Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Election 2008

It's Not Over. Clinton Runs Ahead, But Obama Remains Strong

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted February 6, 2008.


Hillary Clinton is winning in big blue states, while Barack Obama is winning across red-state America.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., remains the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential contest, even though Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., won more states on Super Tuesday, when 22 states held Democratic primaries and caucuses.

While the vote count is not yet final in some states, notably California, Clinton won strong victories in many large states, such as New York, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts -- and she was leading in the early returns in California. She also won Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. All told, Clinton won in eight states.

In contrast, Obama won 13 states, according to his campaign, including most Western states holding caucuses. Those states are Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah.

Various news organizations have different estimates of the delegate count, but Clinton is clearly ahead in these scenarios. The New York Times said Clinton has 656 delegates compared to 558 for Obama. The Washington Post, whose estimate does not include super-delegates -- party officials and other Democratic luminaries who comprise about 21 percent of all delegates -- said Clinton has 412 delegates compared to 381 for Obama.

The Obama campaign said on Tuesday night that it leads Clinton by 43 delegates -- not counting California -- with 677 delegates, compared to Clinton's 634 delegates. That estimate includes super delegates.

A more objective appraisal will not emerge for several days, however, until California's results are known and all the state tallies are analyzed.

Thus, while Super Tuesday appears to have moved both parties closer to picking candidates, it seems that voters -- particularly Democrats -- can look forward to more campaigning, debates and voting in long-ignored states, making the eventual nominee the result of the most informed and participatory process in decades.

Both Democratic candidates saw positives in Super Tuesday's outcome, although the Obama campaign may have been working a bit harder than the Clinton campaign to spin the results in its favor.

"The polls are just closing in California, and the votes are still being counted in cities and towns across America," said Barack Obama, addressing supporters in Chicago. "But there is one thing on this February night that we do not need the results to know. Our time has come."

"Tonight is your night. Tonight is America's night," said Hillary Clinton, addressing her supporters in New York. "In record numbers, people voted not just to make history, but to remake America."

While election officials will certify vote totals and party officials will parse the results and award delegates in coming days, the bottom line is that the contest may take a month or more before the nominee is chosen.

In fact, on Monday, Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn suggested that the nominee might not be selected until early March, when Ohio and Texas vote.

"There are a lot of states that are good for her," Penn said, citing Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas as Clinton strongholds, which hold their nominating contests on March 4, April 22 and March 4, respectively. "Those are large states with a lot of delegates."

"We will enter, after Feb. 5th, a different stage of the campaign," he said. "There will be a comparison of records, more one-on-one debates ... It will be a different campaign than we have seen (on Super Tuesday) with a lot of voters making fast decisions."

Penn was suggesting that Clinton's strength in large states will eclipse any gains made by Obama in 10 smaller states that have contests in the next four weeks. Those 10 states and locales are: Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virgin Islands, Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii and Wisconsin. Most of these states are seen as leaning toward Obama, for various reasons, from the electorate's make-up, to political beliefs to campaign organization and endorsements.

In coming days, pundits will analyze the exit polls to assess the candidates' various strengths and weaknesses. An early take suggests that the strengths exhibited by Clinton all along, such as her appeal among working women, seniors and Latinos, held up on Super Tuesday, despite last-minute polls suggesting Obama would neutralize those segments of the electorate in Tuesday's voting.

In California and Arizona, for example, it appears that Obama did make more progress with Latino voters. However, his gains were not sufficient to offset Clinton's strong ties within that broad community. Moreover, Obama's vaunted youth vote did not materialize in numbers sufficient to offset Clinton's popularity among her base.

Political scientists say the Democratic nomination is moving into uncharted territory with few precedents. During the past two decades, the party's nominee was largely chosen by this stage in the nominating process. What is unprecedented is how an ongoing contest will engage voters -- now and into the fall -- and whether a long contest will hurt the nominee as the country moves into the fall election, academics say.

Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said it was possible that the record voter turnout of Democrats in the primary season would carry over into the fall, unless the nominee discouraged a large segment of primary voters.

"Logically, there should be a connection," he said. "If people are energized or upset and turn out in large numbers in the winter, there's a decent chance we'll see the same phenomenon in the fall. Of course, lots can happen in the intervening months. Voters can get disillusioned with their choices, old issues can deflate, etc. So you never know."

What is clear, after Super Tuesday, is that the Democratic nominating contest is still in play and states that have sat on the political sidelines for years will be making historic choices. So far, Democratic turnout has been far larger than the Republican side of the aisle. Indeed, with so few recent historic precedents, perhaps many Democrats rightly think that their choice in coming weeks is not just deciding the nominee, but the next president.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: hillary, obama, hillary clinton, presidential primary, super tuesday, democratic primary

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
define "winning in red states"
Posted by: wwittman on Feb 6, 2008 12:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so he's "winning" in "red states"

winning DEMOCRATIC primaries in red states.

McCain "won" New York.

