An Obama Sweep? What Are the Possibilities?

Could Barack Obama "close the deal" on Super Tuesday?

When almost two dozen states are voting, the Democratic presidential campaigns of both Illinois Senator Obama and New York Senator Hilllary Clinton are prepared to spin things their way. That means that the best bet going into "Super Tuesday" is that it will be a wash, with both campaigns finding enough good news to carry on through the primaries and caucuses of February.

There is no way at this point that Clinton can win the day decisively. Obama had built too many firewalls in southern and western states.

But could Clinton lose the day? Possibly, and that's what to watch for on Tuesday.

Let's be clear that only something akin to a sweep would be enough to force the once-inevitable Clinton campaign to accept the new inevitability of Obama as the likely Democratic nominee and Clinton as also-ran. Patterns of early voting that favor Clinton argue against such a scenario. But Obama's late surge in states across the country keeps the possibility open enough to be worthy of discussion.

What would a sweep look like? Obama would not have to win every state or every delegate, but he would have to dominate the map in a manner that left no doubt that Democratic primary and caucus voters prefer his candidacy to that of the woman who not long ago was busy outlining her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech.

To do this, Obama would has to begin by winning California convincingly. That's possible. He's moved even or ahead most Golden State polls. Clinton is drawing huge crowds and working the state aggressively; and Obama's decision to focus most of his campaigning elsewhere in the final days is risky. But if Obama gets California and reaps the benefits of the broader focus, he is on his way to the kind of day that could transform American politics.

Obama then must come close to Clinton in her adopted home state of New York. To do that, he needs to carry New York City and do well enough statewide to pull at least 40 percent of the vote and roughly that percentage of the state's delegates. This seems possible, although the Clinton camp is working hard -- and smart -- to keep the New York senator's vote up in the city. The key may be the borough of Brooklyn, where the Clinton campaign is targeting women from the Caribbean -- a very large and engaged voting bloc that they hope to keep with Hillary.

Next comes Illinois, Obama's home state. He needs to win with over 70 percent to keep Clinton's take of delegates from congressional districts in the suburbs and downstate from being worthy of note.

Once the touchstone states are out of the way, we move to the difficult-but-not-unimaginable part: Obama must carry either New Jersey or Connecticut, states adjacent to New York that had been seen as safe Clinton turf until recently. New Jersey seems the more likely prospect. Most polls from the Garden State show him catching up with Clinton -- with some putting them even as of this morning. Late appearances could be key here, as Obama needs a maximum excitement factor to motivate new voters to get to the polls. Much attention has been paid to the fact that Newark Mayor Cory Booker is backing Obama, but that's less important than the south Jersey vote in cities such as Camden, where turnout must be large and maximized for the Illinois senator.

Also in the northeast, Obama needs to win Massachusetts. That would have been unimaginable not long ago, but with the Kennedy family pulling for him is such a high-profile manner, it is now required. Polling from the state is scant but all indications are the Obama is gaining, especially in the Boston suburbs that had been Clinton country.

In the south, Obama should take Georgia and Alabama, states with large African-American voter blocs. The exit of John Edwards -- who was splitting the southern white vote with Clinton -- complicates things a bit. But if Obama does not take Georgia and Alabama, he's got no claim to a sweep.

Clinton will get Arkansas -- her virtual home state, by virtue of her status as the wife of the former governor; and neighboring Tennessee and Oklahoma look good for her. Obama should get delegates in all three, however. (He is helped in Oklahoma by the late endorsement of the Transport Workers Union, a big player in New York City politics that also happens to be the biggest union in the Sooner State.)

Count Kansas for Obama -- it's his virtual home state, by virtue of his mother's roots there. Obama should also take Colorado, where he opened his campaign offices last fall, and Idaho, where 14,000 people turned out Saturday to hear him declare, "They told me there weren't any Democrats in Idaho - that's what they told me. But I didn't believe them." Give him Alaska as well; caucus voters in the most northerly state tend to go left and insurgent.

The same hold true for the caucus goers in Minnesota, where Obama's Saturday appearance in Minnesota drew a huge crowd.

Obama is also looking strong in North Dakota, where popular Senator Kent Conrad is solidly behind his colleague from Illinois.

That leaves three key battlegrounds, in addition to New Jersey:

* Missouri, where Clinton has some neighbor-state advantages but Obama has Senator Claire McCaskill and large, well-organized African-American communities in Kansas City and St. Louis. Obama's moving up fast; at least one poll now has him even with Clinton.

* Arizona, with a large Hispanic population and a white population that trends older, should be solid Clinton country. Obama has moved up here. If he wins, it would be a huge coup and go a long way toward making him the clear winner on Super Tuesday.

* New Mexico would be an even bigger coup for Obama, and he is fighting hard for it. His Santa Fe rally last week was huge. If very-popular Governor Bill Richardson were to endorse Obama at the last minute, that might tip things the senator's way. But Bill Clinton is seeking to head that eventuality off; the former president's keeping such a close eye on Richardson that he watched the Super Bowl with the governor.

There are a few other small-state primaries and caucuses in Utah, Delaware, America Samoa. They all look to be toss-ups. If Obama wins any or all of them, the case for awarding him the day increases marginally. If Clinton wins them, they'll give her a small measure of redemption -- unless the races for delegates and bragging rights are close. And if those races are close, then there is no Obama sweep in the offering.

What does this all add up to? An Obama sweep is imaginable, and the Clinton people know it. Obama will survive Super Tuesday; at worst, he meets the expectations of the weekend. Clinton and her aides understand that Tuesday will be her make-or-break day, which explains the edge in her closing comments regarding the campaign.

To recap: Obama should win California and Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota and North Dakota. Then, out of the northeast, he needs another state, preferably New Jersey. Out of the middle of the country, he needs Missouri. Out of the southwest, he needs Arizona. If he gets these, and if the delegate distribution plays right, he can claim to have dominated the day. If he adds New Mexico in the southwest and Connecticut in the northeast, and perhaps a surprise -- like Tennessee or Oklahoma -- he'll no longer be merely claiming a sweep. He'll have it, and a clear road to the nomination.

Comments (220)

1. It seems very unlikely, unless ALL the polls are way off. Obama has a slight edge in California but not enough for a blow-out. Clinton has a double-digit lead in New York, although 40% for Obama isn't out of the question. Obama should have a very convincing win in Illinois, but 70% seems a bit much.

   As far as New Jersey is concerned, ONE poll has him even. Others taken at the same time have Clinton with about a five point lead. The trend has been in his favor, so the actual result could be neck-and-neck. The same applies to Connecticut. Obama is gaining in Massachusetts, but he has a huge deficit to make up and I don't think he has enough time.

   I concur on Georgia but Alabama should be very close. The most recent poll does show him with a slight lead in Missouri and the trend is in his favor. Clinton still maintains a slight lead in Arizona.

   To recap, Super Tuesday is unlikely to be a knock-out blow for either of them. Many states are trending for Obama but I don't see Obama sweeping them. Further, the margins in them will be small enough that the delegate count should be about even.

   Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 10:53am

2. BLOG | Posted 02/04/2008 @ 11:36am An Obama Sweep? What Are the Possibilities?

   mr. nichols, what was your stupor bowl prediction?

   just curious.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:09am

3. the fact that this is even plausible is thrilling...

   year of upsets!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 11:57am

4. As a huge Obama supporter, I have to say this is HIGHLY unlikely. First of all, I believe more than a million ballots have already been cast in California, while Hillary was way up. Even assuming a record turnout, this puts Obama in the hole at least a few points. I believe he will win NYC and Hillary will be hurt by how close he comes statewide, but most of these other major developments are unlikely: Hillary will win New Jersey, Massachusetts, and probably Connecticut.

   Let's avoid handing the Clinton campaign the ammo they need for their perpetual expectations game and just Thank God for proportional distribution.

   Posted by bza at 02/04/2008 @ 12:06pm

5. This is a fairy tale; he has no shot of coming close to winning NYC; I live here and we are proudly behind our senaotr who has enacted real change for New Yorkers not fake change liek Hhow OBama sayas he passed a nuclear waste bill but it never really passed( see NYTimes 2/3/08)...he's more of the same; he just hides it better.

   Posted by jabusso at 02/04/2008 @ 12:10pm

6. Everyone who follows politics knows full well that republicans are liars.

   Quite an assertion Frank----I guess if you can make such outrageous statements it is alright for others to do the same----After reading your take on the political landscape I will now say that the landscape you describe must be in your own little fantasy land---Frank and Hillary land. The only place I know that political spin is the only language allowed or understood.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 02/04/2008 @ 12:12pm

7. FRANKGRITS Here's the truth. Barack would energize the republican base also because he is running as an African-American candidate, something that republicans won't accept.

   and the racial thing which we all know the repubs will play up big.

   Often someone who doesn't want to hire a minority will use as the excuse: It isn't me, it's my customers. They just don't want to deal with black people. Given that this is from the person who has referred to Obama as a "mulatto" and "boy", I have to consider Frankgrits' putative concern about how Republicans to react to very likely be a manifestation of the same approach.

   Their goal is to get Obama as the opponent in the general despite what they are saying. They are using psycology on gullible democrats and sending a message to crossovers and independents.

   Getting his politics from RESE/PLUNGER is he?

   Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 12:18pm

8. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 12:02pm

   i think you are well prepared to fight the last war. obama is fighting this one. dynamics have indeed changed and mccain's support of the war is some heavy baggage.

   but indeed a critical mass of people see the rot that is the repugnant party. like me.

   i'm not a dem because i LUV the dems, but because i despise the repugnant party and all bong smoke fantasies from the land of wishes aside, reralize that the only "thing" capable of opposing those despicable, treasonous, neo-fascists is some form of the democratic party.

   which is why i hate to see dems fighting the last war and unleashing repugnant tactics on fellow dems. i don't mind walking in the shadow to defeat the beast, at least some, but one must beware not to become the beast in the process.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 12:24pm

9. Barack would energize the republican base also because he is running as an African-American candidate, something that republicans won't accept. If they would, their candidate would be Condoleeza Rice.

   Um, what? That makes no sense. "If the GOP would accept a candidate with Trait X, their candidate would be a candidate with Trait X" Does that seem true to you??? And, Condi Rice?? Forget the fact that she isn't even running--why would the GOP nominate someone intimately connected with with the cabal that orchestrated perhaps the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history? By your logic: "The GOP would never accept a bespectacled candidate. If the GOP would accept a bespectacled candidate, their nominee would be Dick Cheney."

   Posted by BlueSpark at 02/04/2008 @ 12:36pm

10. Don't try to paint me as a racist.....

    I think, rather I know, that the black community is doing themselves a grievious error by voting Obama over Hillary.

    You're the one holding the brush, Monet.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 02/04/2008 @ 12:40pm

11. I let you out of ignore because you served your time although the things you said about my son and his brothers in arms is the reason you were placed in there in the first place.

    I never said anything about your son or his fellow soldiers. I said that the fact that your son is now out of the army may have colored your willingness to vote for a pro-war candidate like McCain over an anti-war candidate like Obama. I stand by that.

    Please stop acting as if putting someone on your Ignore list is somehow silencing them or locking them up. I have had the same presence here during that period as before or after.

    If you are like Mask and like to take shots behind someone's back, I'd rather argue the point with you in camera.

    You chose to turn your back. I remained out in the open and am not obliged to stop commenting on your posts just because you choose not to read them.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 12:43pm

12. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 12:41pm | ignore

    oh i'm not ridiculing your advice. i just disagree with your interpretation of the situation. actually i try to avoid ridiculing you, even when MASK tries to goad me into it. despite my distaste for your candidate, i respect your tenacity, cojones, and obvious basic decency.

    i still think you are fighting the last war, though, and fail to appreciate the changes since 04...

    but perhaps i'm wrong.

    regardless, keep scrappin' and doing what you believe to be right. got my respect, regardless of what i say about your dark queen...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 1:03pm

13. You're the one holding the brush, Monet.

    Posted by BLUESPARK 02/04/2008 @ 12:40pm

    In 1918, Monet wrote that he ''no longer perceived colors with the same intensity,'' and ''no longer painted light with the same accuracy.'' He described his ''wasted'' efforts: ''What I painted was more and more dark, more and more like an 'old picture.' ''

    By 1922, when he was pronounced blind, blues had disappeared from his paintings and he was forced to read the labels on tubes of paint to distinguish colors, Dr. Ravin wrote. He was encouraged by the French statesman Georges Clemenceau to undergo cataract surgery.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 1:07pm

14. John Nichols, your sanguinity is indeed a wonder. Wish I were your bookie.

    Posted by sloper at 02/04/2008 @ 1:09pm

15. regardless, keep scrappin' and doing what you believe to be right. got my respect, regardless of what i say about your dark queen...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/04/2008 @ 1:03pm

    hear, hear.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 1:10pm

16. Don't try to paint me as a racist.....

    I think, rather I know, that the black community is doing themselves a grievious error by voting Obama over Hillary.

    You're the one holding the brush, Monet.

