Maybe thats because Hillary supporters aren't crazed nut jobs with no common sense.

Screw that...I'll NEVER vote for that LIAR now. Good luck winning the election without the actual democrats Obama.

I am the man, they eat out of the palm of my hand, I am the greatest, I am Barack Obama...the next Reagan...

Ladidem-

"Hillary supporters aren't crazed nut jobs with no common sense."

Prove it. Specifically with me, since you are implying that Obama supporters, like me, are.

Ugh, the trogs are out in force. Anyone care to give me a logical argument to vote for HRC?

Anyone?

Please?

I really don't want to do my CrimPro homework.

Actually I plan on voting against her.

How can you vote for someone you hate?
The answer is you can't and you shouldn't.

I haven't heard Obama make that case etiher, but I've heard plenty of other people. Obama's support in areas of Nevada that are less-tradionally dem strongholds is certainly a plus for him.

Hillary's high negatives are also well-known and thoroughly discussed.

I think the one with with superior judgment and a consistent record of successfully taking power and influence away from lobbyists has the most credibility. If you're thinking about current head-to-heads you need to start thinking ahead. Credibility will matter when it comes determining which direction things will get driven over the course of a tough general election campaign.

Sure they will

And just as surely, we won't

McCain-Lieberman will beat the Clintons like a drum

Note for All:

See Katie at 5:29. Compare against JTSC at 5:26. That is EXACTLY how HRC and friends spun BHO's Reagan comments!

Katie: Please do not insult my intelligence with that drivel. I saw the name Barack Obama (or Hillary or JRE for that matter) anywhere in this paragraph:

"I don't understand why some people are so worried about Democrats having a fighter against a very weak opposition party. Bush rarely addressed criticisms and couldn't articulate much, but he won two elections because he appeared above the fray and more likeable.. He's the guy people wanted to a have beer with."

Katie,

No. Nice try, and lol at the liberal paranoia. Yes, the GOP fought dirty through their surrogates, but the Dems fought back too. Bush won cause he was more likeable than Kerry & Gore and cause people felt more secure with not changing horses in the middle of the race. The circumstances are different now, but likeability is very important.

Tapper-

I am nothing more than a Rethuglican at heart? Care to substantiate that?

"Obama: Hillary Voters Will Support Me When I'm Nominee"

That is too funny. Coming from the guy that lost the last two contests. Some might call it hubris but I guessing he's 'hoping' maybe he'll win one sometime.

Republicans are on their knees praying for HRC. From Byron York this week:

I went to Barack Obama’s rally here, on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, "Oh, shit." He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, "We’re gonna need a bigger boat."

Given the electoral map we need younger voters, independents and maybe even crossover appeal to some disaffected Republicans to secure a mandate and create some coattail effect at the Congressional level.

If HRC could produce this better than Obama, I'd make the practical choice, ignore my personal preference for Obama and vote for her. The opposite is true.

Democrats are paranoid and have played defense for the past few decades.. They continually let the conservatives frame the debate.

Opportunties like 2008 rarely come around in politics. The GOP's very weak. There's no need to get into another pissing contest with them. Dems should define the debate. Unity's should be the theme, not "we need a fighter."

What an ass.
Obama can't count on my vote if he's going to be slimy like that.

The real message of BO's comments here is that Hillary's supporters are adults while his are children.

HRC's backers are prepared, if their candidate doesn't get the nomination, to support Barack. They're prepared to do so because they understand that it's better to have a Democrat naming Supreme Court justices than have a Republican doing it. It's better having a Democrat sit in judgment of legislation rather than a GOP stooge.

But, for some reason, BO supporters can't bring themselves to do the adult thing. Their position, apparently, is that the election must either go their way -- or they'll do what they can to elect a Republican.

And honestly, that's one reason I can't in good conscience vote for Barack Obama -- at least in the primary stage. His backers are such whiny and dishonest children that it cautions me against the candidate himself.

Anonymous-

Still not tired of trying to fact check HRC fans. Care to substantiate your claims? From what I have found on the internets and elsewhere, no one really knows who or why people in the rural areas broke for Obama. Or how many for that matter.

Perhaps you know! Please show me your evidence!

John,

Why don't you come over as well and wear my favorite blue dress?

Anonymous deathly afraid that Obama's telling the truth...not what you want to hear perhaps, but what you need to hear

There is no way that Obama's supporters will help the Clintons ...not after what they've done

You can bet the farm on it..take it from an Obama supporter

joe martin: "Republicans are on their knees praying for HRC."

Only the stupid ones. McCain's campaign apparently believes that HRC is the far more formidable opponent. And I, for one, agree with that assessment.

Nominating BO is tantamount to surrendering the presidency to the GOP.

joe martin: "Given the electoral map we need younger voters, independents and maybe even crossover appeal to some disaffected Republicans to secure a mandate and create some coattail effect at the Congressional level."

I just can't get over how much this sounds like Bush in the summer and fall of 2000.

And any "crossover appeal" would vanish if Clinton were to lose the nomination; it's existence is simply another delusion brought on by the god-complex Obamaites are infused with.

And why exactly are Obama supporters wanting a coattail effect to get the same congressional Democrats they have exoriated time and again elected?