Think McCain is going to carry New York in the GENERAL ELECTION?

same thing with Obama.

Winning a Democratic primary in a red state does not in ANY way imply he's going to carry that state in a general election.
Only that Democrats in a Republican state preferred him to Clinton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: define "winning in red states" Posted by: SENILEBIKER
» RE: define "winning in red states" Posted by: wonkywriter
Uh, what?!
Posted by: Markson on Feb 6, 2008 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary also won decidedly in red states as well (OK, TN, AK; if Clinton fatigue/hate is truly apparent, he should've done better in AK). Also both of them are running in Democratic primaries.

The pro-Obama spin on this site has been unbelievable lately. Get a grip, people. If he can't withstand basic facts or legitimate criticism now how they hell will he win in November? The polls he's running now are the best he can possibly due considering how the corporate media and Kennedy, Daschle machines are backing him. And yet he's still not trouncing Hillary Clinton of all people!

If he can't crush her now with all this advantage, he has no chance in November, especially once the media finally decides to apply some level of scrutiny to him. That doesn't even include the inevitable smears that will be targeting him by the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, shut up.... Posted by: Nebris
» ty, skoog5600 Posted by: johnclark
» RE: Uh, what?! Posted by: gazooks
» Unfortunately... Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Uh, what?! Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Uh, what?! Posted by: foreverhope
» Swift Boaters Posted by: Sparks56
» Clinton's form of Swift Boating Posted by: foreverhope
It looks to me
Posted by: Sissy on Feb 6, 2008 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like we're getting a "little testy" here folks. We need to lighten up, we have another 8 months to go and anything can happen. Just keep in mind somewhat, ANY of the remaining democratic candidates will be better than what we have presently endured for the last 8 years and the concern I have is that we wrest the power finally from the criminally incompetant administration and all of the minions thereof, and try and solve the horiffic mess they are leaving us with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It looks to me Posted by: left_libertarian
» Amen to this comment Posted by: skoog5600
» Amen to this comment Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Amen to this comment Posted by: johnclark
» RE: Amen to this comment Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: nochicagoboys
» What is even more disturbing Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» What is different... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: mandy
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: andrushka
» A poseur Posted by: jmooney
Hillary cannot win
Posted by: citizenme on Feb 6, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally don't know of a single person that has voted for her, nor do I know a single person that will vote for her if she comes from the democratic camp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: bbfmail
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: kiowa
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: nebgirl
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: jmc
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: Longdream
Farce, Farce, Farce.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Feb 6, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media has controlled the process, put up "its" candidates, and given the voter the result.

McCain will win the general election against H. Clinton.

e.g. the ruling elite win and the public looses again.

Americans don't deserve a peoples government, they deserve a monarch and slavery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Doom & Gloom Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Farce, Farce, Farce. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Correct. And nobody even sees Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Correct. And nobody even sees Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Troll, troll, troll..... Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Farce, Farce, Farce. Posted by: willymack
» RE: Farce, Farce, Farce. Posted by: luckypuck
Real debates
Posted by: mike1997 on Feb 6, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear the Hillary is calling for 4 more "debates" in the next four weeks. I have an idea. Why not have real debates instead of joint news conferences. There is a system of debates called the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. It is set up for one on one debates and has been used and tested for years in both American colleges and high schools. They could take turns being the first speaker so that is equal and the time limits are equal as well. The best part is there would be no press needed except to roll cameras! You could set up 4 different topics that would be debated, a different one each week. For example: Week 1 Health care. Week 2 Iraq. Week 3 The Economy Week 4 Social Security. If they used the standard time limits the whole thing takes about 45-50 minutes.