    Posted by BLUESPARK 02/04/2008 @ 12:40pm

    Actually Manet used broader/longer brush strokes concerned with social commentary, whereas Monet used smaller strokes describing visual not social concerns as the primary content... But I get what you're saying in either case...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 1:23pm

17. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 1:14pm

    i just think you are fundamentally misinterpreting some things. thats not a jab at you, by the way. i don't think you fully appreciate the critical mass that has been reached in many ways in just the last couple of years, in terms of people's attitudes, their understanding of manipulation, and the fact that the country may be on the verge of turning a large chunk of old conventional wisdom on its ear.

    like i said - old war, new war.

    i think this is indeed the biggest shift in american politics since 1968. you simply can't apply the old rules all the time.

    and i definately disagree with your contention that hillery will be a better, more electable candidate than barry o. i tend to think just the oppositw, that the repugnants would love to have her as the dem nominee. beware the groupthink propaganda that any campaign spins (then proceeds to swallow itself - dangerous).

    the idiots of this idiocracy have been brain stapled enough. critical mass looms and at some point they become immune to such - nay, even revolt against it. unfortunately i see your girl still resorting to this stuff and i think it will backfire.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 1:25pm

18. here's a "glowing" report about mr. obama:

    Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon*, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

    Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon's support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

    *****************************************************************

    At least as disturbing for local residents was the revelation that Exelon believed the tritium came from millions of gallons of water that had leaked from the plant years earlier but went unreported at the time. Under nuclear commission rules, plants are required to tell state and local authorities only about radioactive discharges that rise to the level of an emergency.

    *****************************************************************

    The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.

    Last October, Mr. Obama reintroduced the bill, in its rewritten form.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html

    *Exelon -- Provider of energy services with an electric and natural gas distribution and is the largest nuclear operator in the United States. www.exeloncorp.com/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 1:26pm

19. There's no need to refer to Hillary Clinton in those terms. She's done nothing to deserve it.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person

    she voted for that stupid ass to send us into that stupid ass war. then she voted for the USAFASCIST act...

    naivete or cold, cynical, calculation?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 1:27pm

20. Pretty good analysis, John Nichols.

    Watch for Obama to take Missouri and Delaware as well.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 1:36pm

21. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 1:26pm

    so mr. burns is stoking the o-train?

    no such thing as virgin snow. there are good reasons obama hates fund raising in this here corrupt and corrupting republic of money...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 1:38pm

22. You're a liar you referred to my son and his buddies being out of harms way, which is true for my son but not so for some of his friends). I respect our military and their sacrifice. My son suffers from PTSD as do many people he served with. You don't know what you are talking about. If you can't see the insult to me and my son and his brothers in arms in that statement then you deserve to be ignored. Back you go.

    No, you're the liar. I said nothing about his buddies and said nothing about him except that he is no longer in danger of being sent to Iraq. There is nothing remotely insulting in that. Even if I had said his buddies were out of harm's way, that would be, at most, an inaccuracy.

    The only thing insulting is how you are hiding behind them to respond to the fact that I stated that YOUR possible support of McCain is partially prompted by the fact that your son is not going to be sent back there. It is also the only thing cowardly here, outside of your habitual use of the "Ignore" feature.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 1:38pm

23. Frank-Why do we care that Republicans won't vote for a black Democrat?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 1:58pm

24. Wow, now that's a fun graph to look at:

    http://www.pollster.com/MOTopzDems.php

    They are fun too:

    http://www.pollster.com/ALTopzDems.php

    http://www.pollster.com/CTTopzDems.php

    http://www.pollster.com/CATopzDems.php

    http://www.pollster.com/GATopzDems.php

    And here he's just walking away with it-- literally, er, visually:

    http://www.pollster.com/ILTopzDems.php

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 1:59pm

25. And in fact, here is the statement (making your either a liar or just dead wrong) That is pure bull. It is so flimsy a pretext that it would be illegal to wear it outdoors in all fifty states. You've embraced a cult of personality and would rather take your marbles and go home. A vote for McCain is a vote for continuing the war. You evidently have no problem with that (anything to do with the fact that your son is no longer in the military and it's other people's sons who would be in the line of fire?)(emphasis added) Posted by BRUNOWE 01/29/2008 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person Here [tinyurl.com]

    I never said that his buddies were out of harm's way. I did say that your son was (which is true and something that no sane person could construe as any kind of disparagement of him).

    Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 2:00pm

26. Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/04/2008 @ 1:58pm

    You have to excuse FRANKGRITS. Like all of Hillary's folks, he is stuck in the divisive politics of the past.

    The wake up call for Camp Hillary is coming tomorrow, in which they will have to decide whether celebrating the past is really a viable campaign strategy when confronted with a candidate that represents "real" change!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 2:03pm

27. And in fact, here is the statement (making your either a liar or just dead wrong) That is pure bull. It is so flimsy a pretext that it would be illegal to wear it outdoors in all fifty states. You've embraced a cult of personality and would rather take your marbles and go home. A vote for McCain is a vote for continuing the war. You evidently have no problem with that (anything to do with the fact that your son is no longer in the military and it's other people's sons who would be in the line of fire?)(emphasis added) Posted by BRUNOWE 01/29/2008 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person Here [tinyurl.com]

    I never said that his buddies were out of harm's way. I did say that your son was (which is true and something that no sane person could construe as any kind of disparagement of him).

    Posted by BRUNOWE 02/04/2008 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person

    Thanks for clearing that up, I am sure that Frank has you on ignore by now so I posted it for the record...

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 2:07pm

28. I know and have met many Democrats that would not vote for Hillary, some even said they would vote McCain over Hillary.

    no one trusts her and rightly so. Maybe she can beat McCain, but she sure as hell as a better chance of loosing than Obama. And if Hillary did beat McCain, she could single handedly destroy the democratic party forever. The youth do not like her, the grassroots do not like her, her campaign has been very dirty, she lies non-stop, changes her rhetoric whenever it suits her and breeds distrust of politicians.

    Maybe we could rebuild the party after, because right now it is a joke. However I think it would be better to change the party, and electing Obama would be the first step towards a new Democratic party for this generation and beyond.

    Nominating Hillary would be a move to the right for the party, and if that happens then we all lose.

    Posted by Parabolee at 02/04/2008 @ 2:13pm

29. Frank-Since when do Republicans make up 50% of the people who vote Democrat?Wouldn't those people be democrats if they vote democrat?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 2:15pm

30. Is was a master stroke but it lost my vote. I think plenty of other people feel the same way I do about that although it won't show up here.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:05pm

    weren't you already commited to her long before this? look, i'm not getting into the soap opera nitty gritty of this. ultimately we're on the same side, and generally i avoid interaction with you because it pains me to unleash my forked tongue against a kindred spirit - not because of any lack of respect for you.

    but i'm starting to get revved up here and therefore respectfully agree to disagree with you before i say something characteristically mean and nasty to you, which i would regret.

    have a great day, don frank...

    ps: repugnants suck...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 2:15pm

31. Like all of Hillary's folks, he is stuck in the divisive politics of the past.

    Posted by METTEYYA 02/04/2008 @ 2:03pm

    be careful with the "dream" politics of the future......................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 2:19pm

32. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person

    Frank, You are mistaken. The Billary camp started infusing race into the campaign weeks before, then as a final jab tried to make the contention that MLK was not as important without the white President that got the laws through. The jab was clear to anybody who was paying attention. EVERY person who is not blinded by Billary's BS saw it for what it is-Race Baiting. HRC wanted to paint Obama as the black candidate instead of just A candidate, you wanted him to spend so much time defending his 'blackness' that he would not appeal to the average white voter. Bill even tried to lower expectations by saying "Well, Jesse Jackson won SC too"(paraphrase) as an attempt to tie Obama to every fringe black candidate that came before him. Frank, wake up...Your candidate is losing steam fast, and it is partially due to the dirty tricks she used in SC that you claim the Republicans will use against Obama in the General Election. The public has seen these tricks before and are genuinely being turned off by them. Down with Queenie, let the Bush/Clinton Dynasty end.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 2:28pm

33. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:16pm

    Here is an interesting quote from the editors of the Yale Daily News in their endorsement of Obama:

    "It would seem natural for us to endorse Hillary Clinton for president," the editors wrote, noting that Mrs. Clinton graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. But "to endorse her would be to endorse intelligence and preparedness, but also divisiveness and the politics of manipulation."

    That is Clinton's problem, her folks are so in-love with the strategies of Karl Rove, they haven't stop to notice that the country doesn't want this kind of politics at all!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 2:32pm

34. Frank-So,we should support Hillary because she is more acceptable to Republicans and other right wingers.That sounds more like a reason not to support her.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 2:35pm

35. take great offense and I'm owed an apology.

    He isn't owed anything of the kind. I just don't consider it credible that, given his consistent denunciations of this war (and mentioning of the fact that his son was in the battlefield) that he would serious consider voting for McCain and a continuation of the war if his son were still in it.\

    I know that many of you agree with me but it's not fashionable to admit reality. It's easier to jump on the Obama bandwagon and be sheep.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person

    And I think one can cite this as a great example of his thinking re this issue.

    There are a lot of people who are in the democrat aisle who would rather stay home of vote republican rather than vote for a black candidate. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person

    Of course, in Frank's case (voting for McCain before Obama), it's purely a matter of disinterested patriotism.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 2:35pm

36. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:26pm

    FRANKGRITS,

    Rather than continuing the politics of fear and divisiveness, why don't you explain why Obama won in lilly-white Iowa, and why progressive and moderate Republicans are turning out for him in droves?

    Trying to play into the racial fears is an old Karl Rove tactic, and you and Camp Hillary ought to be ashamed for your worship of Rove at the expense of the Democratic Party!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 2:38pm

37. LvLiberty-Sadly,I'm hearing and reading more racist and sexist comments coming from democrats than republicans.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 2:42pm

38. Obama played the race card. HE HAD TO. He had to draw the blacks away from the Clintons. He was successful in SC. We'll see how successful his devisive strategy will be tomorrow. Some uniter huh?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person

    Frank,

    I never said that HRC said that MLK did not do important work. My point is that for HIllary to say that MLK needed politicians to complete his dream was a blatant attempt to reach to the subconscience of the voters and say, "see, you need the benevolant white legislator to get you what you want". It BS. And the public did not fall for it.

    Secondly, black voters were moving away from Billary when the campaign started with the racially motivated comments. As a campaing staffer, you should know your own talking points.

    As a "mullatto", I was offended by the HRC campaigns attempts to turn the campaign into a race issue. I was on multiple other political blogs where HRC supporters were throwing around the term "mullatto" the same day I called you on it. I am not buying that it was not a coordinated "whisper campaign". Your team is playing games that you should be ashamed of.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 2:44pm

39. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person

    How is HRC being the second most devisive figure in politics Obama's fault? She infuriates independents and republicans alike, but Obama is to blame because he had the audacity to run when it was Hillary's time. You are grasping at straws...jumped the shark...lost it.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 2:50pm

40. Frank-It tells me to not vote for Democrats.I won't vote for McCain,either so maybe a viable independent will run and I can vote for them.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 2:51pm

41. people like myself, who didn't like Obama's dirty tricks will support a true American hero like mcCain.

    So you are the BIGGEST Hillary booster here - and probably one of her staffers - and YOU WOULD VOTE FOR "100-YEARS-IN-IRAQ" MCCAIN?

    That says a lot about Hillary's TRUE intentions in Iraq, which obviously isn't withdrawing our troops!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 2:52pm

42. Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/04/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person

    pffft! look at how many republicans showed up at the howard debates a few months back...

    that was an unmistakable slap in the face if i ever saw one. please try not to generalize "democrats" from "bill clinton", ok?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 2:55pm

43. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:54pm |

    mulatto is a fine word. use it to your heart's content. they are indeed being unfair to you.

    regardless, useless to bristle at people calling 50 foot queenie names. she IS widely disliked...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 2:59pm

44. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:54pm

    I never knew that the term mulatto was offensive to people of mixed race. It was pointed out to me and I apologized. Perhaps Webster should omit the definition from his dictionary.

    I think "bi-racial" and "multi-racial" are the "in" terms these days, as "mulatto" has a "mutt" connotation which suggests racial purity is somehow preferred.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 2:59pm

45. IBB-I was referring to how Democrats are referring to each other as racists and sexists depending upon which candidate they support and are making racist and sexist statements towards each other.Not a brilliant tactic.You don't see that as much on here,but it is everywhere else.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 3:05pm

46. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 3:00pm

    FRANKGRITS,

    It is "always" an us-versus-them bunker mentality with the Hillary folks, and it is this precise divisive mentality that will be rejected tomorrow!

    And as I have already noted, I am probably one of the MOST progressive human being you have ever encountered, but I am not stupid enough to think everyone who disagrees with me on "any" issue is my ARCH ENEMY!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 3:06pm

47. A vote for Hillary may be a move to the right, but the impact of the Latino vote has been mischaracterized by the media. Latinas from coast to coast will be fired up in the secrecy of the voting booth, away from the eyes of the men and the institutions that oppress them every day.