Gee, I wish they'd make up their minds: are congressional Democrats okay or not?

c'mon hadenough, Hussein will probably take SC.
After that he's deep fried squirrel but hey, he can always throw his support to the Rethugicans.

angryvet, don't shoot the messenger. Hussein is the one suggesting you'll go for 1000 years in Iraq McCain.
How progressive!

He's talking about independents, Republicans and CARD CARRYING DEMOCRATS.

As I have said before

1. Straight demo every election since 1971
2. Campaigned for Humphrey, Carter, Mondale, Clinton(x2), Gore, Kerry and more downslate democrats than I can count

Will never vote for Hillary Clinton...not after this sorry performance

You may not like to hear it

But you will get used to it

Just using California as the test because of its diverse population - rural, urban, all ethnicities, wide range of incomes. Also its huge delegate count could decide this thing. I don't know if they also weight the delegate count according to some formula as do the caucus states.

But if, by some mischance, he loses and Hillary wins the nomination, I, as a lawyer and a Democrat, am begging you to march your ass down to the polling place, put a clothespin on your nose, close your eyes, vote for her and then just spend the next four to eight years drinking mauraritas with crushed Vicodin on the rim if that's what it takes.

Sure, sure, sound advice, that. Nonetheless, I doubt that it will make much difference that we democrats vote Clinton in the GE. The trick to winning is not to get your own party to vote for you - it is to get independants. I just do not see Clinton bringing in as many of these as Obama will. I want the Democrat to win, even if the democrat is not my preferred candidate, but I have little confidence that Clinton actually will win if she is our nominee.

john mc: "Looks like Brad's just invited you to go skinny dipping in his BushClinton sewer."

Yes, Obama supporters are all about the unity!

Guffawwwwwww!

Anna,

Can you square your comments with the fact that HRC has chosen Reagan as one of her "favorite Presidents" on her web site?

Show me some minimum level of consistency.

Brad,

Just don't get it do you.

We've served our time in the Clintons plantation.

Your dress
Wear it yourself

john mccutchen: "Anonymous deathly afraid that Obama's telling the truth."
-------------------
I don't know whether this is directed to me. In case it is...

I'm not afraid Obama's telling the truth. I suspect he is. But 1) I'm not going to change my vote because Obama's supporters are engaging in electoral terrorism. My-way-or-the-highway ultimatums won't move me into the BO camp.

And 2) BO's claim here illustrates the fundamental childishness of BO and his supporters. Just look at the record: BO calls WJC frustrated and it's okay; HRC calls BO frustrated and suddenly what was once okay (when BO did it) is now beyond the pale.

A result of this exchange is BO supporters claiming that they can never vote for HRC. Why? Because she had the audacity to do exactly what the BO campaign already did. 'Cause it's okay for Barack to make snarky comments about frustration...but it's out of bounds for HRC to do the same.

It's all a bit reminiscent of the drug question. Okay to ask of Bill Clinton in '92 and George Bush in '00...but asking Obama the same questions that have been asked of previous candidates is racist and underhanded.

I think what Obama is saying is -- not that Hillary won't get Obama's Democratic supporters, but that she won't get some portion of his independent/Republican supporters.

Man, but Hillary supporters are sensitive! The least thing and they just go ballistic.

Anna,

I couldn't get over his bad logic long enough to feel taken for granted, but you are right -about it all.

If the Democrats do not have the good sense to retire the Clintons, godspeed

Brad,

I don't give a shit who Hilary says her favorite presidents are. I wasn't going to vote for Hilary in the primary and would only vote for her in the GE if I had to.

All I care about is what Obama says.

Honestly, you Obama supporters can't defend him without saying "Hilary is worse."

Try -- and I know this is impossible for most of you -- to defend this on his own terms without using the word "Hilary" in your response.

Not so anonymous are you?

Well, NEWSFLASH - do you really think I expect you to change your vote?

If you believe that you'll believe that there will be a Democratic party unified behind the Clintons in November

Your problem, not mine

LynnDee: "she won't get some portion of his independent/Republican supporters."
---------------
What are the chances that Obama himself will get the votes of independents and Republicans in Nov?

About zero percent.

The GOP has gone easy on Barack till now...probably because he's their favored opponent. But they won't go easy on him if he's the nominee.

I fear Democrats and left-leaning independents will suffer a giant case of buyer's remorse if they make the mistake of making this guy the Democratic nominee.

My political memory goes back to when Mrs. Bill was a Goldwater girl and I have never seen a party - either party - as bitterly divided since Chicago 1968

The problem with the theory that the Republicans who voted Obama in the primary will stick with him in the general is that... drum roll please... they are Republicans.
Having gotten their rocks off voting against HRC as crossovers in a primary they'll scurry back to the McCain sewer.

And one last point: Hussein didn't limit his comment to Republicans and Indies did he?
But I can hear him now:
"Well I didn't say I wasn't only talking about Republicans..."

Oh the howls of outrage from the Obaidiots if Bill said HRC supporters would bolt the party if she lost the nomination... sheesh!

Greg: "Sen Clinton can win the nomination but not the GE."

Exactly what they said about Bill when he was trailing BOTH Perot and Bush 41.

LOL.

john mc: "There is no way that Obama's supporters will help the Clintons ...not after what they've done."

Exactly my point - despite all the claims to be for unity and reaching out, what the obnoxious Obama orthodoxy wants is to make everyone a part of their political religion or an axis of evil - just like Bush and his supporters.