Why not? Aren't we all getting sick of the phony "debates" we see now? Why not do the real thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: real debates Posted by: frank69
» RE: eal debates Posted by: willymack
» RE: real debates Posted by: mike1997
The media called California for Hillary with only 17% precincts reporting
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 6, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media called California for Hillary with only 17% precincts reporting. We need a new system. One person, one vote,no delegates. No media leaks until all votes are counted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AGREE Posted by: Sissy
No way McCain, filthy tongue
Posted by: GPFrank on Feb 6, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had once written once that if Hillary is the Dem. candidate I would vote for McCain. But no way
will I vote for McCain after learning about his insult to Hillary and Bill's daughter which I won't even repeat. I cannot see any excuse for remarks disrespecting women, whether from war trauma or inebriation. McCain already has inhaled too much the filthy culture of the Republican elite in Washington. I can't imagine Bill or Hillary saying anything of the sort about anybody,
whatever their pecadillos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thoroughly Agre Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Thoroughly Agre Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: You are Correct Posted by: Sissy
» RE: No way McCain, filthy tongue Posted by: drmflorida
Stop hatin'.....
Posted by: Fencerider on Feb 6, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My God.... "I hate Hillary...I hate Barack.... I hate the war-mongering USA...." All you people can fuck off. We are supposedly on the same team here folks. When will you petty people realize we are not eachothers' enemy? Save that vitrialic non-sense for the GOP, you'll need it. Just agree that whichever Dem wins, you'll back them. Yes you will, 'cause you know 4-8 more years of Hillary, or better yet, a chance for Obama means we shift paradigms from fear and confusion, to hope and optimism. As far as the I hate the US person goes, what the hell is your problem? When the going gets tough, you bail out? What are you, too weak to handle a challenge? You are seemingly blaming the US foreign policy/gov't debacle on we citizens. Look, I didn't vote for this BS the last two elections, why should I bear this burden? America is broken, but not shattered. No need to bash a great country just b/c it's "rulers" are corrupt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That makes me feel Posted by: steven w
» RE: That makes me feel Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Stop hatin'..... Posted by: willymack
» But the people Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: But the people Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Stop hatin'..... Posted by: Longdream
Use The Strengths
Posted by: Southern Gal on Feb 6, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket to maximize both of their strengths? Then put John Edwards in as the real deal Attorney General to clean up the Justice Department. My concern is the Congress. We need to keep Democratic majorities in Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Use The Strengths Posted by: rinpochet
» RE: Use The Strengths Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Use The Strengths Posted by: luckypuck
Clinton Leads?
Posted by: PJAW on Feb 6, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of this article is ridiculous. There is no "leader" at this point, and to assign that title to anyone is at best misguided, and possibly prejudicial.

This selection process has been reduced to "feelings", as in which candidate makes you feel better, about yourself and the future of your country. For a short time, for some of us, it was about issues, back before Kucinich and others were marginalized and ridiculed completely out of the process. So, if all we have left are "feelings", I'm going with Obama. Certainly both Clinton and Obama represent a change for the better from the lawn jockey of a President that the corporate elite have jammed down our throats for the past 8 years (counting the 2000 campaign), but Obama (at least for me and millions of others), inspires hope that we will be able to once again participate in the creation of "America", whatever that might ultimately be. Clinton represents a return to the past. Sure, it may be a past that seems better than the most recent 7 years, but I think it's time to think more about the future.

So, Go Hillary! (and take Bill with you)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clinton Leads? Posted by: PJAW
Whichever side wins
Posted by: Thucy on Feb 6, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm hoping the DNC has set up or will soon set up a "war room" operation that confronts the right wing BS being spewn under the radar about the both of them. You know the kind of crap I mean. The "Hillary Clinton ordered the death of Vince Foster" "the Clintons ran a secret airstrip in Arkansas to import cocaine" BS so prevalent among 700 Clubbers and the like, and the "Obama is a radical Muslim who will swear the oath of office on a Koran" nonsense that seems to be popping up everywhere in the right wing echo chamber. It is in the interests of both candidates that this nonsense be confronted and countered now, wherever possible. It may not be possible to stop this crap, but we should at least try to minimize it's impact.

As for both campaigns, while it's perfectly legitimate to question and even attack a candidate's votes, past statements (when not distorted), policies, etc., neither side should EVER allow to pass, let alone indulge in or spread, that kind of nonsense. Whoever wins the nomination, the "swiftboating" we're about to see will make what Kerry and Dukakis went through look like a picnic. I'm hoping Howard Dean and the DNC are gearing up for this, no matter which way the nomination finally goes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a decisive moment for the Demos.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 6, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will Hillary and Barack tear at each other between now and the convention? Or will they and their Demo advisors come up with some way to bring us all together?

We shall see before the convention whether the Demos know how to win. More than Hillary or Barack, we need a candidate who can win. We need advisors who know how to get the job done.

Sure, we can expect to hear a lot more pretty words. But the fact is we have a deadlock with two excellent leaders. It kinda resembles the deadlock in Washington. Now is the time for them to show their stuff. Whoever can pull off a political solution to this political problem deserves our support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I hope you are both correct. Posted by: Sojourner
An opening.
Posted by: chorton on Feb 6, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Hillary is still a bit ahead, perhaps with some help from Diebolt. (It's amazing how much more accurate exit polls were before 2000!) But Obama has the momentum. and could still pull this out in spite of the Super-Delegates.

If so we need to know that what we are winning is not a commitment to peace, but an opening for peace. Obama, like the rest of the surviving candidates (except for Ron Paul and Gravel), is committed to maintaining US military domination of the planet, but he is making some pro-peace statements he can perhaps be held to, and he may be more responsive to pressure from the people.

We need to keep up the "street pressure" for peace now, after the nomination is settled, and on the new President. We need to find new and innovative ways of doing so. Anti-war sentiment at 70%, but the anti-war movement is nearly invisible from Main St. Some way must be found to draw the millions into action and force media attention.

One crisis we could face soon: if Bush starts a war with Iran, and he could, can we stop Obama from jumping onto the war bandwagon?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

telling
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 6, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BARAK:
"The polls are just closing in California, and the votes are still being counted in cities and towns across America," said Barack Obama, addressing supporters in Chicago. "But there is one thing on this February night that we do not need the results to know. Our time has come."