    Posted by nursevic at 02/04/2008 @ 3:06pm

48. Frank-As I told you before,I'm not a Nader person and Nader would not be considered a viable independent.It was Perot,and not the Clintons,who ruined it for Bush1.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 3:07pm

49. So how come the MSM isn't informing the people about that?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:10pm

    well, it is the nytimes.............

    no FLOXNEWS or anything. but still.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 3:08pm

50. frank-Why is it Obama and not Hillary who has divided the Democrats?Wouldn't it be both?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 3:08pm

51. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/04/2008 @ 2:37pm

    don't forget thomas sowell. he's crazy, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 3:10pm

52. Frank-Saying that these people are secret GOP operatives does not help Hillary.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 3:10pm

53. Posted by METTEYYA 02/04/2008 @ 2:59pm

    well...i use the term "mulatto" and make no apologies. its specific, time honored, and used somewhat sarcastically to point out the fact that a person who is half white, half black is "black", which hearkens back to a racist past where one teeny tiny drop of awful horrible negroidness made one black - which still seems to infest our labeling of people today - thus the slightly archaic term, "mulatto".

    i'm absolutely positive this does indeed offend some folks don't give a rip. people who get offended easily should cease expecting others to abide by their chosen rules and regulations of vocabulary, slang, and syntax.

    political correctness should not impinge upon creative, farcical, and sarcastic use of language...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 3:11pm

54. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 3:05pm

    damnit, frank - bad timing - gotta go somewhere important and do something earth shaking - rain check?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/04/2008 @ 3:05pm |

    yup...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 3:14pm

55. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/04/2008 @ 3:11pm

    IBB,

    I am not an enforcer of PC language. I just thought it was interesting that Hillary's booster here, FRANKGRITS, is not more sensitive to the language he is using if he wants to convince more people to vote for Clinton.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 3:16pm

56. Absolutely amazing. The people here call Republicans racist as if it's beyond debate and totally ignore the actions of both the Obama and Clinton camps these past months. Veiled racists attacks have been made for months by both Bill and Hillary Clinton and her supporters, or perhaps you people forgot all the subtle drug references. The Democratic Party is being torn asunder because of its indulgences in identity politics and you people laughably accuse the Republicans of being bigots. A huge portion of Obama's votes will be gained solely because he is black, yet if the same thing were said of John McCain, you would be comparing him to Bull Conner. I have never seen such rank hypocrisy. As for the person claiming the Republican Party is racist because no blacks are in the field, I am curious, how many blacks have the Democrats elected to the office of the Presidency? Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Posted by masanf at 02/04/2008 @ 3:29pm

57. One thing about the early voting in California. You would have to think that the polls that have been conducted in the last few days aren't screening out the early voters. These voters should be included. I would also think that most people who actually vote for a candidate and are subsequently asked by a pollster would respond with the person they voted for. Unless I'm missing something, the late polls include the early voters. Pollsters strive for a representative sample.

    Posted by CTM at 02/04/2008 @ 3:34pm

58. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/04/2008 @ 3:36pm

    I don't know if that is a complement LVLIBERTY1, but you are correct that FRANKGRITS is losing it with his Clinton bunker mentality if he thinks I am conservative or a Republican like yourself!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 3:41pm

59. Many dems are falling right into the hands of the republicans. They will no doubt unleash their attacks on Obama should he win the nomination. Hillary will be the only one able to win the WH as a dem. Most people better decide now on who they really want in their because right now only two will actually be able to run, one is Mccain and the other is Hillary, Obama has no chance against him. Im tired of the divisive politics theme being thrown out their. Call it what it is, REALITY! As a Democrat I see no chance of Obama beating Mccain. Wake up people the republicans will pull out all stops not to let a black in the WH.

    Posted by dave1 at 02/04/2008 @ 3:44pm

60. Frank,

    I'm sorry you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You contend that the time isn't now for a black president. But there is never a time for a people to gain rights. It wasn't the time for blacks to let loose the chains of slavery, that's why there was a war. It wasn't the right time for the integration of schools that's why there was violence. It wasn't the right time for immigrant workers to gain rights, that's why there were protests. It wasn't the right time for black's, women, hispanics or any other race or gender to gain the right to vote, riots, violence ad protest came to all these. There is never a right time to make such a large change. But it gets made whether people like you think it's the right time or not Frank progress never stops and it isn't held back by barriers. So whether you are willing to admit that or not is your own problem but don't levy your own insecurities and unscrupulous tactics on other people.

    On another note you say Obama hoodwinked his constituency by commenting on a statement made by Hillary. That statement however was taken to have that connotation BEFORE Obama said anything about it. So no he didn't have to say anything plenty of people already had. You claim to know what the black community wants frank, I am apart of the black community. I can tell you when she made that comment in the first place many people I am around constantly were outraged by it. So don't claim he hoodwinked anyone, or do you think we are so unintelligent we can't think for ourselves frank? You have shown yourself to have a certain latent prejudice. Not outright, not like you are going to go light a cross, but the same latent prejudice that EVERYONE carries. Whether you be man, woman, black, white anything. You need to shed that. Come to the realization that there is never a good time to make a groundbreaking change. Human's are inherently stubborn when it comes to change. They need something to just change for them then they adapt to the new standard. But if we wait for everyone to be ready we will never change.

    On the note of you saying America is not ready for a black POTUS. Have you asked yourself is America ready for a female president? No because your argument is just being made to prop up your candidate. If we are ready for radical change from male to female, we are ready for radical change in any direction.

    Don't claim to know what's best for the black community Frank. We are not children. We don't need papa white man to tell us what's best for us. We've been finding our way so far without people like you holding our hand frank. People who claimed to know what was best for the black community gave us, segregated schools, segregated toilets, back to africa. Don't claim you know what's best for us. I will make this statement with all the conviction I have, You don't. You know what's best for you. You haven't had to deal with growing up as a young black man or woman. So do not claim to know what's "best" for us frank. If you knew so much about the black community you would have never called him mulatto. A term given to half blacks by slave owners in order to differentiate the house niggers from the field niggers and to cause a divide amongst blacks. On top of that you would have never used the term boy. Boy if you didn't know frank is used at one time by slave owners and now by white supremacists to degrade and demean black people. If you knew anything about the black community Frank you would have known that. So please avoid telling me what's best for me Frank. I don't need your help.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 3:44pm

61. Posted by MASANF 02/04/2008 @ 3:29pm

    Hillary will get lots of votes because she is a woman, Barack will gets lots of votes because he is "considered" black, Romney will get a lot of votes because he is a Mormon, and McCain will get a lot of military votes based on his service.

    There are a lot of affinity votes for every candidate, but I think these votes are a wash, and what will decide these races are the candidates appeal on many other issues as well as other qualities like leadership, trust, and inspiration.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 3:45pm

62. Many dems are falling right into the hands of the republicans. They will no doubt unleash their attacks on Obama should he win the nomination. Hillary will be the only one able to win the WH as a dem. Most people better decide now on who they really want in their because right now only two will actually be able to run, one is Mccain and the other is Hillary, Obama has no chance against him. Im tired of the divisive politics theme being thrown out their. Call it what it is, REALITY! As a Democrat I see no chance of Obama beating Mccain. Wake up people the republicans will pull out all stops not to let a black in the WH.

    Posted by dave1 at 02/04/2008 @ 3:45pm

63. Obama supporters are voting for Obama because they want unity, and change, which is great. They are also voting for him because he didn't vote for the war. And again, that is great. And they want someone who is the most electable.

    Hillary supporters understand all the problems George W. has left us with, and they understand that Hillary's detailed explanation for solving these problems are very impressive and they agree that out of all the candidates, Hillary is the toughest and will work hard at solving our problems. And they believe Bill Clinton will do a great job at fixing our international relations, which is such a priority.

    Out of the two reasons to vote for either Obama or Hillary, I have to say that I am voting for Hillary to solve our problems and as for unity, I know that's my job. And that's why I have such a large diverse group of friends and family in my life. Because we worked at providing unity, not any politician.

    And about the war, even though Obama said he didn't vote for the war...the truth is that he couldn't vote for the war. I think there is a big difference there. I'm not putting down Obama at all. He is a nice guy and a great speaker. But he couldn't vote because he wasn't a senator. That's fair to say. I know Hillary made that mistake. But I know the truth is she voted for the war and she had to make that choice. There is a big difference between didn't and couldn't.

    Posted by jbk at 02/04/2008 @ 3:52pm

64. Fairy tales can come true, it could happen to you if you're young at heart; for it's hard, you will find, to be narrow of mind, if you're young at heart....

    Posted by fougasseu at 02/04/2008 @ 3:54pm

65. what Frankgrits never explains, and always excuses, is the appalling lack of judgment that Hillary Clinton has displayed, but let us just focus on her senatorial career and ignore all that other 'experience'. The most important decision a president can make is to go to war, and she messed up not once, but twice. Everybody knows about Iraq, which, given ample opportunity, she never admitted was a mistake. However, she also voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which basically gave Bush the authority to go to war, fortunately curtailed by the new NIE report. Supporters of HRC have then two choices: either she, after all that 'experience' with Bill in the white house was too stupid to know she was being had, or she did know and voted for all that death and destruction so that she could further her political career. Either way that makes her unqualified to be president of the United States.

    Posted by Cornelius at 02/04/2008 @ 3:56pm

66. LvLiberty-I find the my party is less racist than your party arguments to be naive,as you pointed out.Both have come along ways,but have a ways to go.I'm one who believes that race,gender,religion are things that no law should mention.All laws in America should pertain equally to all showing no bias.We should not have laws that promote anyone anymore than we should have had laws that segregated.Unfortunately,many of our founding fathers did not live the words in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and apply it to all so we've had problems and those civil rights laws helped to ease some of those problems,but caused other problems to arise.We have the right words to follow in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and just need to have all laws reflect those words.We,also,need to stop calling everyone racist and sexist so much because those words have been overused and misused so much that they're losing their meaning.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 4:02pm

67. Posted by DAVE1 02/04/2008 @ 3:45pm

    Another Hillary race-baiter.

    Wake-up Hillary folks - OBAMA WON IN LILLY-WHITE IOWA!!!

    It is Hillary that loses to McCain because she galvanizes the Republicans to turn out in record numbers to vote against "Satan's Favorite Daughter", which is the term they use in the evangelical community for Hillary.

    This record Republican turn-out + McCain's cross-over appeal to some Democrats and independents because of his stands on campaign finance reform, immigration, and torture, gives McCain A LOT more votes than Hillary's "I hate all Republicans" voters.

    Also, Hillary support of the war and record number of earmarks for defense contractors when she was in the senate, makes her a weak candidate to confront McCain's pro-war agenda.

    Obama, on the other hand, can neutralize McCain's cross-over appeal with his own cross-over success with progressive and moderate Republicans and independents, and hit McCain over the head with the "dumb war, wrong war" thing because he opposed it from the start.

    "Racializing" the contest is a Karl Rove/Mark Penn tactic, that only wins when running against another divider. This tactic fails when used against a uniter like Barack, and would be rejected by the voters who are tired of being divided.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 4:04pm

68. I'm puzzled by the assumption that racists would vote for Senator Clinton in a general election, but not Senator Obama. I'd like to think that racism is correlated with sexism and confined to a segment of the population that is not going to vote for any Democrat. Dislike of "all things Clinton" is a much more widespread phenomenon, found among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. As a longtime Clinton supporter (Bill and Hillary both), I can't imagine giving them the opportunity to embarass us again. Obama has much broader support and seems to have better prospects in a general election. Has anyone seen polling that contradicts this?

    Posted by Be Good at 02/04/2008 @ 4:05pm

69. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/04/2008 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person

    Your use of "mulatto" and the way it was used to describe Obama were not the same. Richard Pryor had a bit about how his white wife was at a party with him and many of his friends. Pryor and his friends regularly refered to each other as N***as. His white wife, not thinking it would be percieved as an insult, called Pryor a N***a in front of everyone. Needless to say she never used the term again. Pryor used the term in a different way than whites using the same word. Similar to the sarcastic way you define the word mulatto, the n-word has been somewhat redefined by black people. However, if someone uses the word "mulatto" as an attempt to disparage someone, or to draw contrast to the "real" black people-it is offensive plain and simple. The word boy is not an offensive word, change the context and call a black man "boy"? The idea was to knock Obama down a peg and get him to enter into a public debate about race that would susequently paint him as the black candidate and align him with fringe candidates like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The effect was to get Obama of his message, playing defense, and at the same time keeps Bill on the evening news, while Hillary gets to keep at arms length-Obama did not completely fall into the trap and HRC had to publicy straighten Bill out with her "this is my campaign" talking point.

    To Franks credit, I pointed this out to him and have not seen him using the term since. I did, however, read several HRC supporters using the same term on TPM, WashingtonPost.com and others in the leadup to SC. I have no doubt that it was a "whisper campaign" by the HRC camp similar to the smearing the GWB campaign did to McCain by running fliers with pictures of his adopted Bangledesh-born daughter alluding to his illegitimate black (gasp!) daughter to scare the begeesus out of the God-Fearing SC Republicans. It is a cheap trick and I was offended by the tactic. It's time to call politicians on the coded language they use no matter what party they are in. There are racists in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 4:08pm

70. Obama's race disqualify's him from getting republican votes. There are a lot of people who are in the democrat aisle who would rather stay home of vote republican rather than vote for a black candidate. I'm sorry but you folks need to hear these harsh realities. The fierce urgency of now is not NOW. It's eight years from now.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:26pm

    Well Frank I suppose there can be a lot of people lying, including yourself, but it seems numbers can be substantiated that totally dispute your argument and could very well be the only reason that you ignore them.