Oh, the rich irony of it all!

They even pick up GOP talking points like "Marc Rich!"

Of course, they are so well-informed that they spell his name "Mark Rich."

Well, we always knew how informed Obamaites are.

----------------------

Voted for Anderson, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

Will never, ever vote for Obama, not so much because of him, but because of his supporters' hypocrisy, mendacity, arrogance, self-righteousness, and axis-of-evil mentality, of which I've had it up to here from Bush and his supporters.

Don't need another 8 years of that.

"Will never vote for Hillary Clinton...not after this sorry performance . . ."

Gee, and just the other day an Obama supporter was ranting about how no Obama supporters would ever say they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee.

Another example of how Obamaites have their heads in the sand (or simply glued to Obama's rear end where their vision is obscured to anything but, well, Obama's rear end).

Nader-lite Ganja Guy will never get my vote.

blackstar: "Americans will not electe Hillary Clinton over John McCain"
--------------------
They'll elect her before they'll elect Barack Obama.

blackstar do you have anything but the aroma from your Master's ass to back up your claims of Hussein's superior electability?
I mean where did you pick up your crystal ball?
Polls you say? Hmmm, try NH on for size.

TexicanDem

I don't give a rat's ass who you choose to blame.

I am just tellin you like it is.

Right now the Democratic party is, as Little Carmine would say, "on the precipice of a great crossroads"..I haven't seen bitter divisions like this in the Democratic Party since Richard Daley shouted down Abraham Ribikoff

Do with the information as you will..blame the freakin tooth fairy for all I care

blackstar,

I'm curious. What kinds of big changes do you think Obama is going to make, as he's bringing an end to partisan bickering and reaching across the aisle? How do you make "big changes" when you're engaged in compromsing with Republicans who have shown they have literally no interest in compromise?

And a related question -- what Republicans in Congress do you think have demonstrated an similar interest in reaching across the aisle? Mitch McConnell? John Kyl? Brownback? Which ones?

For the record, I'm an Edwards supporter and hate HRC.

They'll elect her before they'll elect Barack Obama.

--------------

then they deserve a McCain Presidency.

blackstar: "this is a valid point to bring up."

Translation: As an Obama supporter, every claim I make is presumptively and conclusively a valid point to bring up, because "we are the righteous" (gee, where have I heard this message before . . . hmmmmmm . . . oh, yeah, Bush and his Regent U lackies!).

Anna,

I probably make that argument because I'm a lazy typist and its the easiest argument to make. Sorry, I guess I assumed you were an HRC supporter, because i find it pretty tough to read his statements as praise of Reagan's policies. I watched the full clip of the interview with the editorial board and that is NOT what he said.

To take what he said about Reagan and spin it into a reason not to vote for him seems a very long stretch to me. If you are turned off by careless praise or admiration of Reagan, I would merely point out that the Clintons have trafficked in that more than Obama has.

So I'm a little baffled by your position I guess. I can argue Obama on the merits all day.

1) I like how he came up as a community organizer and grass roots activist.

2) I lived in Chicago from 95-06 and found him to be an able public servant.

3) His position on the war AT THE TIME IT MATTERED was spot on.

4) I like the fact he has lived overseas. I think it gives him a better perspective regarding foreign relations.

5) I like his positions on issues (not much difference between the three of them).

6) I find him to be persuasive.

7) I trust his character. His personality does not seem to change as often as other candidates.

8) He seems to be a decent man.

9) He was able to pass a key piece of reform legislation as a Freshman Senator.

10) I trust his judgement based on the way he has conducted his life and his campaign.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Where Obama can change the map is in the Midwest and Virginia. I'm skeptical of him changing the map in the southwest or Florida... Perhaps if he has Richardson on the ticket??

Yes, and the additional question is where can he change it that Hillary can't? She can take Virginia as easily as he can - that is where the establishment lives, also she des better among national defense voters. Is there a midwest state that he can take that she can't? I can't think of one. She polls better in Florida than any of the Republicans (last time I saw) and better than Obama. So I'm guessing she can take Florida where he might not be able to. I'm not sure that she needs a huge influx of Republicans to win in November. And the supposed hordes of Republicans just waiting to come vote against her will come out against him too.

Just my opinion and speculation - this is a question we will never know the answer to, since there will only be one nominee. Maybe there will be some exit polling on it in November.

then they deserve a McCain Presidency.
----------------
As does anyone that falls for the Obama I'll-abandon-the-Democrats-if-they-don't-pick-my-guy ultimatum.

There's a lot of stupid in this thread. And stupid, thy name is -- ...nevermind....

What I am seeing is Obama is just like all the pols, but he wants you to believe that he is oh so different. His connection to Antonio Rezko, who is among other things a slum lord, goes well beyond the 5 hours he billed to some church related real estate deal that he stumbled and fumbled on saying last night. Check what the Chicago newspapers have been saying about their relationship.

And speaking of church, Obama is so busy now convincing everyone he is not a Muslim, that he forgot to include the pastor of the Christian church he does belong to gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award. Let's be clear, it was the pastor, not Obama who did that, but it's the guy Obama said was his spiritual mentor. How's that for a good judgement call?

And how tough is he really when what are some relatively mild shot are fired his way by both Clintons & Edwards, compared to what the GOP will do, he can't effectively deflect the criticism and goes into whine mode - I don't know which one I'm running against.