CLINTON:
"Tonight is your night. Tonight is America's night," said Hillary Clinton, addressing her supporters in New York. "In record numbers, people voted not just to make history, but to remake America."

ONE CANDIDATE IS STRICKTLY TALKING ABOUT THEMSELVES, THE OTHER IS TALKING ABOUT A REVIVAL OF AN ELECTORAL PROCESS THAT WILL REDEFINE THE COUNTRY.

HUH. TO ME CLINTON SOUNDS LIKE THE NATURAL LEADER, THE LEADER OF 'MEN', WHILE OBAMA SOUNDS LIKE THE LEADER OF HIS CONSTITUANTS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: telling Posted by:
» RE: telling Posted by: militaryhater
» RE: telling Posted by: Longdream
» RE: telling Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: telling Posted by: andrewstromotich
» RE: telling Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: telling Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: telling Posted by: andrewstromotich
» RE: telling Posted by: nochicagoboys
Go America
Posted by: Smo on Feb 6, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary, Obama who cares? Well it seems everyone does, but what really matters is that voting -and what happens to this country- suddenly made a huge jump forward in the minds of all Americans. I am in awe that people still care what happens to us and our liberties/rights. It’s been so long. Too long. Cheers to America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are my anti- Democratic Party comments not being printed?
Posted by: logansafi on Feb 6, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently, alternet is now censuring people who think that the horse race is nonsense? Why is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Latinos overwhelmingly support Hillay
Posted by: cjohnson44 on Feb 6, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and will not accept a black for president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do you have another term Posted by: WhuThe?!?
ELECTIONS, MARDI GRAS, NY GIANTS, WALL ST. TANKED
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 6, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a day. I can't remeber the last time I stayed up to watch election results. Record turnouts was the best news in a long time. So, we do care after all. The country seemed to come alive yesterday. It felt good. The Media can no longer predict what the voters will do. They just have to wait to find out. They'll have to get over it. Thanks to all the candidates for knocking themselves out. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's All About the Electoral College
Posted by: mcartri on Feb 6, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only a few states will determine the next president. Yes, McCain will win Utah, and either Barack or Hillary would easily win Illinois. It's not about the sure things, it's about those few states that could go either way. We should be discussing which Dem has a better chance in the swing states. If McCain is best defeated by a nominee who shows strength with Independents and Republican moderates, then Obama is the best choice. I want the Democratic candidate to be the strongest in the swing states. I cannot see a Clinton/Obama ticket as reality. My opinion is an Obama/Webb ticket is the strongest the Dems can run against John War Forever McCain. I'm open to arguments that Hillary is the best choice to win the swing states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who knows?
Posted by: logansafi on Feb 6, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, I was not using profanity. I don't know why I got that screen saying that the comment was not accepted for the article, since what I wrote immediately in response to that was? Alternet has never moderated anything I have written before off screen and that is to the good credit of their web site.

CommonDreams, on the other hand, has done so, and it had to do with simply not liking the political content of what was written, and nothing to do with any profanity or such.

They push Al Gore all the time there and Al Gore is not a hero of mine, so suffice it to say that they just yanked me offline for not speaking kindly about the guy and the DP in general.

So, alternet, I apologize to you for starting off this thread.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who knows? Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Who knows? Posted by: Thucy
» I'll report it Posted by: Joshua Holland
I think I've finally figured out what it is about Obama....
Posted by: sallythewally on Feb 6, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He is like a Rorschach test; both the very progressive folks and the "moderate" - i.e., conservative folks see what they want in him. He talks like he's so far to the left, but he also talks like he's going to give the "moderates" and "disaffected Republicans" what they want.

He can't really bring them both in - the people who deeply care what's going to happen to those young boys on the streets and the people who want those young boys to pull themselves up by their bootstraps will not be pleased by the same policies. That's why he stays vague.

Hillary does put her policies right out there, in detail. We can decide what we think of them. She isn't going to promise everyone what they want. Here she is: take her or leave her.

By the way, I think the fact that the Republicans are going on so loudly about how they want Hillary to be the nominee shows (in their reverse psychology) may mean they really want to run against Obama. This worries me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OPRAH NATION...
Posted by: form516 on Feb 6, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just can't embrace the notion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OPRAH NATION... Posted by: militaryhater
A Different Perspective
Posted by: pkbutrfli on Feb 6, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I experienced and noticed a couple of things last night.

An elderly lady and her daughter showed up to the caucus and asked if they could watch. I wondered why they didn't want to participate... it turns out they are registered republicans who plan to vote democrat at the general election and can't support anyone in their republican caucus. I let them sit with me and made sure they didn't get counted for anything.

When I got home and started looking at the outcome of each state, two things struck me...

1 - did anyone else notice that the amount of people who participated with the dems was overwhelming compared to the republican participation (tens of thousands of voters compared to just thousands.. forget the percentages for a moment... look at the numbers).