    Per PEW, 26-28 % of the voting population consider themselves repubs, 32-37% dems, 31-37% inds. So even if none of the repubs vote for Barack, which I know is doubtful, and 10% of the dems and inds are racists, Barack can still win with over 50% of the vote that feel a nominee that's black can be elected president.

    As well 'more' voters believe America is ready for a black president, 72%, as for a woman president, 65%.

    http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/392.pdf

    "Fifty-five percent of Democrats (including independents who lean to the Democratic Party) say they would vote for Obama "enthusiastically" in November were he the Democratic nominee; 53% say the same of Clinton."

    http://tinyurl.com/37kb2w

    Billary's major downfall however is that 79% of voters wanting a total 'change' of direction from the current dic'tatorship. Hillary is most definitely tied to Bill and Bill is tied to the Bushes per Pappy and thus Iraq/Rove/max-failure, (operative: "You know, in certain older civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords."), not to mention its politics of delusionally crappy divisive wedge/tri-strangulation.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 4:13pm

71. FRANKGRITS clearly has a brain the size of peanut. If there were any chance that Hillary would carry a wave of democrats in her wake then why are purple state democrats all endorsing Obama? His republican double bluff conspiracy theory is pure Clinton paranoia and exactly why we she's such a deeply repellant figure.

    Posted by h1000 at 02/04/2008 @ 4:16pm

72. Dave1-The Clintons are to the Republicans what Bush is to the Democrats.What makes you think that McCain isn't the type to out do the Democrats and get himself a black female running mate?He strikes me as the type that would do it and then win.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 4:17pm

73. Missouri, where Clinton has some neighbor-state advantages but Obama has Senator Claire McCaskill and large, well-organized African-American communities in Kansas City and St. Louis. Obama's moving up fast; at least one poll now has him even with Clinton.empahsis mine

    You messed up on this particular narrow point. There is no reason to believe that Clinton has neighbor state advantages in MO due to a lengthy (but mildly populated) border with AK. Obama is a twofer. As you note elsewhere, he has roots in KS to the left and is a standing Senator in IL to the right, both of which enjoy heavily populated lengthy borders with MO. If anything, being a Senator to suburban St. Louis counties gives Obama a marginal homefield advantage.

    Posted by dmittleman at 02/04/2008 @ 4:18pm

74. To the comment before by CCCOMFO1 abot how Hillary put MLK down:

    When people need to get laws passed regarding human rights, anything in the economy, laws that deal with international trade, civil unions etc....who do we need to get those laws passed???...the politicians. When certain organizations need to get laws passed, they can't do it themselves because they can't pass laws. So they affiliate themselves with people in the government who can pass the laws. That's the reality.

    I don't understand why you could be mad at Hillary for her comments about MLK, because the truth is that she didn't put him down. She has never put MLK down.

    And no one can ever put MLK down. He was an amazing man for all people in the US and abroad. But all Hillary said was because he wasn't a politician he couldn't get certain laws passed, so he needed someone who was in a position to do so. And that's why she mentioned LBJ. It's a fair thing to say because it was an actual event that actually took place. If you go and read about Hillary Clinton, she is far from racist as can be. Seriously....read about her.

    Listen, I know she can be stern, prude, outspoken, and tough. But Hillary and Bill are not racists and the comments about MLK and LBJ don't put down MLK down. Because they are events that are TRUE! And that's the truth. If you wanted change and you wanted a law to be passed, you couldn't do it, because in this country you can't. You would contact someone who can pass those laws. And that's exactly what MLK did. Not putting him down, not putting his work down or what he has done for this country. Just that he needed someone to pass those laws. And again that's fair to say because it true.

    Posted by jbk at 02/04/2008 @ 4:20pm

75. Posted by JBK 02/04/2008 @ 4:20pm

    People took offense to it because it was giving more credit to LBJ for passing the law than MLK and the millions of blacks who gave lives, were beaten, bitten by dogs and spent years trying to get the rights they deserved. Instead you are giving most of the credit to LBJ for simply signing the law.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 4:25pm

76. If you guys think Obama is going to have an easier time against McCain than Hilliary, then you've got a lot to learn. Away from the coasts, in the "heartland" where I've lived and worked for many years, Obama won't stand a chance. He's the living embodiment of the bogeyman that the GOP has used successfully for 40+ years to get the votes of middle class whites. And don't kid yourself, the Hispanics (most of whom are Mexicans) will not vote for a black; they hate the blacks even more than the whites do.

    If working class whites, including those who see themselves that way, are facing a situation of rapidly declining living standards, a bleak economic future, and feel threatened by the "terrorists" abroad and the rise of China and India, who are they going to be inclined to turn to? Will they choose an older white guy who is a real war hero with many years of political experience in domestic and foreign affairs, or a sweet talking black guy with a light resume, and no military experience?

    Besides, once Obama gets nominated, how long do you think the honeymoon between Obama and the GOP is going to last. The GOP tacticians must be must be laughing behind closed doors. They now know that despite their damaged brand they now have with McCain v Obama, a more than even chance of retaking the White House and perhaps both branches of Congress (yes Obama will sink the Democratic ticket).

    Why has Obama received such a glowing build up by the corporate media for over a year? And why has he received so much of contributions from big corporations like Goldman Sachs, etc.? Doesn't this make you "progressives" a little suspicious?

    Posted by wgilwood at 02/04/2008 @ 4:35pm

77. FRANK has shown basic dishonesty for the last few months about Obama vs Hillary.

    Among his dishonesties was claiming Obama "said the Republicans had all the good ideas for the last 10-15 years".....he said no such thing.

    His latest and most prolific is this claim that "the GOP is lying, they DON'T want to run against Hillary." Of course they DO...she's got nearly FIFTY PERCENT of the voting public that WILL NOT vote for her. They can build a majority on that.

    But Obama is a wild card factor, and they FEAR that America is NOT as racist as some think. It's a variable they can't fully predict...

    SHE is predictable.

    Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 4:37pm

78. She is not giving more credit to LBJ. Like I said in order to get laws passed you need politicians. And if you can give me part of her quote where she puts down the blacks who gave their lives, were beaten, bitten by dogs, etc, I will gladly agree with you. If you can give me part of her quote where she says it wasn't MLK that gave equal rights to African Americans it was LBJ, then I will agree with you.

    But she didn't say that. She said when LBJ passed those laws, MLK saw his dream become a reality. Meaning that all the work that MLK has done, fighting for civil rights can be seen in a law that LBJ signed to make his dream into a reality. That quote does not say that LBJ did more. All it says is that he signed the law. That's all it says. But again, if you can prove me wrong than I will agree with you. I think that's fair.

    Posted by jbk at 02/04/2008 @ 4:37pm

79. BTW, notice AGAIN all the "newcomers".

    Hillary's bloggers (or blogger singular) using hotmail and Gmail accounts to flood the blogs here and elsewhere in preparation for tomorrow.

    Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 4:38pm

80. I'm going to have to agree with MASK against WGIL I don't think America is as Racist as everyone seems to believe it is. Jesus if it is this racist why does anyone want to live here?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 4:42pm

81. Posted by JBK 02/04/2008 @ 4:37pm

    This is the problem you are looking AT her quote. You need to look through her quote. As I am absolutely sure you know, politicians never say what they mean. LBJ passed that law not because of the benevolence of his heart. He passed it because the movement had grown too large. But never did he help to govern his decisions. Passing of the laws didn't make them so. The people who continued to fight made it so because the laws meant nothing to those who were still intent on not following them and the government didn't much help the cause.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 4:53pm

82. Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person Where's Annavilla with her inspiring Obama song?

    It's obvious that the HRC campaign talking point is electability and race. Convince the voters that the country would never vote for a black man, instead they will vote for the woman that scares the shit out of the Rio, LvLib, MarkCanyon crowd. Want to guarantee the religious right turns-out, nominate Hillary. They are not coming out for McCain or Romney, but, they will run over their own to vote against "Satan's Favorite Daughter".

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 4:54pm

83. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 4:42pm

    Pick away at the b.s. and you'll find 99% of those who DECLARE that "America is too racist to vote for a black guy" on the blogs...

    is a Hillary supporter...not an objective or disinterested party!

    Some worry about it, but only the followers of "Akasha" declare it as fact.

    Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 4:56pm

84. Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/04/2008 @ 4:54pm

    Not just the Hard Right, Right, or Right-of-Center...the numbers are too high.

    Something like 47% have said they "would never vote for Hillary"...that's a lot of independents and moderates (maybe a few Dems).

    Even if it's a "white guilt" lie and the people saying they would "never vote for a black guy or Obama in specific" is around 11-12% is "too low" and "not accurate"...double that to 22-24%. That's HALF the number that say they'd never vote for the PERSON of Hillary Clinton!

    Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 4:59pm

85. To CCCOMFO1:

    I understand what you said. And I understand that racism exists. I don't argue that African Americans struggle for equality. That Latinos fight for equality. Asians fight for equality. Gays, etc. But when you say look through her quote, I truly believe you are taking her words out of context.

    And when you say:

    LBJ passed that law not because of the benevolence of his heart.

    That's just pure speculation. You weren't there. I wasn't there. We both don't know the meaning why he signed it.

    Instead the best way to look at it, is that the law was passed. And MLK had to fight to get it passed. And it was passed. Those are facts. But to guess why LBJ signed that law, is just a speculation and not fair to say.

    Posted by jbk at 02/04/2008 @ 5:05pm

86. Posted by JBK 02/04/2008 @ 5:05pm

    I can see your point about my speculation of LBJ and I will admit maybe it is unfair of me but I have a very negative opinion of politicians. Their job is to lie and deceive. I think rarely do most politicians act from the heart most act from the mind. Not all, but most.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 5:09pm

87. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 3:44pm

    ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Spanish mulato, from Arabic muwallad ‘person of mixed race.'

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:10pm

88. Posted by WGILWOOD 02/04/2008 @ 4:35pm

    Now THIS poster appears to be a Republican rooting for Hillary!

    He is using contributions from some of Goldman Sachs' "employees" to Obama as evidence that Obama may not be progressive, while ignoring Hillary's tenure at the The Rose law firm, a corporate law firm, and her board seat at Wal-Mart, one of the "least" socially responsible corporations on the planet.

    A Hillary person would not want to go there on Obama, so this has to be a Republican who wants to run against "Satan's Favorite Daughter"!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 5:11pm

89. I dont understand why Americans now suddenly think Obama can win this. It just never going to happen. Americans will never elect a black man to office, the idea is just bizzare. Have you people forgot about South Carolina? I saw that Obama got like only 20% of the white vote. Has everyone forgot that? White people just not going to vote for a black man, its really that simple, no matter how good he is.

    Bill Clinton was right, its a fairytale. Maybe in a hundred years from now it will happen when black people start to outnumber whites. But people will vote for what they know and while liberal internet bloggers and the media are all excited about Obama the man in the street will simply never vote for him. America is a deeply divided country racially, it will take decades maybe centuries to change that.

    Posted by ColdTruth at 02/04/2008 @ 5:11pm

90. this discussion of race is soooo 20th century.

    sheesh. go forth and hybridize. end this nonsense once and for all.

    plus, it's fun.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:12pm

91. Billary concedes that they're working for Barack:

    "You know, change is hard," she said, referring to Mr. Obama's frequent campaign message. "I wish all you had to do was just say it's going to happen and it'll materialize. But it's going to take hard work. It's going to take every one of us."

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/no-more-tears/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 5:14pm

92. And don't kid yourself, the Hispanics (most of whom are Mexicans) will not vote for a black; they hate the blacks even more than the whites do.

    posted by SOMEIDIOT UP THERE.

    what?!? i don't hate blacks. my wife is mexican. let's ask her:

    "honey, do you hate black people"

    "naw, ¿porque? eso es ridiculo. ¿porque preguntas?"

    speak for yourself, numbskull.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:16pm

93. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 5:10pm

    I didn't mean they made the word up frosty. I've read the origin of the word but it was brought about during racial strife. Brought to use by slave owners to segregate blacks from one another.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 5:20pm

94. I was talking to my parents' Bible Study Group for about half an hour while dropping my kid off for a weekend with the grandparents. The group consists of about 15-18 church leaders (deacons, elders and associate pastors and their spouses), I asked about their thoughts on McCain-no one was excited about him. The general feeling was "I don't think he will stand with us". Everyone agreed, they were afraid that the ground gained under Bush would be lost due to the Dem controlled congress and McCain's willingness to work across the aisle-compromise on their biblical ideals.(5 min of discussion) I then asked about Romney, you could've heard a pin drop. The same "Temple Mormon" statement came up and that was it. (2 min of discussion) Then the obvious question of Hillary came up...we spoke for about 20 min on Hillary. No one had a good thing to say, and much of it was nonsense-She is too liberal/They have no values...nonsense. Obama was brought up and little was said beyond the general "I like him but he's still too liberal for me".