What's wrong in asking why he voted "present" over a 100 times as a State Senator? Even if he cast over 4,000 votes.

And he is now holier than thou with claims of not taking PAC money, but over 40% of his campaign contributions previously came from PACs! He looks like your typical pol from Chicago big machine politics but wants you to believe otherwise because he can say hope and change about as often as Rudy invokes 911.

Obama looked like he was someone special, but he is wilting under some scrutiny.

Can someone pass the popcorn? The Hillbots are in full Hillbotic Rage. I've never seen a group spin themselves into a frenzy over such a non-controversial point before. Must be the effect of logic upon their brains.

TexasModDem should walk the walk instead of running his yap here

Why?

Because the contest will not be decided on 2/5 and will come down to Texas and Ohio in March, (if then)

Now in the Great State of Texas, Phil Gramm's promise has come true!

"The GOP hunts democrats with dogs" thanks in no small part to the Texas Delegate selection process

Get this: Voters go to the polls during the day. Their votes DO NOT COUNT unless they also go to the local caucus at night and screw around for a couple of hours with parliamentary maneuvers and divisions of the house

Texas Democrats....that's a joke right there

blackstar: "i gave reasons for my position"
-------------------
Yet your "reasons" are not convincing. They're just bald assertions.

Apparently Obama supporters think their positions are axiomatic...which may explain why they've been so dramatically deficient in presenting factual supports for their candidate.

He is talking about me here. I'm an Obama diehard who is a little iffy on Hillary. But I agree with many above. This is not appropriate.

Does anyone see it in the realm of possibility of HRC or BO running as an independent if either of them lose the nomination?
If HRC loses she wont take it sitting down and if BO loses he has garnered enough support from Dems, indes, and Reps to run as an inde as well...
If BO loses, Bloomberg will enter the race and I can see him courting BO as his running mate also...Does anyone think this can happen?

I do find it hard to imagine any of these passionate Obama supporters staying at home in November if it is Hillary, or possibly going out and voting for McCain or Romney. Think about that, and tone down the hate on the Democratic side. We're going to go back to being one family when this primary season is over, keep that in mind.

Hey, from your lips to God's ears. I do not want another Republican president any more than you do and I will be voting for the democrat in Nov regardless of who gets the nomination. That said, I do not know how seriously we need to take the super-partisans on either side of this debate. I imagine that a lot of this "I will not vote for..." is just bluster at this point.

Kevin, I'd grant you at least half your point except for the fact that you "moderates" (if I might be forgiven) have not yet gotten the Rethugican Hussein treatment. You may have forgotten but McCain hasn't.
After all, it wasn't the Dems elected Bushit... twice.
OK, you only really elected him once... maybe not even that.

Keith...
What does Hussein actually say in the quote?
Not "Republicans and Independents..."

Jeez here we go again.
"Well Hussein didn't specifically say Dems would bolt... just his supporters would"

I think also that Nevada gives its 5 electoral votes to the general winner across the state, so doing well in rural parts of Nevada doesn't particularly help. Bush won Nevada in 2004 because he kept Clark County down to only 50% Democrat.

Hm..., the point is that there are independents and Republicans and what not who have casted votes for Obama who will not vote for Clinton. Whether you like it or not that's a fact.

Let's remind ourselves the President of the Democratic States of America is never going to the President of the United States of America.

I'm an independent. I've spent the last year thinking how great it would be if the democrats took the white house in 2008, because I'm that sick of George Bush. I like Barack Obama. I think he is a man of integrity, and like it or not, voting for president is not just about picking which set of policy positions you agree with most -- the character of the candidates' really does matter. What it comes down to, for me and for every other independent voter I've spoken to recently, is this:

I would vote for Obama over any Republican candidate.

I will never vote for Clinton. She has no integrity, no character, and people, particularly independents, can see this very clearly. I cannot understand why democrats don't see that she is simply not electable. This election is theirs to win -- all the democrats have to do is nominate someone, anyone, besides Clinton, and you guys walk away with the presidency!

If Clinton is the democratic nominee, as I suspect she will be, I will vote for John McCain in November. So will just about every other independent voter I've spoken to. This is why polls show him destroying her 51-39 in the general election.

Read above Annie
I will never vote for that woman

Summation of why Hillary is the weaker candidate for the general election. Are progressives going to stop playing checkers and start playing chess?

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/hillary-clinton-for-president.html

I'm an Independent voter, and I will never, ever vote for Mrs Clinton.

I was very excited when I saw that the Dems were actually going to have other viable choices in the primaries so that I wouldn't be forced to vote Republican. Guess I may have to after all.

And for those of you harbouring the Clinton/Obama fantasy - I STILL won't vote for Mrs Clinton.

This really tells us all we need to know about Obama and the Obamabots.
We are not to take Obama at his word. Oh no, we must understand that despite what he actually said he really meant something different!

Hussein said: "Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward."

I think a lot of his voters were Dems, don't you Keith, blackstar, et. al.?
Or are you all too wimpy to admit you're spinning like a top.

Pathetic bunch of losers.

No Obama supporters seem to want to defend his tortured logic. What does he mean by this?

If you look at the results in Nevada, for example, she eked out the popular vote victory over me, but I ended up winning more delegates because she got almost all of her votes from Clark County, Las Vegas and some of the traditional democratic areas.