2 - when videos were showed, the dem precincts were packed, the republican precincts looked lonely.... a perfect place to meditate.

Maybe I'm reading too much into these things... But can anyone here tell me how this next election could possibly be stolen?

No matter whether it's Hillary or Barack, it sure seems to me like it'll be a landslide!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Different Perspective Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: A Different Perspective Posted by: pkbutrfli
» RE: A Different Perspective Posted by: Longdream
It Makes Me Nervous
Posted by: Southern Gal on Feb 6, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes me nervous that Obama is not getting scrutinized in the same way as Hillary. It brings to mind the media love affair that Bush had when he first campaigned and obtained office. I'm not comparing these two men because there is no comparison. I will fully support Obama if he wins the Democrat nomination. I'm just saying that the alternative media has been less than diligent in their portrayal and examination of Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: militaryhater
» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: form516
» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: nochicagoboys
jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Feb 6, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday, the Clinton voters told the rest of the country and more importantly, the world, exactly what the voters told the world in 2004. What they are telling the world about America is that either we don't care about the Iraq War or that we support it. Clinton supported it, campaigned for it, lobbied fellow Dems for the war resolution, then voted and spoke in favor of the war right up until mid-2006. Now she complains vaguely about the "conduct" of the war and promises to keep troops there until 2016. And the Clinton Dems, so far the majority in the biggest turnouts in decades have all told the world that they agree with this!

3900 dead Americans, 20000 wounded, over 600,000 dead Iraqis, a trillion in debt and a growing army of sworn, violent enemies with long memories all around the world with no end in sight, and American imperial aggression is always justified. All so we can put a uterus in the Oval Office. That is what the Clinton voters voted for yesterday. I think the rest of the world hears them, us, Clinton, loud and clear.
If this is the best we can do, then there's no hope for this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where are you getting your facts? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» The rest of the world is watching Posted by: Susan Kipping
» RE: Where are you getting your facts? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» How sexist can you be? Posted by: form516
» RE: How sexist can you be? Posted by: jareilly
Clinton: Gateway to Another 4-8 years of Republican Rule
Posted by: cmaroudas on Feb 6, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last night's primary provides further evidence that Obama appeals to moderate Republicans and red state voters. If the choice is between Clinton and McCain, I fear the Democrats may as well start planning McCain's inaugural party. Here's why:

1. The Clinton "Pucker": Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. I am the first the concede that their hatred is based on ignorance and emotive reactions to her rather than any real disagreements about her positions on issues. In addition, progressive Democrats don't like her. I have yet to see a "Any one but Obama 08" sticker. In the last week I have spoke with all my Republican friends and family. Of the 8 I spoke with, three voted for Obama (out-of-state open primaries), three said they would vote for Obama if they were Democrats, and two (both consider themselves conservative Christians) said they are unhappy with their candidates and are looking into Obama. Each added that they could not/would not vote for Clinton. This may be anecdotal but speaks clearly to me. IF Clinton could win the White House over McCain and IF she could get progressive legislation passed over the Republican minority, I would feel differently about her candidacy.

2. The War: The choice between Clinton and McCain on the war is muddled. On the one hand you have McCain who is just fine with policing the world and using as many guns, bombs, and boots as it takes. Clinton voted to authorize the war based on fraudulent intelligence. She could have said "I was duped" and admit her vote was based on lies (like Edwards). In addition, her recent inflammatory vote on Iran tells me that she is yet again going along with the Bush administration's version of intelligence. Fool me once… The choice between Obama and McCain is far clearer. End the war or continue it into perpetuity (ala North Korea). I believe that electing Obama sends a very clear signal to the rest of the world: We are through with the mindset that values an inflammatory, militaristic approach to dealing with the international community.

3. Leadership: I am an ardent feminist who delights in seeing capable women in positions of leadership. However, given Clinton's history battling the Republicans (specifically on healthcare), I doubt kicking down the doors of Congress shouting "I'm baaaack" will earn her much support from a powerful minority. Clinton should be commended on the groundwork she laid for universal healthcare in the 90's, but I don't think she's the one to make it a reality. The Republicans win the perception war on this one. "Hillarycare" is some scary boogie man but the same plan from another candidate is interesting and exciting. My Republican neighbor wanted to vote for Edwards but is scared by Hillary???!!! Edwards is far more progressive than Clinton but she loses the battle because of the "Clinton Pucker". I believe Obama's positions on the issues are more nuanced and attainable in the short term. His leadership style is far more inviting than Clinton's promise to take up her long fight against the Republicans.

I support Barack Obama, MoveOn.org, and the descendants of the 60's leadership who valued peace over For-Profit-War (The Kennedy's, Eisenhower). I voted for John Kerry in 2004, trusting him to run our country, and am moved by his endorsement. We have a chance to be with vanguard rather than the old guard. I hope you will join me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton machine
Posted by: rinpochet on Feb 6, 2008 11:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me that with the Clinton machine and their connections in place for the past ten years or so, it should be a story that they didn't sweep California by a huge margin. Looks like it is about 7%. It is still being counted but the gap is narrowing.