    Putting this into context was difficult. I do not usually like the electability argument but the HRC group is pushing it so I have to refute it. Obama is no more/no less liberal then Hillary on most issues. But the perception from the religious right is she is the anti-christ. Again, unfair, but that is the perception. I am not a fan of HRC, I think she will do/say anything to get elected and I do not like her positions on the war/trade/corporate sponsorship. But, come Nov., I may have to vote for her becuase the alternatives are unacceptable. I can gaurantee that millions of evangelicals will come out just to vote against her, regardless of the republican nominee. The HRC campaign needs to change the topic from electibility, they will not win that battle.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 5:20pm

95. fuck stupor tuesday.

    tomorrow is Paczki Day! [metrotimes.com]

    yum.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:21pm

96. Posted by COLDTRUTH 02/04/2008 @ 5:11pm

    Did you forget about IOWA? A state with a 95% white population?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 5:22pm

97. Jesus if it is this racist why does anyone want to live here?

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 4:42pm

    back to africa with you, freedomhater!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:22pm

98. BTW, notice AGAIN all the "newcomers".

    Hillary's bloggers (or blogger singular) using hotmail and Gmail accounts to flood the blogs here and elsewhere in preparation for tomorrow.

    Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 4:38pm

    let's build an ark of sanity:

    "hillary clinton is icky"

    that'll scare 'em away.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:25pm

99. It's that small core of 65 and over age group that were indoctrinated into the 1900-40's ways of segregation and voting for Billary big time, that may stay home rather than vote for an alternative. I can see why they'd be desperate, in 8-9 more years a lot of them might not be around...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 5:26pm

100. Posted by COLDTRUTH 02/04/2008 @ 5:11pm

     Another Hillary race-baiter! Wow, they are really showing up in droves today, or FRANGRITS has been really busy registering more usernames at The Nation.

     Whether it is in Iowa, New Hampshire or rural Nevada, Obama has PROVEN he can carry the white vote just as well as the black vote. He is the true cross-over candidate and his bi-racial background will help heal this nation by bringing the races together for the good of America.

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 5:28pm

101. I didn't mean they made the word up frosty. I've read the origin of the word but it was brought about during racial strife. Brought to use by slave owners to segregate blacks from one another.

     Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 5:20pm

     i thought posting the etymology of "mulato" would show how a word itself can be a historical document.

     i never thought you thought they made the word up.

     BTW it's still quite commonly used in spanish.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:29pm

102. "would never vote for Hillary"...that's a lot of independents and moderates (maybe a few Dems).

     Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 4:59pm

     a few dems? read these bloggies. she's despised by bunches.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:31pm

103. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 5:29pm

     Oh ok, sorry for my response if it seemed harsh I apologize.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 5:33pm

104. ColdTruth-You sound identical to Dave1 and FrankGrits.Too identical.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 02/04/2008 @ 5:34pm

105. Maybe in a hundred years from now it will happen when black people start to outnumber whites. But people will vote for what they know and while liberal internet bloggers and the media are all excited about Obama the man in the street will simply never vote for him. America is a deeply divided country racially, it will take decades maybe centuries to change that.

     Posted by COLDTRUTH 02/04/2008 @ 5:11pm

     boink. boink. boink. boink. boink. boink. boink.

     in a hundred years, most americans (yes, even your descendants) are gonna be kinda brownish.

     hybridize, after all the strongest dog is the mutt.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:34pm

106. I don't see a sweep happening on either side (Clinton/Obama or McCain/Romney). For the Dem's, it'll come down to the superdelegates. That'll be interesting.

     My primary is the 12th so maybe we'll play a part. Even then, I still think this whole thing will be decided at the convention.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 5:35pm

107. Oh ok, sorry for my response if it seemed harsh I apologize.

     Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 5:33pm

     not needed. given the timbre of this thread, one can easily get irritable.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:40pm

108. Oy! These self-appointed pundits on comment pages are making me a little sick. Where do you people get your sense of certainty from?

     How many of you can honestly say you've been able to predict all the twists in this election since Iowa? Maybe you guessed right a time or two, but my guess is that, more often than not, you're as surprised as anybody by what transpires. Still, that doesn't stop all these windbags from telling me and the rest of the world, with absolute confidence (and a palpable contempt for any idiot who wouldn't agree) that you KNOW that Hillary will be lunch for McCain or that this country will NOT elect a black person in 2008. I'm sure all of you, six months ago, confidently assured everyone, "well, I could see him taking nearly all-white Iowa and then nearly taking all-white New Hampshire, then sweeping to a 30 point victory in South Carolina (nobody will break that bond between the Clintons and black southern voters, right?) and then contending in a national primary. I'm sure he'll do that, but he'll never beat anybody in November when the racists get into it." That was everybody's rap at the start, right?

     No? What a shock. Here's what I think: the voters are in charge this year, and barring massive voter supression or a Diebold conspiracy, they're gonna tell us junkies what's going to happen, and all the poll watching and punditry won't determine the outcome.

     I don't mind people making predictions; I'll do one now: I think the Obama surge is very real and that he'll come close in California, win Missouri, pick up the caucus states, but lose Connecticut, New Jersey, and come pretty close to a tie in Massachusetts. I think Hillary will win in Alabama by a hair, and crush Obama in her home state of NY, but not by as much as he'll beat her in Illinois. I think it'll be a good day for both of them, and that the dominant narrative will be that he fell a little short but that he has essentially caught up, and that the schedule now favors him because he can spend more time getting to know primary voters, and the more they know him, the more they seem to like him.

     But I don't KNOW this and I don't think you're a jackass if you disagree. I think Obama has a better chance in the general, but I can see arguments for Hillary.

     Sorry for the screed; it's not the blather that bothers me; I like to blather. It's the certainty from people who, for the most part, probably can barely predict yesterday's weather.

     Posted by Matt Weiss at 02/04/2008 @ 5:44pm

109. MATT, my Magic 8-Ball says it'll be close everywhere. It's never wrong. In fact, it told me you would post at 5:44. :)

     Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 5:50pm

110. And lets not forget to look for what's not being said as much as what we're being told to hear:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQ3w53bq_s

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 5:56pm

111. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 5:56pm

     And you're way out of line pretending you know what is best for African-Americans I see you chose to avoid to comment on that statement. And to comment on your statment "History is written by the Lions" Frank. He was painted favorably because the move turned out favorably.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 6:00pm

112. That would be Mexico.

     Posted by JOMAMMA 02/04/2008 @ 5:51pm

     foolish nonsense, your SHAFTA ignorance shines through.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 6:02pm

113. Last week Obama won the endorsement of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, one of those endorsements that turns the heads of insiders. These were long-standing supporters of the Clinton machine. The momentum continues.

     Posted by fougasseu at 02/04/2008 @ 6:04pm

114. The other one went poof...

     And lets remember to search out for that which is hidden than for what we're being told to fixate on:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQ3w53bq_s

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 6:05pm

115. Posted by METTEYYA 02/04/2008 @ 3:16pm | ignore

     yeah. frank IS fiesty these days. i'm sort of working out some skipped 5 minute hates, here...apologies if i sounded pissed.

     but except for the "hilly bots" that MASK aludes to FRANKGRITS has a lonely job in defending she who must be defended. very chivalrous.

     ya see...the difference between me and the hilly bots is that, yeah, i'm involved in the o-train campaign, but they don't even know i come blab here. i've just always done it, so eff it. gotta draw those boundries, know?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 6:06pm

116. JBK, Coldtruth and Wgilwood all make valid points.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:01pm

     I think all of you no matter how much you think you are just speaking the truth are yourself prejudiced and it makes you feel better to think you are not alone. Just because you call black people your friend doesn't mean you don't carry prejudices towards them and many other people.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 6:08pm

117. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:06pm

     I have asked frank. Some of those people happened to be my relatives. It didn't take a nation full of racists to make happen what happened down there Frank. All it takes is a few high ups in the administration.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 6:09pm

118. Okay. Fritz has an eight-ball, but everybody else is full of it.

     Posted by Matt Weiss at 02/04/2008 @ 6:22pm

119. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:20pm

     He should protest. He like Hillary agreed to not campaign in the states and signed the same pledge that those delegates would no be seated. He didn't campaign there on the belief that thoe delegates would not be seated. His name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. So it would be a completely unfair advantage to then seat them at the last minute so Hillary can win unfairly. They both signed the pledge. Just because Hillary is slimy and underhanded enough to break a pledge just so she can slate her ravenous lust for power doesn't mean it should be allowed.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 6:23pm

120. Posted by MATT WEISS 02/04/2008 @ 6:22pm

     I have those bones that Native Americans used.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 6:24pm

121. Posted by MATT WEISS 02/04/2008 @ 6:22pm

     I have those bones that Native Americans used.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 6:24pm

122. OK Bibster. Here's your chance. Tell me exactly why Hillary is disliked and please be specific. Do you think it has something to do with the eight year campaign by the republican attack dogs to discredit her husband's Presidency? Don't forget, Bill spoiled all their plans. It was supposed to be George H. W. Bush who won in '92 not Bill. The repugs couldn't handle the fact that someone who they'd been working for twelve years to discredit, (see Arkansas Project), could actually beat Reagan's, (their God) VP.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 3:05pm

     really? does it have to be specific?

     poit 1 - because she just IS. she is diliked by left and right, and a goodly number of moderates. why?

     lots of things - so many things that "lots of things" should be sufficient.

     my problems with her include (but are not necc limited to) the following...

     1. iraq war vote, USAFASCIST ACT, iran vote

     2. her being a clinton - i want no more "dynasty's". neither clintonian nor (shudder) bushian...

     3. i don't like the way she has run her campaign, the arrogance, the cynical arrogance, the cheap tricks. go ahead and say "but you guys started" but who do you think the schmuks think started it?

     4. she reminds me of my ex wife

     (LOL)

     but front and center is her war votes combined with her queenie arrogance and refusal to edwards it and apologize...go ahead, say it - "she has nothing to aplogize four" i think she DOES.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 6:30pm

123. four?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 6:32pm

124. You don't know what you're talking about. You're listening to Obama talking points.

     bust out some hilly bot talking points, QUICK, FRANK!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 6:38pm

125. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:33pm

     You can kiss those Florida and Michigan delegates goodbye!

     If Hillary can't win on her own merit, and can only win on name recognition from her husband, the Democrats are not going to give her the nomination.

     The more the voters hear about Obama, the more they prefer him over Hillary. That is why the polls are tightening all over the country, so be prepared for a serious delegate fight at the convention, FRANKGRITS, in which Obama will be chosen because of his broader appeal.

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 6:39pm

126. talking points duel? gee - i thought we were democrats!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 6:40pm

127. You don't know what you're talking about. You're listening to Obama talking points. Both he and she and Edwards as well had people on the ground in both Michigan and Florida. None of them campaigned in either state but their surrogates were there. If the delegates are seated in an effort to hold those to states in a general election, primaries were held. Hillary won both states fair and square. The delegates are hers.

     Frank is conveniently overlooking that neither Edwards nor Obama was on the ballot in Michigan. Hilary simply engaged in a bit of Clintonian sharp practice, giving a moral-sounding excuse for a political cheat.

     You strike me as someone who is carrying a giant chip on your shoulder because you were born black. Well guess what. You are always going to be black, (unless you're Michael Jackson), so deal with it. We are your friends. We are all democrats. I believe Barack Obama is hurting your cause. You are not seeing it because of that giant chip. I hope you'll wake up in time.

     Wow, what patronzing third-rate psychobabble. He draws a conclusion of the posters as both a stereotypical anrgy black man and someone he needs white guys like Frank to tell him what his true interests are.

     Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 6:40pm

128. FRANK, when I first heard what Hillary said about LBJ, I thought she was belittling the work MLK did all those years. She sounded like LBJ was the champion of civil rights and that MLK played a minor role. I know that's not what she said and probably not what she meant (but you never know). It is, however, how it came across to me.

     I think, but don't know of course, that may be the issue many folks have with what she said. It isn't the chosen words put together in a sentence but her condescending attitude when she spoke them. She sounded like she was elevating LBJ upon some civil rights pedestal which, in my humble opinion, he has no place being.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 6:41pm

129. Frank, I won't read Hillary's biography. Sorry. She's just not that interesting of a person. Not a knock at you. I won't read Obama's books either for the same reason. Maybe a few years down the road but I doubt it.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 6:47pm

130. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person

     yeah yeah yeah i know all that. i read brock's "the republican noise machine" and the one about the burning at the stake of joan of arc - i mean hilly - and i know. it sucked!

     i think something snapped in her at some point. she was vicioused by the budding corporatized msm and richard mellon scaife and it sucked and...

     i think it did something to her. not that i actually really beatify her as first lady and before, but her biggest problem in the old days was that she was a smart and powerful woman. who reminds most white male divorcees of their first wives...

     but i do sling the term "bourbon democrat" among others at her and by that i mean that she is old guard and cynically aping the worst of republican tactics in a nation SICK AND TIRED of that crap, regardless of how effective it WAS...

     not saying all the world has turned upside down but change comes and sometimes we reach critical moments in our history...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 6:49pm

131. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:42pm

     I am beginning to get your reverse-psychology, FRANKGRITS!