I realize he is making the point that he gets Rep and Independent votes that she won't. I get it - I agree. But that has nothing to do with the delegate count, except that perhaps the Republicans and Independents he won happened to come from rural counties that get extra weight in a caucus. If it had been a straight proportional vote primary, he would not have gotten more delegates. He's saying that the fact that he won more delegates proves that he can get Independent votes, when in actuality it was the fact that he won more votes in a particular part of the state that got him more delegates.

This is what I don't like about him. Too many of the things he says off the cuff make no sense at all.

Tapper

I agree with the above for the most part.

You are not a very original thinker!

not a very attractive intellect.

It's as if Bill Clinton has got his hand
up your bottom.

john mccutchen,

Yeah Obama can carry the Bay Area and Sacto, but probably gets crushed in Southern California and iirc SoCal has 3 times the population..

Dawn,

Good questions. Hillary's going to need indy's and Republican's fed up w/ Bush in the midwest.. I think a fresh face has a better chance w/ those voters. Where Hillary could make a strong run @ reorganizing the map is in the southwest, in AZ, NM and NV, but the southwest doesn't have as many electoral votes as Iowa, Ohio and Missouri. Also, lots of black voters may sit out in Florida...

blackstar writes

should she win the election, if for instance McCain dies from old age on the campaign trail, her presidency will be nothing but a return to do-nothing partisan squabbling. anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton can push through the big bills she's basing some of her claims on with a united Republican congressional population is not so much drinking Kool-Aid as is drunk on Stupid Lager.

blackstar, I'm a fellow Obama supporter (if you don't believe me, see my other posts), though I'm not as anti-Clinton as so many other posters. I think that the notion that Clinton can't work with Republicans in congress is overstated. Before she started on her presidential quest, she was seen to be effective in working with the Republican Senate majority. Her colleagues described her as professional and charming (at least in person). Moreover, she's very pragmatic, and I think she'll make efforts to get things done.

My concern is not that she wouldn't work with the Republicans but that they wouldn't work with her for political reasons. I expect that she'd continue to be a pariah in red districts, so Republicans might decide that they'd be more popular at home if they stick it to her rather than compromise with her.

Nonetheless, while it's reasonable to point to her handicaps, I would hesitate before pontificating so confidently about what she would or would not be able to accomplish. There's way too much black-and-white b.s. in these election threads as it is. (And that's not a race reference.)

I'll either sit out the general election, or may vote for Bloomberg.. I have to know more about him though.. If it's McCain v. Hillary, Hillary will win in a blowout in my state, California..

Just like Bill Clinton barely lifted a finger for Gore or Kerry, I'm not going to lift my finger and vote for Hillary. I'm tired of the Democrats being the party of reaction, not action. Things have been like this since the 80's.. Clinton's triangulation was effective in the 90's, and stopped the bleeding, but the Democrats have a prime opportunity to become the party of action in 2008.. Hillary Clinton's too concerned w/ having a pissing contest and getting revenge on her many critics.. Divisiveness & vitriol for Republicans will not bring significant change.

Sorry but no. I am an Edwards supporter and I might be able to support Mrs. Clinton but there is no chance in hell that I will support, much less vote for, Obama. I will sit it out because I see no palatable difference between Obama and the GOP he is enamored of.

Read this letter of an Edwards supporter, it might change your mind.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/01/edwards_or.html#more

Dawn,

Since Hillary's has claimed that she was co-president, I can't imagine a map realignment or a big congressional majority, since her and Bill never did so in the past. Also, Hillary's high negatives indicate a narrow win and nothing more..

With the GOP in disarray, this is the election where the Dems can cash in.. The chance for significant change rarely come around. The elections of 1964 and 1980 gave LBJ and Reagan voter mandates to push major legislation. And I'm not saying Reagan's legislation was good either for those who like to distort..

JTinSoCal, is there really nothing Obama could say or do to make you vote for Clinton?

I agree with the recent posts. Any of the three Dems should be able to win this one. So I submit that the more important question is which of the three is most likely to get reelected in 2012 years. I would argue that it's not Clinton. People are already suffering from Clinton fatigue (mostly Bill's fault, not Hil's), and the primaries haven't even finished. But more pointedly, I think that her negative are too high. I don't think that they would keep her from office, but they would impact her approval rating. If everything's great in 4 years and the economy is roaring, anyone can get reelected, but if there's sourness in the air, it would get dumped on Clinton's head, not because she of what she did, but because she wouldn't be able to charm her way out of it. In this way, I think that Barack is more like Bill than Hillary is. I don't think that this should be taken lightly. Don't forget how Reagan kicked Carter's ass in 80.

(Oops, now I guess people will call me a Reagan lover)

Being president is not the only way to change the direction of the party or the country. A strong leader in the Senate can influence things a lot, and I would argue that is what we have been sorely lacking the last 8 years, Clinton included. Change would be a lot easier for Obama and others to effect with a Dem president that they weren't having to fight every step of the way. That is only one of the reasons I sincerely hope that everyone does what they can to get a Dem elected.

Before she started on her presidential quest, she was seen to be effective in working with the Republican Senate majority. Her colleagues described her as professional and charming (at least in person). Moreover, she's very pragmatic, and I think she'll make efforts to get things done.