Also of note is that her win in New York was by about 17% and her loss in Illinois was by about 32%. She doesn't even have overwhelming support in her home state.


I doubt that she will be the nominee for the following reason. Her nomination would galvanize the Republican Party like nothing else. They might not come out to vote for McCain but they will come out in hail, rain, hurricanes, floods, torndoes to vote against another 8 years of Clintons in the White House.



Also of note is that the Democratic leadership in Washington is strongly against another 8 years of the Clintons. There is no love lost there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To the Whiners--Get Over It
Posted by: Kym525 on Feb 6, 2008 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either put up or shut up! Either support Hillary or Barack or get ready for four more years of Repugnican rule (which is what I'm beginning to think you losers deserve--the rest of us will just end up suffering for your temper tantrum). You think things are screwed up now, just imagine McCain in office (eek)!

In case you all forgot basic civics class--this still is a government OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people, which means we need to stop looking for our leaders to DO stuff for us and instead MAKE them do what they need to.

Liberals are just as much to blame as conservatives because we allowed asshats like Rush Limburger, Ann "I need food bad" Coulter, Sean Ham-Hannity and Bill "O'Really?" to demonize what being a liberal is. We allowed them to define patriotism and hung our heads in shame as we bought into the whole flag-waving orthodoxy (something Obama didn't do and was taken to task by Ham-Hannity and others). We didn't tell these butt-munches to f*ck off loud and clear until the funerals began and people started seeing this war as something that wasn't going to end the way Rambo movies do. Bottom line, we were afraid to get our hands dirty and play hardball. It's time to grow up and win this by whatever means necessary. Our country's future depends on no more Repugnicans in the White House.

Well, we have the chance to make up for past mistakes by supporting either candidate. It's far more important to get a Democrat in the White House and your petty bickerings don't change that fact. Hillary supported the war and the Patriot Act (bad move), but as her constituents we can make her reverse all of it. The President, Congress and the Senate are beholden to US, not special interests and it's past time that you whiny guys get your collective thumbs out your butts and as Obama said last night "get to work".

Obama baby '08!!! Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No, It's About what WE Want Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Hey, Sweetcheeks! Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Kym525 Forever! Posted by: Longdream
» What are jimjams? Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: What are jimjams? Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Kym525 Forever! Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Kym525 Forever! Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Kym525 Forever! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: foreverhope Forever! Posted by: Longdream
Obama is a class act.
Posted by: samurai on Feb 6, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is a class act. That's why he'll win. He didn't start crying like Hillary and screaming like Blowjob Bill after hitting a bump in the road. The more antics from Billary, the more the backlash. He's done mighty impressive given that the entire Democratic structure is arrayed against him.

Plus, he's not riding someone else's zipper to power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama is a class act. Posted by: Bibsi
» WELL, YOU SURE AREN'T! Posted by: sallythewally
WAR the Real Issue==write letters to the Ed.
Posted by: herbal on Feb 6, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Krugman and most of the mainline press & media are trying to portray health insurance as the only difference between the corporatist Hillary and over conciliatory Obma. Obama accepted the ´pece branch´from Hillary fter the failue of Bill in his negative confrontations. Obama despertely needs to get agressive about his differences in war voting and distinguish himself from warmonger Hillary and her voting record. How dare her attack Obama´s anti war intent!

We internet hacks are only preaching to the choir at this point.

We need to mount a general strike at Hillary by writing to the editors of small and large newspapers in the states with upcoming primaries.

Write today, esp. with those who are in those states. Get them out today to avert a disaster of the Clinton alliance with Geo Bush Sr, Rupert Murdoch, CITI Bank, etc. etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MW and West for Obama
Posted by: newrule7 on Feb 6, 2008 2:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama crushed Clinton in the middle of the country and in the West.

Look at these % margins for Obama:

Colorado 67 to 32

Idaho 79 to 17

Kansas 74 to 26

Minnesota 48 to 24

North Dakota 61 to 37

Utah 57 to 39

Alaska 75 to 25

Hillary won NY, MA, and CA, but these blue states will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in November. The states that Obama won will clearly not support Hillary over McCain! ... Oh, and she did win Arizona, McCain's home state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MW and West for Obama Posted by: paradisoxylum
War: the Real Issue == write letters to Ed.
Posted by: herbal on Feb 6, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Krugman and other mainline press & media are trying to portray health insurance as the only perceptible difference between the corporatist Hillary and the conciliator Obama. Obama has accepted the ´peace branch´from Hillary when he desperately needs to be more agressive about the war issue that distinguishes him from WAR.

We must mount a grand effort to write letters to the editors of large and small newspapers in the upcoming primary states to warn people that Hillary is a warmonger Bush supporter. At this point we internet hacks are only preaching to the choir!