     YOU ARE THE REPUBLICAN ROOTING FOR HILLARY BECAUSE SHE IS THE WEAKEST DEMOCRAT!

     That would explaining your decision to vote for "100-years-in-Iraq" McCain rather than vote for Obama if he were the Democratic nominee. No "real" Democrat would vote that way, and certainly no progressive.

     And I know you are used to Hillary ordering people around in her top-down, control freak approach, but if you think I am going to let you or any other poster order me around and tell me where I can post or what I can say, YOU ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE!!!

     If you don't like what I have to say, put me on IGNORE!

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 6:50pm

132. I say if Barack should go over the top with the needed delegates for the dem nomination, I say give Billary the Florida and Michigan delegates, so it doesn't look so bad for them and it will go far for mending their following's self-destruct-o-divisiveness. But then again if neither reach that point and Billary get all Mutually Assured Destructive on Barack again, like neither will ever just move aside if close enough and then being all hateful to each other and the like, well then of course, all bets are off and major creativity rules all-round at the brokered convention... ever more fun to ensue.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 6:53pm

133. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:40pm

     i'm a southern white male, military and education background, going back to grad school thanks to some good investment and inherited wealth - gonna be a licensed prof councelor.

     i think the stink was moderately exageratted.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 6:53pm

134. Hey Ibble, that's what I'm working on as well! Coolness.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 6:56pm

135. Actually no, you pompous moron you are hurting the cause. You are suggesting we don't vote for Obama because he's black. You are suggesting we submit to racism. Like I have said many times before and like you have lied about many times. Edwards was my first choice. I'm voting for Obama because I didn't get my first choice. But your ignorance to the damage you cause to those of us who have had to deal with struggling harder is ridiculous to me. People like you do more damage than the people who think I am lesser than them because you veil yourself in the deception of good intentions while pushing me back into place. Please just be quiet and stop trying to hold people down so you can achieve your ends. There is no better time than now.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:00pm

136. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:40pm

     Hillary Talking Point #1: KEEP TALKING ABOUT RACE AND MAYBE VOTERS WILL VOTE BASED ON RACIAL IDENTITY RATHER THAN ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PARTY AND THE COUNTRY

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 7:01pm

137. However amazing you may think you are frank, however benevolent and educated you think you, however amazingly better than us you think you, YOU DONT KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR ME. You are not black. You aren't half-black. I am half-black which means I have had to deal with people like you saying I'm not black. Castigating me, calling me a middle race. Making sure that I don't feel at home amongst blacks or whites. Luckily morons like you are minority.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:07pm

138. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/04/2008 @ 6:56pm

     so yer nuts too? excellent!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 7:08pm

139. Eggsactly! I knew I would get into counseling. Either as a patient or a counselor. However, the closer I get, the similar the two are. Heheheh.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 7:12pm

140. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:14pm

     You have based most of your opinions on something you heard Frank. Just because you read it in a book doesn't make it fact. I can write a book at say I'm superman doesn't make it true. Also nothing on here you have said is fact. You have said we are all wrong and Hillary is the saviour of America. It's still your opinion.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:16pm

141. Two things that worry me are (1) are any of the votes already sent in going to be verified (2) how many Diebold machines are going to be used tomorrow? Let's not forget how elections can be "controlled" by those in the "in crowd." See blackboxvoting [blackboxvoting.org]

     Posted by TomCarey at 02/04/2008 @ 7:18pm

142. Frank, my statement was my opinion. My opinions are based on my knowledge and my experiences and sometimes, my gut feelings. That's why I put the disclaimer, "in my opinion."

     Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 7:18pm

143. Again, you are wrong. You strike me as someone who is carrying a giant chip on your shoulder because you were born black. Well guess what. You are always going to be black, (unless you're Michael Jackson), so deal with it. We are your friends.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 6:29pm

     Find yourself reminded of the "carpet-bagger" scene in "Gone With The Wind"..."Don't worry, we'll take care of you. We're going to give you 40 acres and a mule!"

     Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 7:18pm

144. like neither will ever just move aside if close enough and then being all hateful to each other and the like, well then of course, all bets are off and major creativity rules all-round at the brokered convention... ever more fun to ensue.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/04/2008 @ 6:53pm

     Gee, I wonder who would win the nomination then?!?!?!??!

     (LOL!)

     Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 7:21pm

145. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:20pm

     I like how now you degenerate to snide comments and insults instead of presenting real arguments Frank. It shows you ran out of talking points from the Hillary site. Why don't you stop posting until she gives you something new to talk about.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:24pm

146. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:20pm

     FRANKGRITS,

     Do you realize that your CONSTANT put-downs and personal attacks on other posters are hurting your chances of swaying people to support Hillary?

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 7:24pm

147. And you still have yet to answer my question Frank. What makes you qualified to tell the black community what's best for them? Are you somehow more intelligent Frank? Like Mask said early you remind me of a carpet-bagger coming down to tell me what's best for me while swindling me at the same time.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:25pm

148. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:21pm

     I know...posting Hillary's talking point instructions about continuing to talk about race as a divisive Rovian tactic makes it hard for you to keep that up here at The Nation.

     Boo hoo :(

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 7:28pm

149. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:31pm

     Actually I have been told and have found that I am a very good judge of people. And so far all I see from you is a pompous as who when he is confronted with a question he can't answer turns to insults. Someone who thinks they are more intelligent than others but can't see past their own nose. Someone who does the most damage when they are trying to help. So I still beseech you to answer my question Frank. What makes you more qualified to tell the black race in America what is best for them than themselves?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:35pm

150. First of all her name is Hillary. I don't call your bor Algore do I? Secondly, their Hillary's delegates. She won them in legitimate elections.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:16pm

     Billary is for their co-presidency per their co-campaigning... gots to be blind not to see that.

     As for FL/MI legitimacy of the vote, aren't Billary still dems and the legit dem 'rules', i.e. legally agree to conditions for their interaction, that the two states in question didn't want to abide by, forfeited their delegates? All the candidates knew this way ahead of time and agreed to those conditions. If you're saying Billary didn't agree to the dem conditions before the primaries== get the proof and links, otherwise you and for your Billary, are only coming off as sleazy maneuverers lacking any presidential convictions nor deserving of any trust.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 7:39pm

151. An Obama Sweep? Not among the more likely events tomorrow!

     But I do see FRANKG `Sweeping' on every one of the 5 Pages,.....Sweeping any potential HRC supporter right, most especially the black folks, right into the Obama camp!

     Posted by Happy at 02/04/2008 @ 7:41pm

152. like neither will ever just move aside if close enough and then being all hateful to each other and the like, well then of course, all bets are off and major creativity rules all-round at the brokered convention... ever more fun to ensue.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/04/2008 @ 6:53pm

     Gee, I wonder who would win the nomination then?!?!?!??!

     (LOL!)

     Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 7:21pm

     Under those conditions-- what's your best guestimation Frita?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 7:42pm

153. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 7:35pm

     The term you're looking for is either "noblesse oblige" or....

     "white man's burden"!

     Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 7:46pm

154. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/04/2008 @ 7:42pm

     No point in guessing....it is not going to happen.

     (Best get to work on that Green Party nom or Indy run!)

     Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 7:47pm

155. Now, what I see as a real problem is this mystique that Billary is presently riding on is going to set the progress of disenfranchised people back years. Because if Billary is the nominee, Billary will lose to John McCain and it won't be close. Billary may even harm the gains that the House anfd the Senate have made. And the point I'm making is that it didn't have to happen. Barack will have won the general election against any republican in a landslide if it were not for Billary's dividing of the democratic party with Billary message of unity.

     Billary's time would have been in 2016. Just imagine the gainsBillary's people would have made with a democratic president and a stronger Congress. Just imagine the work Billary could have done to build on that in 2016. Now I fear that Billary's candidacy will have a counter effect on the progress that democrats have made on these issues. If that happens, don't say I didn't warn you.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 7:52pm

156. Re: Bluespark comments: I think the idea of Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do scares everyone in this country to death. We held our noses and supported him against the Republican impeachment but that's it. We don't owe him or her anything else. And she can't distance herself from him because she would not be running for president if she had not been First Lady. The Clintons are all about the Clintons, not about the party. Also, it is my opinion that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in the past 50 years. He trashed unions. He pardoned scum bags. He pawed at any female within reach. She is the enabler and also the liar on every issue with him. I am not of the illusion that Obama is perfect. But, as a voter for the democratic ticket since 1972, Hillary is the only democrat I would NEVER vote for. I also have a sister and brother-in-law who have never voted anything but the republican ticket and they are both voting for Obama because McCain is everything the republican party is not. Obama will crush McCain by 8-10 points. Americans do not want us to be in Iraq for 50-100 years.

     Posted by speakingwheat at 02/04/2008 @ 7:54pm

157. Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 7:47pm

     Frita's imagination is stuck in only one fantasy... so sad. So bland.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 7:55pm

158. "Whether it is in Iowa, New Hampshire or rural Nevada, Obama has PROVEN he can carry the white vote just as well as the black vote."

     Which white voters in Iowa? Latte liberals, college students - sounds like the old McGovern/Kerry crowd to me. And did I mention GOPers out to derail Hilliary and get a weak Democratic nominee?

     Posted by wgilwood at 02/04/2008 @ 7:55pm

159. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:46pm

     Funny you are faulting him for having a message of Unity. Thinking that Hillary is going to manage to change 200 years of the way things have been. Hillary is the most status quo representative there is. She will change nothing. She will not make things any better for me ad she will not win in a landslide. If she does win it will be a close race. IF SHE DOES. Again it's your opinion that Obama will lose. OPINION. He seems to be garnering a lot of the independent and democratic vote. The two votes he needs to win the general. So your opinion is so far being disproven by the facts of events so far. And again you have yet to tell me how you know what's better for me because you were a part of a few causes you think you know better than I do what's better for me? It takes more than joining into a few causes to be able to tell me what's best for me Frank. I'll trust you're opinion what's best for me when you have walked in my shoes. Until then don't tell me you KNOW anything. Take some of your advice and back your arguments up with FACT not opinion.

     PS: You were the first to resort to insults saying I had a chip on my shoulder. Don't try to spin it any other way Frank.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:57pm

160. Posted by WGILWOOD 02/04/2008 @ 7:55pm

     You sound a lot like Frank. Weird.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:00pm

161. Show some respect.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:48pm

     Billary lost my respect with their sleazy ways and they're about to loose a lot more. Then their 'potential' will become worse an 'actual'-- sleazy 'losers' are a ton worse than sleazy 'potential' winners.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 8:01pm

162. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/04/2008 @ 7:52pm

     Another idiot. How old are you?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:54pm

     Just trying to communicate at your level.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 8:03pm

163. FRANKGRITS Agreed. This illustrates further that people would rather believe a nice story than actually think. I also would not be surprised to discover that some of the posters on this board are paid by the GOP. As someone with inside information on how the GOP/Wall Streeters operates, I know that the right often manipulates, infiltrates and subverts the "leftwing" media and organizations in order to disrupt and discredit any viable opposition to the corporate/big money agenda.

     Posted by wgilwood at 02/04/2008 @ 8:06pm

164. Obama's time would have been in 2016. Just imagine the gains your people would have made with a democratic president and a stronger Congress. Just imagine the work Obama could have done to build on that in 2016.

     "They say I need to be seasoned; they say I need to be stewed. They say, 'We need to boil all the hope out of him -- like us -- and then he'll be ready.'

     But there is a moment in the life of every generation when, if we are to make our mark on history, this spirit must break through

     This is the moment.

     This is our time.

     For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who've lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again - who desperately want something new.

     We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition - about building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through Blue States and Red States. That's how I won some of the reddest, most Republican counties in Illinois. That's why the polls show that I do best against the Republicans running for President - because we're attracting more support from Independents and Republicans than any other candidate. That's how we'll win in November and that's how we'll change this country over the next four years.

     In the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last few days is not just about the meaning of change. It's about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.

     But that's not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know - I've been on the streets, I've been in the courts. I've watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren't fortified by political will, and I've watched a nation get mislead into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.

     But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made. In the face of tyranny, it's what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire. In the face of slavery, it's what fueled the resistance of the slave and the abolitionist, and what allowed a President to chart a treacherous course to ensure that the nation would not continue half slave and half free. In the face of war and Depression, it's what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. In the face of oppression, it's what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause. That's the power of hope - to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before." - Barack Obama

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 8:07pm

165. Posted by WGILWOOD 02/04/2008 @ 8:06pm

     I'm starting to think this is Frank. Considering Frank always says he has an insider point of view of politics and understand everything better than us.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:09pm

166. Posted by WGILWOOD 02/04/2008 @ 8:06pm

     Yes, of course, a president that is black-- a fairy tale...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 8:10pm

167. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/04/2008 @ 8:10pm

     It's like something out of 24. Everyone knows black people aren't qualified to lead. Jees.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:16pm

168. Is it possible to have a legitimate difference of opinion without one perspective being "idiotic"? Is it possible to be equally educated and arrive at different conclusions (re: Clinton vs. Obama)? For me, the answer to both questions is yes and that's yet another reason I support Barack Obama...but I won't question your intelligence or hate you if you disagree with me. Believe it or not, none of us is the sole possessor of education and/or facts.