My concern is not that she wouldn't work with the Republicans but that they wouldn't work with her for political reasons.

-----------------

she could work with Republicans when she was a junior Senator and there was a Republican in the White House. but "working with" has to go both ways, and there simply isn't any way Republicans in the Senate or House are going to be compliant with her proposals when they know for a fact their inter-party opponents in the next election will use "he voted WITH Hillary Clinton!" against them. even ideology aside, the simple fact that its Hillary Clinton practically guarantees their opposition.

i'm not saying its her fault, in fact i think much of the traditional Republican hatred of Hillary has been totally off-base and absurd, but that doesn't mean it isn't real and very strong. or that it will not have an effect on her ability to push through the kinds of proposals we need.

what i'm asking people to recognize is that beyond "electability" there is "implementability", which she is already seriously handicapped on.

Dawn, possible but very rarely happens. The incumbent would to be doing really, really poorly not to be nominated. Even Carter was nominated in 80. I'd rather not vote for someone that I expect not to be able to win a second term. For the record, I'm not actually arguing that Clinton can't win a second term, just that if the economic conditions are poor, I think that she'd be a lot less likely to pull it off than Obama. The same goes for midterms. If she were to have low approval ratings in two years, the Republicans would likely take back congress, and then she really wouldn't be able to enact a progressive agenda.

but did anyone stop to consider that maybe those he was referring to are those who voted for him that don't traditionally vore Democratic?

I know that is what he is talking about. But it has nothing to do with the delegate count except that those voters happen to live in counties where their vote gets more weight. He's saying the delegate count itself proves something it does not.

I'll stop harping on the logic 'cause that horse is dead and buried. My engineering brain cares about something that obviously matters to no one else.

stlounick, it sounds like you've thought it through, but I still find it a little difficult to fathom. Are you standing on principle? Suppose it's Clinton vs. McCain in the general. They both voted for the war, but Clinton has pledged to get us out as quickly as possible, whereas McCain sees us there for another 100 years. However angry you are at Clinton, it seems to me that if you really cared about ending the war, you would support the candidate more likely to end it sooner, notwithstanding her responsibility for starting it.

Hey heretic,

Don't sweat it. So we lose a few thousand twits posting here and on like minded places. Nothing near what we would lose in the general election if we dared to nominate a arrogant, elitist, pompous, and dull candidate with a glass jaw against McCain.

I think (I hope) that most people will calm down once the primaries are over. It's not just the Obama supporters. I've seen plenty of posts in other threads from Clinton supporters who say they would never support Obama and from Edwards supporters who say they would never support either of the other two.

I think that it's mostly due to emotions running high in a passionate primary. Once it's over and the Republicans have selected someone around whom we can unite in mutual revulsion, I think that we'll come together again. There will always be people who waste their votes, but most people haven't forgotten what Nader wrought in 2000.

And for the record, I agree with the posters who suggested that Obama was not talking about passionate lefties so much as independents and crossovers who straddle the divide.

Genghis, you seem to think that I agree with the blogs who want every last one of our troops pulled out of Iraq. That simply won't happen. We will be there for decades. We broke it and we have an obligation now to put this Humpty Dumpty back together again.

It is an occupation and now we are an imperialist country. And I won't reward anyone who enabled this to have my time, money or vote. Bad judgment is still bad judgment. And I won't reward it.

It is pretty clear that if you're Obama supporter you're one of three groups

1) Clinton haters
2) Independents and moderate Republicans
3) you care more for rhetoric than for actual policy proposals.

Independents and moderate Republicans and the Clinton haters should realize that the rank & file of the party dislike Obama intensely. When the closed primaries come up or when the primaries with large numbers of Hispanics come Clinton will win 60% or more of the vote. If your mission is to stop Mrs Clinton, you will be better served by voting for John Edwards. Obama could run as independent and possibly win, but he can not do so as a Democrat. Hispanics will not vote for him and the rank & file prefer Clinton or Edwards. What is allowing Obama to be competitive are independents and moderate Republicans in open primaries. But starting on Feb 5th, open primaries are few and far between. That clearly favors Mrs. Clinton who is perceived by rank & file Democrats as the better anti-Obama candidate. We do not like Obama period.

If Obama takes the votes of democrats for granted now he will do the same when he makes his choices about governing once in office. He will be so afraid to alienate his independent base that a progressive agenda will be thrown straight out the window. He seems to think he is bigger than the democratic party and that the democratic party needs him more than he needs them. The progressives who support this man are blinded by their disdain for anyone who actually will work within the process to create real change and by their pollyannish idealism which Mr. Obama's rhetoric and style seem to embody. I feel sorry for them, but will nonetheless be the first in line to say I told you so when President Obama winds up being a colossal disappointment to them.

That said...there are some party activists (and I am one) who simply will not vote for a person who voted for the Iraq War... In the event the Democratic candidate voted for this war, then I simply will not vote in the presidential race. I will spend my money and my time with the down-ticket Democrats and vote for them.

Gosh, StLouNick, this seems rather self-defeating to my mind. I am not especially entheused about Sen Clinton myself, especially on account of her vote for the war. That said, McCain is positively itching to invade Iran, while we would at least have reason to hope that Clinton would have better judgement than that. Faced with that choice, I cannot see my way clear to letting McCain get into that office (although I have dim hopes that we will be able to stop him if we nominate Clinton to carry our standard). In a swing state like ours (MO) we need to stand behind any democrat, no matter how odious.