Write now to head off this disaster of a Clinton who will bring only more of Bill´s foreign policy and alliance with Bush=Cheney Empire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Whoever Raises the Most Cash Wins" from CNBC and Wall Street
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 6, 2008 2:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNBC and Wall Street have it right. They know that whoever can raise the most cash will win. This they said on CNBC not long ago. Now, Obama did raise about $30 mil last month, but Hillary is still ahead of him. Obama's message and promises will either be acceptable to the banks and big business or the money won't come. Hillary, so far is more acceptable. She still has more cash. They also said Romney could outdo McCain but he would have to dip into his personal fortune, and he does not want to do so. Finally, this is how the outcome and who is President is now decided in America. Get over this stuff about one person having a better message or something. Whoever has the cash will rule the airwaves and will rule what all the news organizations put out. And, they will rule America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm afraid you are right Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Very happy to send Obama my money Posted by: foreverhope
» ROFLMAO at Faux News! Posted by: foreverhope
Obama versus Hillary
Posted by: Ingarose on Feb 6, 2008 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading all of the comments I have come to the conclusion that we are still a racist, sexist society.

What we should really concentrate on, is who can beat McCain. It will not be Hillary with all her baggage. She talks a good line but nothing she says comes from the heart. Obama on the other hand does move people.

But, after all we elected Bush twice and we may just elect Hillary so war monger McCain can win the presidency.

When, oh, when will we finally learn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama versus Hillary Posted by: Kym525
Corporate approved candidates
Posted by: Missing Piece on Feb 6, 2008 5:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that all we have left to vote for. Why do we let corporations decide who we are going to vote for when they spend millions every year to lobby politians. I don't know about you, but it looks like a huge conflict of interest.

There is one exception though, Ron Paul has been able to stay in most debates even though he speaks the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

-Yeeeeeeehaaaawwww!
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 6, 2008 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go Kym!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: -Yeeeeeeehaaaawwww! Posted by: foreverhope
Bratty Response
Posted by: paradisoxylum on Feb 6, 2008 9:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think you are demonstrating how civilised you are laying out illogical, angry, and irrational commentary. Also, why are you even commenting on the campaign if you are so happy elsewhere. Be comfortable with your own choice and live your life elsewhere. If you don't have anything left for USA then USA has nothing left for you. Good luck to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, IT is OVER
Posted by: Propaganda...Noise on Feb 6, 2008 10:20 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For whichever of these bogus corporate Mafia drones wins the Dem election, to "compete" with corporate robot McCaine, America is the one that loses.

Bigtime.

We lose to a completely sham, unending "war on terror", no real healthcare reform, no real economic or political reform and no real future for America.

And those results are why these corporate stooges were handpicked and MSM presented to blow hot wind up the nation's backside.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, IT is OVER Posted by: Longdream
A more Nuanced Analysis
Posted by: samurai on Feb 7, 2008 12:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beyond the overt LBJ and Jesse references:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oRwZQLdhEw
'SPADE WORK' (clinton racist code words)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Raised More Than Hillary Borrowed
Posted by: foreverhope on Feb 7, 2008 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Wednesday, Sen. Clinton revealed she had loaned herself $5 million to keep her campaign afloat.

Late Wednesday, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe released the following letter via email to supporters with the subject line "Startling News:"

Friend —

I was writing a note to you about the state of the race after Super Tuesday when we got some startling news.

The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.

This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgement that our campaign has the momentum. We saw undeniable evidence of that last night as the results came in.

Barack Obama won the most states and the most delegates on February 5th.

We have gotten to this point thanks to an unprecedented outpouring of support from ordinary Americans.

To date, more than 650,000 people like you have taken ownership of this campaign, giving whatever they can afford.

The Clinton infusion of $5 million — and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million — will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.

Thanks to you, we have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice — we must match their $5 million right now.

Just two weeks ago we were behind by double-digits in many of the states that voted yesterday, but Barack won 13 states to 8 states for Hillary Clinton, with one state (New Mexico) still counting votes.

This is an enormous victory, and it's all thanks to you.

We won yesterday because thousands upon thousands of individual supporters canvassed their neighborhoods, talked to their neighbors and friends, and made phone calls to remind their fellow supporters to get out the vote.

And we accomplished all of this with a campaign funded by ordinary people giving only what they can afford.

Yesterday was proof that America is ready for change — and that you are the force to make that change happen.

But there's still a long way to go before Barack becomes the Democratic nominee. In the next week alone, six more states will hold their primaries and caucuses.

We need to match this $5 million personal contribution from the Clintons immediately and put these resources to work in the states that will vote next.

Here are some details about yesterday's historic victory. According to official results and exit polls:

Barack won 2-to-1 in traditionally conservative states where Democrats are hungry for a nominee who can change the map and help Democrats up and down the ticket win in November

Our winning coalition included Americans of every race, background, and gender — including 64% of women in Georgia

We scored wins in every region of the country — New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the West

Americans had a clear choice to make yesterday, and they chose Barack Obama.