     Posted by Be Good at 02/04/2008 @ 8:39pm

169. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:42pm

     The Repubs are not gone and never will be. They are represented by some of the most powerful in the country and the majority of states in the country. Most of the middle portion of america is republican and a lot of people who own companies are. So I don't think Republicans will ever go away. I also don't think all Republicans are racist like you paint them to be. I happen to be friends with quite a few people who call themselves republicans. They aren't racist. Nor have many that I have met been.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:45pm

170. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:44pm

     That was my point Frank. It was a joke. Learn to read a joke.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:46pm

171. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:46pm

     Wow that's rude considering he was trying to be nice.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:48pm

172. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:51pm

     I have looked into the platform Frank. If the platform is fundamentally racist then why are condy and colin powell in such high power positions. Maybe you should try opening your eyes Frank.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:53pm

173. And on top of that Condy was about to run for president. Luckily no one that close to Bush could ever make it back in office.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:54pm

174. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:55pm

     I'm done dealing with you right now Frank. You're nothing but a condescending asshole. I think most of the people on this site see that too. That's you seem to be a bit of a running joke in these election proceedings. I guess it's my fault for believing you can educate people to their own ignorance and downfalls.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:58pm

175. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:44pm

     Even though 24 was a TV show, the fact that it was one of the most popular TV shows among whites means that they are not turned off by the prospect of a black president.

     TV executives are "extremely" careful when they cast certain characters in specific roles as to not offend anyone, and do highly complex and sophisticated focus-group studies on what audiences would respond favorably to in terms of casting roles. Their objective is to garner the largest viewing audience possible, and if they thought for a minute that the country was not ready for a black president, they wouldn't have put a black actor in that role.

     Thus, even though 24 is a TV show, it tells you quite a bit about the readiness of America to move beyond race. I think the Hillary folks know this but are deliberately engaging in race-baiting and race reductionism to try to influence voters to vote their racial identity.

     This is straight out of the Book of Rove, and Mark Penn ought to be ashamed for using this tactic to try to get a win for Hillary.

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 8:59pm

176. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/04/2008 @ 8:59pm | ignore this person

     Your right...we should be more congenial.

     Frank, let me be the first to apologize to the entire world for Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

     Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 9:08pm

177. Clinton vs. McCain is nothing but Bush vs. Bush.

     Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 02/04/2008 @ 9:07pm | ignore this person

     Really? Now I find myself defending Franks favorite daughter. HRC is alot of things, but to compare her to Bush? Take a deep breath, count to ten and rethink that last post.

     Posted by BizarroRio at 02/04/2008 @ 9:12pm

178. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/04/2008 @ 8:10pm

     More dishonesty.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:43pm

     On your part.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 9:26pm

179. osted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 8:16pm

     24 is a television show. It isn't real. This election is reality.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:44pm

     Not the way you tell it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 9:28pm

180. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:09pm

     Don't call Hillary a girl. That's very disrespectful to women, just like my use of the term boy seems to rankle some on the Obama side.

     Are you, then, doing it delibrately?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:26pm

     Obama's race disqualify's him from getting republican votes.

     I've read a lot of silly things on this site, but that has to be near the top. And oddly LVL provides the counter-example.

     There are those like my wife who is Hispanic/Black mix and just as conservative as me. However she says that if Obama gets the nomination she will vote for him as the first genuine African-American candidate.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 2:46pm

     I'm afraid that the Obama candidacy has fractured the democratic party in a year where we needed unity more than ever.

     Considering that there are many people that wouldn't vote for Clinton and she is called, correctly, divisive, it is interesting to see a Clinton supporter try to make this charge of Obama.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 3:00pm

     METTEYYA is many things, but Republican operative? You are only making people question your judgment Frank.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 3:07pm

     I hope I've educated at least a little.

     Lord. Is that what you think you are doing here?

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/04/2008 @ 3:33pm

     While there is some truth to your comment, the bottom line is that leadership in government, business and in every other aspect of society needs to reflect society itself. When this is not the case, as it is not, then you have to put measures in place that promote and build leadership of underrepresented groups. Diversity is valuable, and it is a worthwhile goal for public policy.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/04/2008 @ 3:36pm

     Agree with you totally here.

     Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 3:44pm

     Amen.

     Posted by WGILWOOD 02/04/2008 @ 4:35pm

     What makes me suspicious is when a white guy tells us the black candidate has no chance.

     Will they choose an older white guy who is a real war hero with many years of political experience in domestic and foreign affairs, or a sweet talking black guy with a light resume, and no military experience?

     Bush won over Gore and Kerry. Need I say more?

     Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 4:38pm

     Please. Do you think anyone cares what is written on this board. Let's not pretend this is important, shall we?

     Posted by COLDTRUTH 02/04/2008 @ 5:11pm

     Americans will never elect a black man to office, the idea is just bizzare.

     Not only wrong, but suggests something about you that I'd rather not reflect upon.

     Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/04/2008 @ 5:34pm

     Let's take off the tinfoil hats.

     Posted by JOMAMMA 02/04/2008 @ 5:48pm

     I think they call it the Dunning-Kruger effect. Check this paper out, entitled, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments."

     http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

     I'm not saying it applies to Frank, but I am saying it.....is interesting.

     Posted by HAPPY 02/04/2008 @ 7:41pm

     Hilarious.

     Posted by WGILWOOD 02/04/2008 @ 8:06pm

     I also would not be surprised to discover that some of the posters on this board are paid by the GOP.

     Yeah, because that would be effective use of people's time.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:37pm

     Any proof for this assertion?

     Posted by srjenkins at 02/04/2008 @ 9:42pm

181. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/04/2008 @ 8:59pm

     MARYBRETBRAD,

     What you are seeing is good old fashion fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. Ever since Reagan, the Democratic Party has been on the defensive, forming a DLC to try to be like Republicans to stay competitive. This pushed the party far to the right, and Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of that wing of the party (the dying wing).

     Then we are confronted with the situation we have today, which is the REVERSE of what Reagan faced in 1980. You have Republicans that are tired of the war in Iraq and feel deceived by Bush and Cheney. They are also tired of special interests, including corporate special interests, having their way in Washington, which has produced the Enrons, Haliburtons, and Blackwaters of the world. They are also tired of the oil chase and what this does to American foreign policy. They cringe when they see Bush and Cheney sucking up to dictators in Saudi Arabia and wonder if there is another way.

     Obama has said let's reach out to these Republicans and offer an alternative to the Bush/Cheney disaster. Like Reagan, he sees an opportunity to change the political dynamics, but to change it in a "progressive" way. So if you agree with us on ending the war in Iraq, agree with us on breaking our addiction to oil, agree with us on ending government corruption and the rule of lobbyists; if you agree with us on the need for affordable universal healthcare, and if you agree that we can change the image of America abroad and reduce anti-American sentiment which is the root cause of terrorism, then vote for Barack Obama.

     Obama has learned from the excess of some of the Democratic policies of the past, and will not propose any new program that is not well thought out, well executed, or fiscally responsible. I think many Republicans don't mind paying taxes if what they get in return is worth the money. Obviously, the war in Iraq is not worth the money, so let's have a reasonable discussion about policies that would be worth the money in your view.

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 9:44pm

182. Come on over to our side. We fight but at least we make up afterward.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 9:04pm | ignore this person

     Except for those of us who may vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

     Posted by brunowe at 02/04/2008 @ 9:58pm

183. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/04/2008 @ 7:08pm

     Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/04/2008 @ 7:12pm

     you guys are both insane. you'll make great counsellors.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:04pm

184. We're going to give you 40 acres and a mule!"

     Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 7:18pm

     in diyala province.................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:06pm

185. I'm a pretty good judge of people. Always have been.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:31pm

     and you'll vote for ms. clinton?!?!?!?!?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:08pm

186. I think the idea of Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do scares everyone in this country to death.

     Posted by SPEAKINGWHEAT 02/04/2008 @ 7:54pm

     especially the interns...................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:11pm

187. How old are you?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 7:54pm

     ageism?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:13pm

188. The Billary people here are like -- "Barack get yourself to the back of the bus." Not getting it all-- THAT IT'S BARACK THAT'S DRIVING THE F'ING BUS!

     DAMMMMN OH DUH.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 10:13pm

189. This election is reality.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 8:44pm

     almost.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:15pm

190. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/04/2008 @ 9:28pm

     C'mon. You're better than that. Grow up.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/04/2008 @ 9:30pm

     This coming from someone going through a mid-life crisis in the form of a threesome with a canary yellow Billary coup...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 10:21pm

191. Luckily no one that close to Bush could ever make it back in office.

     Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/04/2008 @ 8:54pm

     jamais dire "jamais"

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:21pm

192. Frank, let me be the first to apologize to the entire world for Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

     Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/04/2008 @ 9:08pm

     it's about time!

     Posted by PLANET!!!! 02/04/2008 @ 11:59pm

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:23pm

193. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 10:06pm |

     FRANK's comments to CCCOM were obviously patronizing, bordering on old fashioned "Now listen, boy. We whites know what's best for you, so vote how we tells you and maybe we'll let your man Obama run in 2016 for Vice-President or something, if She is agreeable and if he minds his manners!"

     Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 10:45pm

194. BTW, prediction....

     Hillary wins the majority of the primary delegates on Tuesday night, and Obama's campaign has the air knocked out of it.

     By March 4th, Texas, etc....he's back to 10-20% behind her and her "inevitability" screen is back up. And the spin is "Obama was a flash in the pan, it was all talk and all 'South Carolina'".

     Sorry, just a gut feeling.

     Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 10:46pm

195. This article is great. The beauty of dreams! To dream is bliss but frankly can someone clarify the vast number of "tough" decisions Mr. Obama has made in his short carrer that can demonstrate his ability to lead. This all seams like a true dream. What happens when we all wake up to the reality of an unexperienced leader that on da one only has one shaky tough decision to show for all the hype

     Posted by marcos22 at 02/04/2008 @ 11:05pm

196. My gut swings the other way, Frita.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 11:05pm

197. "An Open Letter [tinyurl.com] to Paul Krugman"

     "More generally, you assert that Senator Obama is a less progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton because he has stopped short of imposing the individual mandate. This is a very sweeping judgment based on one political and policy calculation.

     Your assessment makes an odd fit with Mr. Obama's policy view on Iraq and many other things. It runs counter to the thinking of many progressive organizations and people who have endorsed Senator Obama: MoveOn.org, Teddy Kennedy, and others. It runs counter to most tabulations of his legislative record, which often identify him as more progressive than Senator Clinton. It ignores many, many years of conscious, sometimes-justified triangulation by both Clintons regarding many social concerns."

     Posted by V at 02/04/2008 @ 11:06pm

198. Posted by MARCOS22 02/04/2008 @ 11:05pm

     Remember this one, it seems fairly balanced:

     http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota

     ""You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in," he said. "The thing that bothers me is the assumption that if I make a judgment that's different from yours, then it must mean I am less progressive or my goals are different, meaning I must be not really committed to helping people but rather I am trying to triangulate or drift toward the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council]."

     Still, there's no question that his passions are confined by intense caution. Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, tells the story of how, after Obama voted for the class-action bill, he attended a meeting of public-interest groups. "We were worried about what his vote indicated about him for the future," she said. "And he told us, 'Sometimes you have to trim your sails.' And I asked myself, Trim your sails for what? You just got elected by a wide margin--what are you trimming your sails for?"

     Obama will often be a reliable liberal vote, and he can give one hell of a speech. But we should believe him when he downplays our expectations. He says he's "a work in progress," but he's in an institution that tends to stifle greatness. As comic Jon Stewart said, "Everybody thought Barack Obama was going to [inspire people] when he came to Washington, but, you know, the Senate seems like the place where smart people go to die.""

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 11:23pm

199. Ouch:

     ABC's Deborah Roberts sat down with Michelle Obama for an interview that aired on GMA and tonight on "World News". Roberts asked about the question being posed to Hillary lately, "Can you control Bill?"

     Her answer: "We just don't relate to one another in that way." And she went on, about both controlling her husband and about the focus on race in this election.

     http://tinyurl.com/3cejxr

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/04/2008 @ 11:37pm

200. Sorry, just a gut feeling.

     Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 10:46pm

     you need some metamucil.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:42pm

201. The level of dialogue in these comments is rather disappointing. As an American citizen who has lived abroad all their life I find it frustrating. Obama supporters claim Clinton supporters are playing the race card in order to scare voters into voting for Clinton and then turn around and scare voters into voting for Obama because Hillary is allegedly so universally detested by the American people in general.

     Both claims are, I suspect, largely groundless and serve no purpose. I won't claim to 'know' either way and although you could probably produce reams of statistics in support of either position the election so far has proved that the political climate is volatile and unlikely to follow previous trends. The McCain, Huckabee and Obama campaigns indicate this.

     It is foolish to contend that a black or Clinton candidate will fail to be elected simply because of their race or their second name. Instead we should (those of us who are Democrats) focus on the fact that we have two very strong candidates, both with compelling messages.

     Hillary and Obama largely agree on the fundamental issues facing America and it is essentially a toss-up between the two. The polls, suspect though they are, reflect this.

     I personally will be voting for Hillary, if she wins the nomination and I certainly hope she does. I never understood why Hillary is such a hate figure amongst some Americans and i suspect that this is a discourse propagated by those heavily involved in the political process and does not resonate so fervently with average Americans, but that's just me. To say however that she shouldn't get the nomination simply because she is characterised as 'satan's favourite daughter' by evangelicals is intellectually bankrupt and gives credence to the kind of pathetic political dialogue which has so denigrated America in the recent past. The same is true for suggesting that Obama can't win because of his race.

     As I have said I would vote for Hillary if she won the nomination. My reason, and there is really only one, is that she is more experienced. She has spent 18 years as the First Lady of Arkansas and of the USA, has 8 years in the US Senate and has been heavily involved in politics and the political process for forty years.

     Political experience includes, not just time in office, or legislative accomplishments but also includes the experience of winning, and the knowledge to win, elections. Hillary has been directly involved in, I dunno, like 7 or so elections to important positions. That's not to say that the ability to get elected is the be all and end all, as the example of Bush shows, but it is still a fundamental part of the political process. Hillary leads Obama on this score by a long ways.

     Obama is a fine candidate and I've switched between him and Hillary on a number of occasions, but fundamentally I guess I find his supposedly soaring rhetoric to be somewhat flat and although the excitement he inspires is great for American politics, we don't need a Kennedy-esque figure right now, we need a FDR. Kennedy failed to achieve much in his tragically short Presidency while FDR achieved so much for America. The choice between Hillary and Obama I guess is to a certain extent a choice between the proven legacy of FDR and the as yet unfulfilled legacy of JFK. The hope that Kennedy fostered was at a time when the global order was at its peek. Today we are faced with the complications of Globalisation which undermine the fundamentals on which the international system has been based for some two hundred years, climate change looms, the global economy is faltering, the middle-east is perhaps heading towards an even more violent future, an energy crisis looms with a barrel of oil costing just under a $100, international peace and security are under threat like never before; hope is all well and good, but I'd rather hope AND experience. I simply doubt if Obama could hack it as President in what is a liminal period in human history.

     So America, do me a favour and nominate a Clinton-Obama ticket, end the infantile squabbles over race and likeability because your not just voting to bring hope to America, but to the rest of the world as well.

     Posted by mrdpgumby at 02/04/2008 @ 11:46pm

202. Fear seems to rule some in their decisions, others not so much.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/05/2008 @ 12:04am

203. Posted by MRDPGUMBY 02/04/2008 @ 11:46pm

     MRDPGUMBY,

     It is OK to come out and openly support Hillary. And your basic reason is you believe she has experience winning elections and experience running government. On both accounts, you are dead wrong.

     Hillary's purported "governing experience" has been grossly inflated and is akin to putting your wife's experience from "her" resume on your own resume, which would get you fired from any serious job.

     Her 15 years as a corporate lawyer at The Rose law firm in Arkansas included representing sweatshops like Tyson foods, and union busters like Walmart, and a number of investment banks, oil and gas concerns, and even GE, which is a defense contractor.

     As First Lady, her only "real" political experience was a dismal failure to get universal healthcare, a failure, in large part, because of her top-down management style that did not open the process up to ordinary citizens.

     This leaves us with her one 6-year term as a US Senator as her "real" political experience. During this time she supported offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Bush's No Child Left Behind, record numbers and dollar amounts of "secret" earmarks to defense contractors, votes for the original Patriot Act that took away our civil liberties, the Iraq war that has crowded out all other budget priorities, and saber-rattling with Iran with the Kyl-Lieberman resolution declaring a branch of Iran's military a terrorist organization.

     In short, she is a down the line DLC Republican-lite candidate that tries too hard to match Republican bravado on war and crime while ignoring the consequences on the poor and Middle Class of pursuing these policies.

     On the "experience in winning elections" she has only won two - her first bid as a US Senator from New York and her recent re-election to that position. There is no doubt, that without the Clinton name, she doesn't even win those races.

     You seem to dismiss Obama as all about hope, and ignore his 8 years in the Illinois Senate in which he showed remarkable political skill in getting law enforcement to back his reform of the disastrous death penalty statute there and got Republicans and Democrats to back campaign finance reform, resulting in the first public disclosure law in the history of the state. He also got Republicans and Democrats together on universal healthcare, and although he didn't get all that he wanted, he did get healthcare for women, particularly those who wanted to get screened and treated for breast cancer.

     Obama is unique among the candidates in his ability to inspire and do the tough politics to get things done for ordinary Americans. Hillary fails on both counts, which makes her unattractive as our nominee.

     Posted by Metteyya at 02/05/2008 @ 12:18am

204. Absolute fantasy! Hillary will win :New York,New Jersey,Delaware,Tenn.,Missouri,Arkansas,Alabama,Arizona,New Mexico, Mass.,Minnesota,Alaska,and yes,CALIFORNIA!But the media will still call it a Obama victory?Go figure!

     Posted by chachi at 02/05/2008 @ 12:23am

205. Posted by MRDPGUMBY 02/04/2008 @ 11:46pm | ignore this person

     So ... Kyle-Lieberman offers insufficient, to next to none insight for you, and also doesn't trump Obama's "flat rhetoric," as a negative? And what about flag burning, what price do you put on such pandering on the cost of character? You are thereby satisfied with the lessons Hillary Clinton has learned by being the wife of an elected official, her classes in NAFTA, the "drug war," and "welfare reform" are what is needed now, in your humble opinion?

     Also, Hillary Clinton being the recipient of the greatest largess of all candidates from the military industrial complex, intermixed with overly hawkish stances in matters military, is no cause for concern? Really?

     The above versus Obama's community organizing and years in the Illinois senate, are the experiences you would have placed in store for us?

     In summation, I of course beg to differ with your reasons, and to be truthful find them very much lacking, fundamentally, in myriad, most substantive ways. In effect, without base. I'm disappointed, too. America must needs be found as lacking as the foundations of your political calculus, were it to do you the favor you asked of it. I would ask that it do yours truly a favour, and pass.

     On yours.

     Posted by V at 02/05/2008 @ 12:38am

206. Hillary has made tough decisions, brought people in NY together around matters of the economy and healthcare. She's mastered the system of politics perhaps more than Bill and has brought her enemies together, winning much respect in the senate. Obama is ESTABLISHMENT, up there in Illinois backing the dynasty of Richard Delay. Thus, Obama is better identified as part of the Daley machine.

     Posted by StrongTruth at 02/05/2008 @ 12:43am

207. Hillary has made tough decisions, brought people in NY together around matters of the economy and healthcare. She's mastered the system of politics perhaps more than Bill and has brought her enemies together, winning much respect in the senate. Obama is ESTABLISHMENT, having been up there in Illinois backing the dynasty of Richard Delay. Thus, Obama is better identified as part of the Daley machine. Even more revolting is Obama's lack of experience; when push comes to shove we need a president who we can trust knows how to handle TOUGH matters.

     Posted by StrongTruth at 02/05/2008 @ 12:46am

208. Posted by V 02/05/2008 @ 12:38am

     hey "V", you must be serious about obama.

     i think mr. gumby may even understand that.

     do me a favour and throw in an extra vote for the ol' frosty tomorrow if voting is going to be part of your day.

     and don't forget, tomorrow is also Paczki Day.

     let's hope it's really fat tuesday and not the continuation of the last whole bunch of years of bushclinton lent.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 12:49am

209. Posted by STRONGTRUTH 02/05/2008 @ 12:46am

     You must mean as in a 'Hard to Take as Truth' moniker...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 02/05/2008 @ 12:54am

210. Posted by STRONGTRUTH 02/05/2008 @ 12:43am | ignore this person

     This is in parts, new ... : Hillary is perhaps better than Bill, has brought her enemies together (...), and Obama is establishment.

     Some how I find "StrongTruth," reminding me of "compassionate conservative." I wonder how this could be?

     Mask, you were saying?

     Posted by V at 02/05/2008 @ 12:55am

211. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 12:49am | ignore this person

     Those were, and are ... my, "core issues," Frosty. As to the "experience" argument, at no point historical or rational, did that dog even begin to hunt for me.

     When the focus on past, present, future wars, thoughts, words, speech and deeds, relating to them, become fuzzy through loss of focus ... It reminds me of a magicians trick, next thing you know you've got a quarter coming out of your ear. Though I do posses a sense of wonder, I am not a child to be impressed by such a trick, nor that cheap.

     As to the future, we'll see, whatever happens will be in its time, the truth.

     Such is life.

     Posted by V at 02/05/2008 @ 01:23am

212. I'm so glad you've devised as many ways for Obama to "win" tomorrow as possible. Nobody can tell who you're supporting, smart guy.

     Posted by mempto at 02/05/2008 @ 01:30am

213. Posted by V 02/05/2008 @ 01:23am

     yeah, mr. obama's o.k. let's hope he's more of an escape artist than a trickster like ms. clinton.

     i'm aftraid mccain will try to top copperfield's disappearing of madame liberty in ny harbour.

     btw if the future will be true, does that make the past true, too?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 01:52am

214. I'm so glad you've devised as many ways for Obama to "win" tomorrow as possible.

     Posted by MEMPTO 02/05/2008 @ 01:30am

     and i bug "VEE" about syntax...........

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 01:54am

215. here's a resource for all you brainiacs: The Financial Services Fact Book [iii.org]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 02:00am

216. For all the hype about race in this year's primary season, I have but two comments to post. First, I am not a registered republican, but after looking at all candidates stances on various issues, I tend to vote that way perhaps 95% of the time. This year, however, as I watch my preferred candidate lose ground daily, I am looking at the remaining candidates, and find that I would prefer Sen. Obama in the White House over Sen. McCain, and I suspect there are a lot of other independent republicans, if you can call us that, feel the same way. Also, for those of us in the United States who have listened and learned from what the Clinton family and our educational system have had to say about racism over the years, I would say that the race card is a smoke screen.

     Posted by RogCrowner at 02/05/2008 @ 07:48am

217. You people are ridiculous. I thought that Democrats were supposed to be color blind and in favor of civil rights and all that jazz. From the comments on this board about Obama being unable to beat McCain because he's black, it is plain to see that Democrats are just as racist as the hypothetical Republicans you love to bash, and that many in this party have used civil rights as a way to secure the black vote, without really believing that we can be ONE nation. Not to mention that Obama is doing better in general election polling than McCain, because Obama appeals to independents much more than McCain or Hillary. Hillary will start the general election campaign with over 50% of the country disliking her. If you think that's the way to get a Dem into the White House in 2009, you are sorely mistaken.

     Posted by rmgodzeno at 02/05/2008 @ 08:23am

218. The racial issue and Republican racial hatred -- do you think these people are voting for any Democrat anyway? And their hatred for the Clintons is just as deep. They are never voting for a Democrat, and are energized to vote against Clinton. It's a wash -- it really is. Her pandering to the right just muddies the waters between her and McCain, who Bill said was such a friend of Hillary's. Do we need that? And most important -- "it's the independents, stupid." In a McCain/Clinton match, McCain gets all the independents. All of them and some blind Democrats who think he's not as dangerous as he is. Our only hope of beating McCain is Obama who brings a legion of new voters to the polls, excites the independents, has the coattails because of turnout to bring more Democrats to Congress. Then just watch what he can do!

     Posted by Fdcgjc at 02/05/2008 @ 09:22am

219. The Exelon issue that's getting legs: Remember, it was Obama who proposed the bill in the first place to control the contaminated water! No one else took up the issue but him! He was dealing with Republican leadership, had to get something through Inhoufe's committe, for God's sake. If he had truly been doing the bidding of his corporate contributors, he never would have proposed the legislation! A new senator, taking on the nuclear power industry, in a Republican controlled congress. Come on. Also, go to Huffington Post and read this article, "Clinton By Far Worst Abuser of Earmarks" before slinging mud about doing corporate bidding.

     Hey, I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. Like I've voted for Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis. When is this party ever going to learn that these good intentioned policy wonks lose us elections?

     Posted by Fdcgjc at 02/05/2008 @ 09:36am

220. You know, I think I like the Obama people more, but I just voted for Hillary. Maybe it's true that Obama could energize enough voters to overcome the crap he's going to have hurled at him: "Obama Osama," father was a muslim, racism, his middle name-Hussein, weird name, too strange for much of America. Then he has to deal with the wide name-recognition, experience, military credentials, false image as a moderate, of McCain. I feel like it's 1972 and George McGovern is about to win the Democratic nomination, a man I voted for. Trouble was, I think he only won his home state, South Dakota. Ted Kennedy hasn't always shown the best political judgment, as when he challenged Jimmie Carter's renomination, severely weakening Carter (didn't cost the Republicans a penny)on his way to defeat by Reagan. I have a lot of problems and misgivings with Hillary, but she is a much better prospect than McCain, and I expect a better match, though not at all a sure one.

     Posted by Ynotmahargni at 02/05/2008 @ 2:04pm