Obama is making a powerful electibility argument. The fact is, Hillary has the highest negatives of any democratic candidate. Day one, nearly half of the voting public will not vote for her. Think about that folks. Obama is saying that, quite rightly, Hillary and Edwards supporters will flock to his banner as nominee. There may be some nose holding, but democrats want the White House more than they don't want Barack Obama. One of the things we saw in NH, is that the majority of people polled that voted for HRC said they also "liked" Barack Obama. They weren't voting against Obama but for HRC. That is also important. Nevada demonstrated that he could reach out to moderate republicans and conservative democrats (yes, there are such animals). In Iowa, before the HRC machine began playing the gender/identity politics game full tilt, Obama won the majority of women voters and white voters.

It is becoming clear that republican voters, whatever their reservations, are leaning towards John McCain. Whereas recent polling shows that Hillary beats McCain, this sort of polling is notoriously unreliable. When the full force of the republican machine backs McCain and the full force of the democratic machine backs Hillary, then it comes down to independents and the so-called Reagan democrats. When push comes to shove, I believe both demographics will break for McCain due to Hillary's negatives.

Obama won't have that baggage. Moreover, he will have the force of the anti-Iraq war coalition in this country for him. If Hillary were the candidate, all McCain has to do is point to her vote authorizing the war, and any number of statements where she supported the war and was opposed to time lines for withdrawal. Hillary didn't become "anti-war" until the tide of public opinion shifted against it. Before that she was the "enabler in chief". This corroborates Obama's campaign refrain of needing someone who is RIGHT from day one, clearly mocking Hillary's campaign slogan of being ready to lead day one.

The choice couldn't be more clear. Obama's and Hillary's policy positions are more similar than not. The health care debate in SC was proof in point. Obama simply does not believe that the government should enforce coverage for adults that would rather stay with private plans, etc. In Mitt Romney's Massachusetts, there are people that can't afford the premiums, even with subsidies, of health insurance, and since government mandates coverage, they are being fined on top of everything else. Is this the road that folks want to travel down considering that HRC and Edward's plans mandate coverage, thereby meaning government enforcement? None of the candidates are suggesting a single payer system, so in my view, Obama's plan is the most appealing. John Edwards argued that Obama's "choice" reasoning is similar to Bush's "choice" rhetoric regarding social security. On it's face, this seems true. But it's not. Bush is seeking to dismantle social security, while Obama is extending affordable health insurance to all people. Vastly different intentions.

Anyway, at the end of the day, folks have to decide who best represents change, and has the ability to bring that change. The choice is clear: Barack Obama.

You know..that Jon Stewart from the daily show is stinking hilarious. The best comedy comes from the truth. I wish all of the so called expert pundits would have explored this one more. But I love how Jon cuts right to the heart of it. This is how america feels about the Bill and Hillary machine. With the headline of bush lying 935 times, this clip makes it all the more important to see what will go in in a clinton white house. Gotta love it - forget MSNBC, the daily show has a way of cutting through all of the bullsh**t.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=148079&is_large=true

brad: "His position on the war AT THE TIME IT MATTERED was spot on."

Uh, no, his position was pandering to a constituency that was overwhelmingly anti-war and neither risky or prescient.

john mccrazy mccutchen: "Texas Democrats....that's a joke right there"

This is how the Obameister and his Obamaites build unity and consensus!

Pretty much the same way they disparaged and dismissed minority black and hispanic teachers in Nevada and pretended they didn't exist.

No wonder Obama can only win with misogynists, the independent crazies who supported Nader, and Republicans voting anti-Clinton in primaries and caucuses where their relatively low numbers have disproportionate effect because of the relatively even lower number of voters in these preliminary contests.

If you are black or hispanic and don't worship at the feet of Obama, you don't exist.

If you are a Democrat that doesn't buy into the black-and-white religiously political orthodoxy of the neo-progressiver-than-thous, you don't exist.

If you proffer inconvenient facts, such as the fact that Obama lied about the DNC approving his Florida ads, you don't exist.

Hard to build a consensus, broad coalition when so many of your fellow Americans don't exist.

stlounick: "Obama's position in 2002 was the same position taken by the majority of Congressional Democrats."

But not the majority of Democratic Senators, a fact that profferers of this dishonest meme continually leave out, yet another inconvenient fact.

House districts are very small and uniform in their makeup, so it is not surprising that the majority of Democratic House members felt politically secure in voting against the measure, which was going to pass anyway with or without their votes.

Senate members must view the bigger picture and the country's position as a whole.

Obama, like members of the House, represented a small, more homogeneous and mostly anti-war district at the state level and it was no risk at all to oppose a war that most of his constituents were opposed to - there were no heroics, no prescience, only pandersing to his constituency.

Thus, the "fairy tale" characterization is quite correct.

"Now, I happen to believe that Hillary supported the pre-emptive invastion of Iraq . . ."

Then you are an idiot or a liar.

The AUMP was necessary, with the restictions it included, to get the UN inspectors back into and fully accessible to Iraq.

It worked.

The inspectors did their job and demonstrated that Saddam was toothless.

According to the terms of the AUMF, it should have ended there, but it didn't because Bush ignored the AUMF, just like he would have invaded had there never been an AUMF in the first place (his lawyers memos on his power to invade without congressional approval proves this).

Clinton is not responsible for Bush's failure to adhere to the limitations of the AUMF any more than she would be responsible for Bush's invasion of Iraq absent the AUMF, which would have passed anyway EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT HAD VOTED AGAIST IT.

So, your claim that Clinton supported the invasion and that her actions allowed Bush to invade is a tendentious and dishonest interpretation of the facts.

It is also why I will never vote for Obama, despite having voted Democrat in every single election since 1980 and Independent in 1976.

Obama supporters' black-and-white political orthodoxy is simply too reminiscent of the same black-and-white political orthodoxy of Bush and his supporters.

We don't need another eight years of black-and-white political orthodoxy which demonizes and declares as part of an axis of evil every person who does not fall into lock step with the fantasy world that the neo-progressiver-than-thous live in.

Greg, the Democratic Party "leaders" have, for decades, continued to spew forth the worst possible candidates with the caveat that the members had to vote for them. I obediently have done so and this has now led to the Iraq War. I won't continue to enable the Democratic Party in their quest for "winning" candidates who just don't win--or if they do enact such outrages as NAFTA. And I note that the same folks who enacted NAFTA are now running saying "oops".

Well, dear StLouNick, I confess that your argument has a certain force of logic to it. I cannot claim to be persuaded by it myself; I want MO to go for the democrat and I will vote for the democrat no matter who s/he might be, but I cannot fault you for your approach.

TexModDem, Obama's position in 2002 was the same position taken by the majority of Congressional Democrats.

I can, however, fault you for your approach here. Attempting to reason with TexModDem is like attempting to persuade a brick wall to stand aside and let you through. Indeed, communication with a brick wall is only slightly less worth your while.

'And I note that the same folks who enacted NAFTA are now running saying "oops".'

Bad policy sometimes happens.

It's the responsibility of congress to realize their mistakes and fix them...

trying to pin NAFTA on Dems, seems to ignore the context under which it was originally passed.

And Hillary Clinton didn't have a vote then.

She supported it, yes, but so did a lot of other people at the time.

And opinions are still mixed as to how effective the agreement has been.

NAFTA is not the sole reason our economy is in trouble.

Who is Barack Obama?

Probable U.S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was s born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced.
His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.
When Obama was 6 years old the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta.
He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.
He is quick to point out that, 'He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.'

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.

Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best.
In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam.
Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.
Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.
ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag.
While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out,
what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

miked: "Screw that...I'll NEVER vote for that LIAR now."

Back atcha.

Good luck winning the election without moderate (the real actual) Democrats.

I refuse to accede to another eight years of a White House filled with black and white political orthodoxy.

I refuse to do anything to bring about another eight years of self-righteous, orthodoxy-spouting, koolaid-drinking, "Regency U" wannabes.

Obama and his supporters started this back when Clinton was smoking his ass in the polls by blasting the blogways with "Hitlery", "Goldwater Girl", "War Supporter", "Corporate Lackey", "Clinton (D-Punjab)" and all sorts of vile invective, so don't pretend that it was Clinton who started the negative campaigning rolling.

Now after engaging in a smear campaign against Clinton that smacks of the SwiftBoat Vets tactics, Obama supporters have the gall to whine about how unfair brass-knuckle politics are.

If you can't stand the heat of that kind of politics, you shouldn't have fired the first shot.

But since you have, quit your whining about it.

Nobody here is going to be guilted into voting for someone that they don't believe in.

And I assume that goes for either candidate, as I heard some of the same stuff from Clinton supporters pre-New Hampshire when people thought Hillary was out.

I'm one who won't vote for Clinton. That wasn't a light decision that I came to, and it's certainly not one I'm happy about. I think it's important to not reward the kind of campaign that Clinton has decided to run.

I'm fighting to change our country, and I'm taking the long term view here. If both parties become mirror images of each other, I don't see how real change is possible. And make no mistake about it, Hillary Clinton has run a "Right-wing" campaign. One will scream about guns and the other healthcare, but both are simply two sides of the same coin and cannot shift out of that paradigm out of fear of losing what little they've managed to eek out during the deadlock.

The long view says a vote for Clinton is a vote for politics the way we've become accustomed to seeing it, and we need to expect more from our leaders. This isn't coming from a Nader supporter. I've never voted anything other than Democrat in a Presidential election (Bill Clinton was my first vote back in '92), but in my opinion, the party needs a serious message from the voters.

Damn, Obama just lost my vote for the primary, and quite possibly for the general election. That is the height of arrogance, and he completely undermined the legitimacy of his run. He says we should vote for him because he is a different kind of politics and argues that experience is a bad thing. You know what? His words and actions over the past few weeks have shown that he has always been just as bad as every politician (and I don't fault him for that, just as I don't fault Clinton or Edwards for that, politics is dirty, but I do fault him for being holier than thou...), so I can no longer see him as the candidate of hope and change AND he doesn't have the experience to boot...great, so why am I voting for him again? If it's the same old politics anyways PLEASE let me go for the smarter and more experienced politician. And Barack, don't ever take my vote, or anyone elses for granted. That's how elections were lost. And let's not forget...you LOST New Hampshire AND Nevada...

This is not true. I know BO supporters that have HRC as their 2nd choice.