Now let's match this $5 million and take this campaign into the next stage.

Thank you,

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something Upsetting
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 7, 2008 6:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I don't think it's going to happen.

I listen to Mark Thompson's show just about every evening on SIRIUS satellite radio. The channel is SIRIUS Left.

Mark is an African-American minister, a civil rights activist, lots of good background. His show is a call-in show, and a really thoughtful listen. Usually makes me think.

Tonight he had as a guest an African-American gay man who hosts another talk show on SIRIUS. He's anti-Obama because of the two gospel singers he was on tour with who are outspokenly anti-gay, whom he didn't remove after he was told about it.

I'm busily grumbling and formulating my rebuts to this in my mind, when Mark Thompson reminded his listeners that it isn't for someone who isn't the object of discrimination to disparage the feelings of someone who is.

He's very cautious about Obama's chances to go all the way, because of the level of racism that still exists in the south, and in establishment politics. He reminds us about how Jesse Jackson was frozen out of the Conventions in 1984 and 1988, and how it caused a lot of anger in the black community, and how black folks stayed home after that.

He's afraid that Obama will ultimately receive the same treatment, and that it will cause the young folks, and many of the black and brown and white folks who would have voted for him to stay home in anger and in protest.

This isn't me saying this, mind, but Thompson, whom I respect. I'd like to know what other people think about it. Has the world turned since 1988? Is Obama different? Could that scenario happen?

Kym?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Anything could happen Kym Posted by: foreverhope
» Anything could happen LONGDREAM! Posted by: foreverhope
Concered Republican
Posted by: ConcernedRepublican on Feb 8, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush spoke to a boisterous crowd shortly after 7 a.m. EST. The ballroom erupted in cheers when someone shouted "Are there conservatives in the house?" When the president walked on stage, they clapped and chanted "Four more years! Four more years!"...sounds awfully familiar, kind of like the same rhetoric right before we elected George W. for his second term... that led us into the recession we are now facing.. OBAMA 2008!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feds and Obama
Posted by: kathaksung on Feb 8, 2008 4:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
536. Feds and Obama (2/3/08)

It seems Feds has a deal with Obama and chooses him as the most favorite of Demo candidate.

1. Mercury News - a tool of Feds - recommends: Barack Obama as Demo candidate and John McCain as GOP candidate. That's not a decision based on opinion or policy but on Feds' intention. John McCain is famous for his "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.". If Mercury News is anti-war, then it should have picked up Ron Paul. But it chooses a warmonger. Then why it picks up Obama in Demo instead of Clinton?

2. From Republican's platform, Obama is easier to be defeat than Clinton. So they would rather have Obama as their rival. Or in another word, it will be more reasonable to defeat Obama in a rigged election. Obama may represent mainstream public opinion. So what. Ron Paul has a more distinctive flag, hasn't Feds successfully put him at the bottom? With same tactic they can easily defeat Obama. Justify it as Americans are not ready for a black president.

3. Even if Obama wins. He is easier to be manipulated than Hillary. Hillary, backed by a huge Demo party machine, has to take care of the interest of the Demo Party more or less. Obama is a new berry. He has not that burden. He will satisfy Feds demand more than to his party.

4. Bush is awarded by two terms of US President because he loyally carries out the policy of Feds. DOJ got Patriot Act and warrantless eavesdropping, DOD got fat budget and war. Feds got their own representative as their head: Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Mukasy. This time, when they failed to get Edwards as Demo president candidate, they have him as their future head - Attorney General.

Quote, "Attorney General Edwards?

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

A.G. Edwards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support Obama
Posted by: lusiton on Feb 9, 2008 6:41 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad that so many people support Obama. He is the only one who can unite the country and get us out of Iraq.
www.yourdecision08.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» For crying out loud,.... Posted by: sallythewally
» RE: For crying out loud,.... Posted by: foreverhope
Red State Amerika, who gave us Bush, KNOWS a GOP decoy when they see one
Posted by: xbj on Feb 9, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank GOD for super delegates with brains and discernment... that's all I have to say about it, and that says it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barack sounds like a Reverend
Posted by: Greatdameinthemorning on Feb 11, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I attended a Barack Obama rally over the weekend and I thought I was in church? Is this man really going to be able to create change in Washington? I don't this so; this kind of theological rhetoric is best served behind the pulpit not in politics. I was waiting to hear what he will do for this country; but never heard anything more than hope inspiration, dreams, and of course change.

As a young person I'm really getting bored with this theological idea of change, I want to hear something more concrete and competitive.

I've got the idea of change now I want to know how he will precede in making it happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Post Primary Rally Location
Posted by: Lisbond on Feb 11, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone know where Obama will hold his post Feb 12th primary rally?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement