics) lean her direction.

But I dont understand why people are giving her Ohio as well.  Obama has proven that he can win large cross sections of the American people in different states across the country.  He is going to have two weeks to spend in Ohio, and it has been proven that he does well when he gets a chance to introduce himself to the electorate.

And I cant understand why people think he wont do well in PA.  All the people I talk to, young and old, could not vote for her.  It is going to be fun.

Whatever happens, the winner of two of the remaining big 3 (OH, TX, and PA) will be the nominee.

Obama is a liar and a fraud.  All you suckers who believe he doesn't take money from lobbyists and special interests, read it and weep.

This article appeared in the LA Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

Your golden god of change is just another politician, but you fell for his preacher act.  I can't say I blame you.  We're all desparate for someone to come along and do things differently. Obama knows that, and has taken advantage of you.  For those of you who are still waiting to vote in primaries get educated about Obama before you throw your vote away on a con man.

"You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

If Hillary didn't have the last name she has, she'd have  been out of the race when Dodd left.

I would say to Ron from Texas that there is a chance of California going red-- that chance exists if Senator Clinton is the democratic nominee.  I know she won the primary here, but there are some facts which need mentioning.

First, John McCain and the infamous (to Republicans) McCain-Finegold laws.  Those laws are campaign finance reform, something that Californians appreciate.  In fact, this last week, I have spoken to incredulous Republicans who did not believe me that McCain-Finegold WAS about campaign finance reform.  These republicans believed that campaign finance reform WAS a republican issue.  Don't laugh too hard, I have heard that from other Republicans in Texas (where my parents now live).

On the flip side, Senator Clinton has taken large amounts from special interest PACS and registered federal lobbyists (Senator Obama has not).  Should the Democratic party pick Senator Clinton the Republican candidate will be for campaign finance reform and the Democratic candidate will speak for the public financing of elections, but her actions to date will contradict her every word.

Second, Senator McCain is a maverick who opposed the Republican party; Senator Clinton is an insider.  Whether this argument is entirely true or not, I have already been exposed to it ad nausem in the Golden State.  

Third, Senator McCain and Senator Clinton both voted to authorize the war in Iraq and to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on using force against Iran.  Should Senator Clinton be the nominee expect many Democrats to look closely at John McCain because of this similarity.  Also, expect some Democrats to leave the party to support Ralph Nader.

Fourth, the Republican party will unite, swallow their distrust of Senator McCain, and get out the vote to defeat Senator Clinton.  

I could go on and on, but I will leave it there.  It isn't that Senator Clinton is a bad choice; it is the fact that given the Republican opposition (Senator McCain) she is most likely a losing choice.  It is not altogether her fault, but nonetheless, it is true.   I believe Senator Obama is a great choice with a the best chance to win -- maybe even a state like Texas.  Remember folks, the Democratic Presidential candidates usually don't even campaign in red states.  Lots of people in those states never hear the unadulaterated Democratic message.  Instead, they hear the Democratic message only as it is twisted by the Republican opposition.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an independent supporting Senator Obama.  Should the Democrats select Senator Clinton, I will vote for Senator McCain -- even though I do not like the war in Iraq and I think Senator Clinton has many admirable qualities, but because I believe that campaign finance reform is absolutely critical to the repair of our damaged system and fundamental to the continuation of our liberties.  

Yes we can!  Obama '08

To those totting Mr. Obama’s website for all their answers, anyone can put up a general policy statement regarding a subject and sound knowledgeable much like a charlatan can make some general statements about a deceased relative and sound like they have a channel to the afterlife.  No matter how knowledgeable you try to make Obama it doesn’t change the fact that community activist/civil rights attorney and Junior Senator are his biggest achievements and I expect my president to call upon much more knowledge and experience than that without farming out the defense of this country to others I know even less.

I agree with Lance in Ste. Genevieve, MO. How does a person miss 130 votes in a couple of years? Obama doesn't take policy questions. Why? Is it because he can't ask somebody to give him the answer "two minutes before I need it"? If he wrote and knew his policies, shouldn't he be able to answer? Yes, people see only Personality right now. IF Obama gets elected, how long will it be before those who voted for him start whining because he hasn't produced "change"? Nice speeches; too bad the listeners are so naive.

Lance, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri: You have no idea what you're talking about.

And yeah, Hillary is being ignorant. She's alienating demographics and small states, pulling a Giuliani and focusing only on big states. The thing is, she's losing momentum and spotlight and Obama is gaining with every "small" state he wins.

Like Jeffrey Toobin on CNN said, a win is a win. It doesn't matter if it was expected; you don't get extra credit for an upset victory. And anyway, she is NOT ahead in popular vote: she's 200,000 behind at last count.

Hillary is totally right!!  At this point, if you analyze the voters, Obama is only getting, on average between 30-40% of the White vote (with a couple of exception) and is losing the Latino and Asian votes by big margins.  Also, the states that will decide the general election (MI, FL, OH, MO, PA) are primarily states that HIllary has won handily (MI, FL) or is predicted to win (OH, PA).  The only exception is MO, where obama won by only 10,000 votes.  So, unless he can start getting more White support, who really provides the best chance in November??  THe D candidate will get the AA votes anyway and those are not the voters who will decide the election.  Its primarily White, suburban women.  Who has the better chance to get those votes??  Hillary.

since when is Wisconsin not important in November?

I would like to point out that I just read Krugman's article and the "venom" he was mentioning seemed to be the loyalty; He didn't mention a single example of venom in word or action. Then he goes on to talk about how the media treats the Clinton's unfairly. Let me ask you, if  Bill Clinton did nothing wrong in SC why was he apologizing in a black church Today?

Hilary, brushes this off as if it is only small states with small numbers and it doesn't matter to her campaign. She should be concern about all votes.  A win is a win!  Be a good sport and give the prompts where they belong. Changing guards in the middle of the campaign is going to hurt her campaign more than help. It does not matter how skilled you are, it is the decision making that counts!

I read where there was some friction going on since Maggie Williams came into the camp after HRC loss to Iowa. Ms. Williams has been working with the campaign since the 3rd place loss in Iowa.  

Solis Doyle a Latina and Maggie Williams and African Amercian. (mmm.. . . )For better or worse, seems a little late in the game.

Let us will not despise the small beginnings,(Mr. Obama wins) because little becomes much and his campaign did this past weekend.  

Hillary isnt borrowing slogans from Bush (Uniter,not  divider lol) Hillary doesn't get passes by the media, as Obama and Bush, and she has more experience than both of them put together when it comes to getting what the people want done! She isn't perfect by any means, but she is a fighter! She fails, and she learns from that failure and tries again. As for his momentum??? Reminds me of The Tortoise and the Hare :)

Can one of you Obama supporters tell me how much my taxes are going to go up if the "most liberal Democrat" is elected? I'm sorry but all that "change and hope" is going to cost. And, it will cost more when you have somebody who doesn't have a plan!  Or, if he has a plan, he can't articulate it to the masses.

Sounds like the Guliani strategy to me.  Just hang back and wait until a state of your choosing comes around.  Hwr statement is very troubling on many levels.  Is she conceding markets because they don't fit her voting block.  In a tight race she can pick and choose which states she competes in.  I hope the bus doesn't just pass her by.  I can't believe she has said all this!

Queen Hillary takes the cake.  She suggests that the Obama wins over the weekend weren't important because: 1) they were expected (huh?? -- so don't count them??), 2) they were caucus states (huh?? -- why does that negate them??), 3) the black vote (please, and you won California because of the female vote -- so that's not important either?)

The woman cannot assume any responsibility for anything.  Instead of examining the candidate and candidate's husband's tactics, the campaign manager gets fired.

Please, folks, stop Billary!

Obama is a spoiler.  This "uniter" has divided the Democratic party along racial lines.  The cultural elite who can afford a protest vote (Kennedys, Oprah, George Clooney)will do fine financially in a McCain Administration, low and moderate income Americans, who desperately need a Democrat in office, will lose.  This is the wrong year to run a charismatic protest vote, but you can always count on Democrats to self-destruct.

"Obama's big wins over the past few days to the caucus process and to black voters."

----

Apparently The Clinton's haven't heard of the 14th amendment.  You see, black people are equal these days.  They are no longer considered 3/5th of a person.  They actually get one full vote, just like white people... and hispanics.

I would expect someone from st. Genevieve to spew that nosense. Barack as the new Bush yeah right. Hillary is the one we need to look out for and I can not say it enough "WHITEWATER". But of course you all like to forget the underhanded dealings of the Clinton era. Are you really ready to say let's take the devil we know?? And she is not smarter. Just whiter..... Billary is fighting so hard and loaning the campaign money b/c in the end if they get into the white house it will pay off in droves......You need to check in to reality and realize just b/c Billary can talk a good game does not mean they will act on it either..... Vote for Obama vote for change.....

Dennis, St. Louis, Missouri said:  Democrats are on the verge of nominating a candidate who probably cannot win any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, any border state, and maybe not even California.  If such occurs, it will because of Democrats like me who will be casting our vote for Senator McCain.

If you feel that way Dennis you probably should change your affiliation!  We in the Democratic Party don't need the likes of people who aare willing to throw away their vote to the other side because they got their panties in a bunch.  Obama can unite the party, Hillary will only keep us apart.  Join the movemnet or just move over!!!!

I love these comments about how the Clintons are "race baiting".

No one said a thing when Oprah Winfrey turned Barack Obama into THE BLACK CANDIDATE, but you all want to blame the Clintons when they state the obvious: Oprah turned him into THE BLACK CANDIDATE, and he gets 80+% of the black vote, and it's a FACT.  

Unless you're willing to call 80+% of the black community RACIST, and Oprah Winfrey included, then don't label the Clintons that way, either.

And by the way, if you folks think the GOP is going to leave race out of this election if Obama is the nominee, I'd urge you to look back at what they did to Harold Ford when he lost his US Senate Race last year.

If you think the GOP won't do it, you're naive, or stupid, or both.

And if you think it won't WORK when they do it, then you're just plain naive.

Harold Ford can tell you: it WORKS.

Dennis from MO--NO democrat is going to win any states south of the Mason-Dixon line.  I think it's fairly immpressive that Obama was able to carry such a bellweather state as MO. MO has chosen the president since early 1900 or something like that.  My question for you is why your dislike for Obama so great that you will not vote for him if nominated?  Has he done or said something? He's policy positions are VERY similiar to Senator Clinton's--so what is it specifically that you don't like about him?

It's incredible to me that both Hillary and Bill continue to feel the need to reduce Obama's victories in places like Louisiana to racial pride. Especially after SC, could they please just stop talking about race? It's condescending to the point of disbelief.

It's interesting how Obama's victories never matter--it's always due to black voters, the caucus format, Hillary deciding to not spend time or money in places, or implying that some states aren't that important--I mean, has he ever won a legitimate victory in their eyes? The reason she didn't have her act together this weekend is that these states weren't part of her strategy. Obama was supposed to be wiped away by Super Tuesday, just as Terry McAuliffe said after Iowa. And yet, we're not supposed to draw an inference to what kind of executive she would be by watching the management of this campaign. It's reminiscent of health care in '93--no need to release records, no need to revisit the specifics, I learned and let's just leave it at that.

'...In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton...'


From cbsnews.com:

'...Maine Puts Topper On Obama Sweep

Obama Takes Delegate Lead With Wins In 4 States; Feb. 11, 2008

(AP/CBS) Illinois senator Barack Obama finished a series of weekend primary and caucus contests undefeated as he bested Hillary Clinton in Maine today, according to CBS News estimates.

Obama’s victory in the Maine caucuses follow on the heels of his Saturday sweep in which he won Louisiana’s primary contest as well as caucuses in the states of Washington and Nebraska.

His winning margins ranged from substantial to crushing. In Maine, he led 59 percent to 40 percent with 99 percent of the precints reporting. In Louisiana, Obama defeated Clinton, 57 percent to 36 percent. He won in Nebraska by a 68 percent to 32 percent margin and in Washington 68 percent to 31 percent.

Obama's victory in Maine -- and the ease with which it came -- actually exceeded expectations, even though he swept the caucuses held on Super Tuesday. Clinton had the backing of the state's governor, John Baldacci, and its proximity to New Hamsphire and Massachusetts, both of which Clinton has already won this year, led some analysts to expect a close race.

Even Obama's own campaign said they didn't expect to win Maine, according to a document the campaign said was accidentally leaked earlier in the week.

In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton. ...'



COULD YOU REAPEAT THAT ?


'...In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton...'



'...The results in Maine came in the wake of a shake-up on the Clinton campaign. Sunday afternoon, Clinton campaign manager Patti Patti Solis announced she was stepping down from that post. She will be replaced by senior advisor and longtime Clinton confidant Maggie Williams...'

WOW !
That should make a BIG DIFFERENCE !!
Maggie Williams ?
WOW !!

The Billary express is back on track  ;-D

Um, according to this, Bill Clinton DID win Maine and Washington?  Care to comment, Hillary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1992DemPrimariesPresidential.GIF

Rob in NV - If you want to know Obama's specifics, go to his website and read his position statements.  It's all in there.

"How about asking if any single one of the Red-States that Obama won like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, or South Carolina would swing Blue just for Obama?
We all know the answer to that question.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 2:08 PM)

That's a decent point, but I think you're assuming that those states are always going to be conservative bastions.  For the record, no, I doubt that Alabama and Georgia will go blue in 2008 (LA is totally in play though).  But that's not the point.  You should also consider that an increase in Democratic voters in 2008 raises the likelihood that down ballot candidates can win.  If he looses Alabama for the presidential races but brings out enough dems in state and congressional elections to get more and better democrats elected ist will build the party in those states and increase the odds that Alabama and Georgia might go blue in 2010, 2012, 2014, etc.  

It's called party building. Obama is really good at it. Clinton... not so much.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060926-obamas_first_la/

"It will shine the light. The famous saying that sunshine is the best disinfectant. This will apply some sunshine on the budgeting process. It's just one step. We've got to take more steps to control how we spend money here and make sure it's spent wisely," Obama said.

Something is effecting the race in Texas. If not Obama's momentum from other state victories, then something else. Still looks like Clinton's state, but the race is tightening there.

Seems we've seen this before. Clinton starts out with a 20-plus point lead. As the race gets closer to that state, Obama starts closing the gap. Then it becomes a race against the clock. In most states, Obama has been able to beat the clock, but in 10 states he hasn't (eight if you discount Arkansas and New York, which he seemingly never was going to get).

Does anyone know if Texas allows early voting?

Clinton says "I am absolutely looking to Ohio...". Why isn't she looking to Wisconsin? Can someone tell me please why Clinton chooses to look now to Ohio and not Wisconsin. Clinton says "I think in Texas and Ohio, I will do very, very well, and I intend to run very competitive winning campaigns there." Why is Ohio considered more winnable than Wisconsin? She says "I have a very strong campaign already on the ground in Ohio, in Texas, we're getting, you know, prepared for Wisconsin. We're going to compete everywhere that's the advantage of being able to, you know, have the resources and have the ability to compete everywhere." I don't understand it.

To Maryland, Virginia, and DC voters,
PLEASE think very long and hard before you give your delegates to Obama. He will not beat McCain and he simply is not the most qualified for this job right now. Hillary "a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)  

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?" Please vote for the best candidate! Hillary 08!!

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