Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

Election 2008

Get Ready for a Rougher, Fiercer Democratic Race

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted March 5, 2008.


The fight between Obama and Clinton gets nastier as Clinton makes accusations of cheating in Texas primary.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., won the Republican Party presidential nomination Tuesday, while the contest for the Democratic nomination continued with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., losing several contests while apparently sustaining his 100-delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. An Obama sweep would have ended his party's contest.

McCain won in all four states voting Tuesday -- Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island -- and as a result had 1,195 delegates, according to CNN, four more than were needed to secure the GOP nomination.

"Now, we begin the most important part of our campaign," McCain said, "to make a respectful, determined and convincing case to the American people that our campaign and my election as president, given the alternatives presented by our friends in the other party, are in the best interests of the country we love."

On the Democratic side, the unofficial returns suggested that the winner in Texas would not be known until Wednesday, due to that state's mix of primary voting during the day and party caucuses at night. With 74 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Obama 50.6 percent to 47.6 percent. Two-thirds of Texas' 193 pledged and 35 unpledged delegates are awarded in primary voting, where Clinton led by 62,000 votes.

The final third are awarded in caucuses, where Obama was said to be better-organized and where the Clinton campaign accused Obama of cheating Tuesday night. In the earliest caucus returns, Obama was ahead 56.2 percent to 43.7 percent.

Clinton's victories were her first in the 12 contests since Super Tuesday in February. Speaking to her supporters in Columbus, Ohio, she pledged to keep campaigning until she wins the nomination.

"As Ohio goes, so goes the nation," Clinton said. "This nation is coming back and so is this campaign. ... The people of Ohio have spoken loudly and clearly. We are going on. We're going strong, and we're going all the way."

Meanwhile, Obama was in San Antonio, Texas, where he said he would be the nominee.

"We are in the middle of a very close race in Texas. We may not even know the final results until morning," Obama said. "We know this; no matter what happens tonight, we have nearly the same number of delegates we had this morning, and we are on our way to winning this nomination."

Obama responded to criticism from both Clinton and McCain.

"We want a new course for this country. We want new leadership in Washington. We want change in America. John McCain and Hillary Clinton have echoed each other in saying this call for change is empty," he said.

"That is the course we seek," he added. "If I am the nominee, I will not allow us to be distracted by the same politics that seeks to divide us with false charges and meaningless labels."

A new phase begins

The March 4 contests mark the end of one phase of the campaign where the candidates have had many contests in quick succession. Now, as Clinton and Obama look ahead to primaries in Wyoming and Mississippi on March 8 and 11, respectively, and to Pennsylvania on April 22, Democratic Party officials will assess if Clinton can win enough delegates to secure the nomination.

In order to do so, Clinton must win by large margins -- 60 percent or more -- in all the remaining states. She went into Tuesday's vote 100 delegates behind Obama. Unlike the GOP's winner-take-all contests, the Democratic Party awards delegates proportionately. Thus, Clinton's rebound on Tuesday may have revived her campaign, but the apparently close finish in Texas will not significantly help her cut Obama's lead. Previously, Bill Clinton said she needed to win both states by large margins to be competitive.

Still, in her remarks to supporters in Columbus and in conference calls by her staffers earlier in the day, Clinton pledged to keep campaigning until she wins.

"If we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win battleground states like Ohio," Clinton said, citing victories in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, New Hampshire, California, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

Clinton's declarations of victories in Florida and Michigan are controversial. The Democratic National Committee stripped those states of delegates for holding early, unauthorized primaries. Whether those states will seat delegations or hold new contests is a looming fight. While Clinton and Obama pledged not to campaign there last summer, she stayed on the ballot and won both states -- and now wants those delegates to count. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot.

"When Hillary Clinton has a fair chance, with adequate resources, she wins," said Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, speaking before Clinton at her Tuesday victory rally. He was alluding to the fact that Obama outspent Clinton in Ohio and Texas before the Tuesday votes. "Let her continue this fight. ... Let all the people have a chance to vote before we end this contest."


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

See more stories tagged with: texas, ohio, election08, barack obama, john mccain, hillary clinton, vermont, rhode island, 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:
The Clintons Don't Care
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 5, 2008 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They don't care about America, the Democratic Party, the Progressive movement or anything other than their own lust for power. I hate to sound so harsh, but I am astonished at how many people are stupid enough to vote for the stealth Republican in a pantsuit.

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

» RE: The Clintons Don't Care Posted by: beauley
» RE: The Clintons Don't Care Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: The Clintons Don't Care Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: HILLARY Doesn't Care Posted by: TarryFaster
» The Clintons Are Both Nuts Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Clinton's WON Big-Blue's Posted by: Andie927
Leadership Matters
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Mar 5, 2008 12:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shrillery Clinton's aggressive, hardball tactics illustrate well why she shouldn't be president. At a time when we face crises in the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the environment and healthcare we need someone who can unite people, build consensus and achieve results. Clinton is wonkish and has pretty good command of the issues, but her in-your-face style precludes effectiveness. While it might work for a dictator, or dictator-wannabe like Bush, it won't help the country. She failed spectacularly at healthcare reform for precisely this reason. It's not enough to judge politicians on their positions on issues; leadership is important, and it's something that Obama has and Clinton hasn't.

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

» Wisdom is a gift and it matters Posted by: foreverhope
» "I" versus "WE" Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Obama Leadership???? Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Obama Leadership???? Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Leadership Matters Posted by: bneely
» RE: Leadership Matters Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Leadership Matters Posted by: texshelters
Say what?
Posted by: LeReveur on Mar 5, 2008 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can someone please find out the truth here? I read this blog several hours ago. Now AlterNet is reporting the opposite situation?

Opposite story?

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

» RE: Say what? Posted by: nochicagoboys
She dug her own grave
Posted by: g50 on Mar 5, 2008 12:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She had all of last year as the presumptive nominee. She had the luxury of defining herself and the course of her "inevitable" presidency. I still liked her back then. Then she hit one bump in the road and everything fell apart, and she started flailing. That was when I saw her true colors come out. I didn't like what I saw.

She always said, she was fighting because the Republican attack machine was breathing down her neck. I believed her and cheered her on because yea, the Republicans are nasty. When she started turning that on her own party - not just Obama, but Edwards too, if you recall - I started thinking "why is she attacking Democrats instead of saying why she is good?" She could have spoke about anything: why she was inspired back in the day to get into politics; what she learned in Arkansas & saw as First Lady; being New York senator. She could have eschewed that and articulated her ideas about America & democracy. She could have done the rhetorical work now to envision her presidency. Instead, it was schizophrenic alternating between all fight mode, all the time, and all arrogant inevitability. I get the sense she is addicted to combativeness. And after the 1990s and the sex scandal, after the last 8 years, I don't have another calorie of energy to devote to fighting just to fight. Why would we need to, when it seems to me this has been a golden alignment: the Republicans widely discredited, Democrats in Congress with a majority and a unique opportunity to win as many as 6-10 Senate seats, plus the chance for a landslide with a unified and upbeat Democratic electorate. We don't need to fight when the other team can't get its act together - we need to focus on what we'll do.

But what did she do when she had the spotlight and throughout 2007 was practically crowned the nominee? She quickly and deftly proved to a majority of Democrats that everything the Republicans had been saying about the Clintons for so long was true - they are only self-serving, they will sell out their friends, their principles & their political allies to benefit themselves. She didn't talk vision. She talked as if the only thing we care about is what the Clintons are up to, how the Clintons are doing, oh and are the Clintons winning the fight?

Now where are we? We've divided our party and made our prospects for winning much dimmer than even a few months ago. And given Barack's easygoing manner - ie even given his confidence such that he seems like he could lose and be happy with the result, versus her try-or-die - this venomous tone & trend toward disunity comes squarely from the Clinton camp. It was her choice. Why does having hope that we can be better by being good have to get dissed? Bringing people together on the basis of what we have in common is worthy of mockery why? Why is the orator's gift of resonating with people a liability? Sure, it's politics, but she's pissing all over the aspirations of young people who are going to have to inherit the utter mess of the baby boomer's have made. Self-indulgent baby boomers like her. Not all of them, but the ones that are like her. I mean, what's her game plan? Prove that the nastiest & lowest road wins, and then expect that to lift the spirits of a nation that is kind of in a funk? What I mean is, presented with the opportunity to lead, she has instead just looped us back into everything that got us all down in the first place.

I hate having to consider not voting Democrat - I want to be a team player. But its so messed up, that she is tearing the team apart so she can be captain, that I am supposed to support the team only if she wins? It seems like abuse, and I don't like being put in this position. This schizophrenic, Clinton psychodrama, fight fight fight, never grace under pressure, it has me feeling disgusted when I see her come on screen. Couldn't she have congratulated Barack on Vermont? Not even a morsel of class?

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

» RE: She dug her own grave Posted by: Lauren
» RE: She dug her own grave Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: She dug her own grave Posted by: lkagy
» RE: She dug her own grave Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com
» RE: Obama's Devisive! Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Obama's Devisive! Posted by: g50
» The right thing? Posted by: texshelters
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 5, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shillary or SmoovB

That's it?


Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

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

babalouie
Posted by: nonbeliverdooda123 on Mar 5, 2008 1:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop the music- hold the phone demos in congress are rubber stamping dreaded bushie wiretapping and unconstitutonal invasion of privacy laws while pruporting to be offering an alternative- check out the latest from your tax dollars in action- site limitations rejects this link to Washington Post story on the big telcom actors ATT and Verizon given federal protection on lawsuites for invasion of privacy for international emails and phone conversations - a very serious constitutional infrigement- enabled by both political parties.

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

» RE: babalouie Posted by: Lauren
» RE: babalouie Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: babalouie Posted by: Lauren
» RE: babalouie Posted by: nochicagoboys
» I give you a ten! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: I give you a ten! Posted by: nochicagoboys
HILLARY IS THE NEW BUSH
Posted by: atomic on Mar 5, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can see right through her campaign. I swear Karl Rove is working to get her elected president. A secret deal most likely made to keep the former traitors using the White House as a criminal epicenter, from being rounded up and burned in the street by real patriots. Hillary keeps claiming victory in Florida. This is a sickening political stunt. Her campaign keeps repeating this lie and pretty soon people think she really did win in Florida. Obama was not even on the ballet in Florida, so technically nobody won Florida. It's a sign just how disingenuous and desperate Hillary and her backers are. I'm sorry to see so many people flock to her. She is a fake Democrat just like Leiberman ... better yet Hillary is the New Bush.

From one dynasty to the next the shadow elite will stop at nothing. Over a million dead in Iraq, an invasion Hillary authorized and continued to support Bush 15 times. The bankruptcy bill that favors bank profits over destitute families ... she voted for it on the side of big banking. So much for her tingly "I'm going to help you" family side. (the calculated liar) ...

Bill Clinton has clearly gone over to the dark side as well or maybe he's always been there and we were all just too stupid to really get it ... he's taken to screaming at citizens that want 911 investigated which is way past due given the shoddy lies the Bush murderers have dumped on the public about it. He always was more of a Republican than a Democrat ... I think the right wing attacked him so his for the people credentials would remain in tact. Whatever glow of giving a shit he had has completely worn off. God forbid the people should figure out the parties don't mean shit.

Man we are so screwed here. The shadow elite can murder our own citizens either in a false flag terror event like 911 or in trumped up lies that take us to war where thousands are blown to bits .... it's all the same lies for power and greed, Wars fought for the elite not to protect us but to enrich them and make them more powerful. And we just beg for more ... please take away our rights and make us remove everything so we can get on a plane .... please give us more death and dismemberment. And don't forget to punish anyone who dares question authority ... or our right to send our own children to their slaughter based on a pack of lies. Bunch of fat over consuming pustules oozing stupid and sucking at the air for more pitiful brainwashing and lies and punishment. We don't deserve a real vibrant Democracy ... instead we have a screaming nightmare circus side show where everything is an opinion and facts are laughed at. Insanity brought to you by your local greedy sponsor.

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

» RE: HILLARY IS THE NEW BUSH Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: HILLARY IS THE NEW BUSH Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
Harvard or Yale , Yale or Harvard ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 5, 2008 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is little to separate these two. Clinton is more militaristic , Obama more vague.

On one point however they are polar opposites, and that is the future and the past. Obama has ignited the youth, the future of the party.

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

On the bright side
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Mar 5, 2008 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Clinton nomination could give the green party real traction.

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

» RE: On the bright side Posted by: Lauren
» RE: On the bright side Posted by: g50
» RE: On the bright side Posted by: meganlangreck
» RE: On the bright side Posted by: DreamFast
» Hopefully we all will! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Clinton "wins," yet Obama still leads
Posted by: Krotos on Mar 5, 2008 2:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love how the media are spinning tonight's results as some huge victory for Hillary Clinton when, in fact, Obama still has a solid lead in pledged delegates, and probably will continue to do so unless Clinton wins by margins of 60% or more in the remaining states. The only realistic strategy Clinton has for securing the Democratic nomination is to win through the superdelegates, thereby making an utter mockery of the very name of her party.

And if she slithers to the nomination that way, she can forget about the support of me and many, many other progressive voters in November. In fact, the Democratic Party can forget about my support in pretty much any race at any level for at least the next decade or two.

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

Get "Ready" for Some Really Bad Theater
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Mar 5, 2008 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Cause none of this is for real.

Hillary and Obama (ditto McCain) are owned by the same corporate monopolists that run DC and the media. And it shows in their voting records and in every excuse they make for endless, phony "war on terror" genocide, a predatory corporate economic policy, fraudulent healthcare, blind AIPAC support, etc, etc.

This is just more of the same Kool-Aid under cheap new moves and empty feel-good slogans.

Anyone that buys such low rent carnival barking on the basis of gender and skin color should be ashamed of themselves.

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

A Fighter Is Just What We Need Now
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Mar 5, 2008 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is exactly what I like about Hillary.

Al Gore and John Kerry were so very nice in the way they let George W Bush and his Republican friends walk all over them, but Hillary actually fights back!

I think Obama is also very nice. He might make a fine president, but he is too nice to win. Flowery talk won't get the job done when Karl Rove is sticking a knife in your gut (politically speaking, of course).

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

» Uhh...Like she fought Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Just an Observation ....
Posted by: namaste on Mar 5, 2008 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see on this site that if you are for Obama your comments get a ranking of 5 and if you are for Hilary or support neither you get nil or 3. Please do not besmirch the voice of others that do not dance to your drum - this has been the problem in America for some time and it is what kept Bush in power. Every voice is beautiful and deserves to be at least heard and accounted.

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

» RE: Just an Observation .... Posted by: namaste
» Why would that even matter to you? Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: Just an Observation .... Posted by: left_libertarian
» Ranking Posted by: namaste
Hillary: getting dirty gets results.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 5, 2008 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So much for the effort at positive campaigning and discussing the issues that mattered to the U.S. public. By digging in and attacking Obama using various dirty tactics (Canadians?), Clinton has shown that negative campaigning will be her stock in trade from here on out.

The fact is, Republicans have wanted Clinton as the Democratic nominee ever since day one. She energizes the Republican bases and de-energizes the independents, who look at a Hillary-McCain matchup as just four more years of the same generally pro-corporate, pro-globalization, pro-wealth, anti-poor, anti-union and anti-environmental policies of the past ten years.

In reality, John Edwards would have been the best Democratic candidate. Obama is second best, and Hillary probably means handing the presidency to the Republicans -at least, that's their last, great hope for keeping control of the White House.

See the current polling for predicted matchups:

Obama vs. McCain (Obama by 5%)

Clinton vs. McCain (tie)

WIth a close election, the Republicans will be counting on Diebold to swing the votes their way without getting caught, and it'll be four more years of BushCo.

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

My best bud in high school is a staunch conservative....
Posted by: cisc on Mar 5, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he will never accept Hillary as his President. Of course, he thinks it is down right unAmerican of me to feel the same way about the war criminal. I am not looking forward to another 51%er. A few people told me that reasonabley intelligent people told them they would not vote for Obama because he is a sleeper cell muslim, all three of them got angry and asked them how they could be so stupid. The three in the morning add was downright Cheneyesqe. The switch and bait racist whisper campaign is Rovian. I will NEVER vote for four more years of Bush. If Obama makes it, it will be without my state (Ohio), how embarrassing. I also live in a most conservative county, where they do not send their sons to their war. Ohio apparently has not suffered enough.

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

» RE: But Clinton Voted For the Iraq War and Posted by: left_libertarian
None of the Above
Posted by: ronheri on Mar 5, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All three remaining candidates are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and have CFR advisors. Obama's foreign policy advisor is none other then Zbigniew Brezinsk. (former Jimmy Carter advisor and current Illummanitti official. The Clinton's have both been said to have attended Bilderberger meetings, where the most powerful people from around the world hold secret meetings to discuss their global agenda. Those readers who are'nt knowlegeable about those three New World Order groups need to do some investigating. Hillary had a cash infusion of 35 million from corporate-America in February alone, and even topped McCain in donations from the Miliary-Industrial complex.

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

» RE: None of the Above Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The Illuminati don't exist... Posted by: richholland
Why not say "The Dem Race has Become More Spirited, more democratic, more interesting"??"
Posted by: odcherenow on Mar 5, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm beyond tired of this formal (press) and informal (blog) media "spin" on this wonderful, exciting and democratic process. We have two great candidates who are giving the US public a great show of democracy in action.
Stop whining, BASTA!

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

» Wait a minute! Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Wait a minute! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Wait a minute! Posted by: mainspark
It's on to Denver
Posted by: mike1997 on Mar 5, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First; a bias alert. I was an Edwards supporter who switched to Obama when Edwards bowed out.

Here is how I see the rest of the race. Obama will win in Wy. and MS but not by the large margins we have seen in the past- the Clintons have learned from that mistake. Clinton will win in PA in April and then it's on to the May primaries. She will win in WV and KY and will be within about 60 delegates of Obama. MI and FL will get do over primaries or caucuses. Hilary will win Fl easily and will get a close win in MI pulling her within easy striking distance of Obama but now quite catching her. Then its on to Denver for some huge floor fights and a real roll call vote.

And the winner is..........................

John McCain!

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

The Democrats are going to blow it!
Posted by: sausage on Mar 5, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be frank, if Hillary Clinton does not get the presidential nomination she, and her husband, feels she is entitled to, I speculate that her campaign will instigate a scorched-earth policy designed to cripple a Barack Obama run on the White House.

The bottomline is, the longer the Democratic nomination process drags out the more rancorous and bitter will grow the division between Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council and the Dr. Howard Dean-lead, "democratic-wing of the Democratic Party" faction. The DLC, with its aristocratic pretentions, is prepared to hunker down and wait for 2012. A McCain presidency in DLC circles, I believe, is preferable to an insurgent Obama, who in reality is no more radical than a John Edwards or Chris Dodd, since there is little doctrinal distinction between the Arizona Republican and your average DLC signatory.

Of course looking at the bright side a McCain presidency may just hasten the revolution written about by Sara Robinson and posted here February 22.

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

» Don't ask me. Posted by: sausage
» RE: Don't ask me. Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Don't ask me. Posted by: improperly_sedated
Clinton won with the Limbaugh Republican vote.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Mar 5, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the last week Rush Limbaugh has been exhorting his radio listeners, many of whom are rabid Hillary-haters, to cross over and vote for her in Texas and Ohio.

This is because:
1. They see her as easier for McCain to beat.
2. If she wins, they get Bush Lite with the bonus of having the Clintons to savage for another four years. Combine this with the inevitable Bush recession, which they will blame on her, and they will be set for another reign of terror in four years.

This is a real problem for Democrats - it means Republicans can throw the election for the weaker Democratic candidate.

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

De Javu
Posted by: ImSwiss on Mar 5, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am getting that sinking feeling I had when John Kerry lost and when Al Gore lost and when Howard Dean lost. We can't seen to elect good people in America. Attacks, fear mongering and triangulation work every time. If she wins I will not vote.

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

» RE: De Javu Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: De Javu and not voting Posted by: freshlemon
» RE: De Javu and not voting Posted by: Figfest
» RE: De Javu and not voting Posted by: freshlemon
» Just what I was thinking! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: De Javu Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
Never again
Posted by: rdemocracy@comcast.net on Mar 5, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not sure who Hillary believes herself to be, but I will not bow to my liberal master, if she thinks that she can bully, and lie her way to the Democratic nominee, thats ok,but she'd better hope that she has enough Democratic support to put her in the White House,because come November me and all of my post racial relatives and friends will be turning to the party of Lincoln, and the only other qualified politician in the race McCain

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

» RE: Never again Posted by: freshlemon
The eyes of Texas
Posted by: solrev on Mar 5, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton could do nothing more than split Texas; this frees up the super delegates to back Obama and Clinton will come under intense pressure to back off. The supers need to tell Clinton they are going to swing to Obama before she throws the national election to McCain. Clinton needs to remember that she is running for President not commander and chief. If she continues to make the argument that we need a hawk like her on day one to protect us, the old war dog McCain wins that argument. Clinton can not win a national election the independents will not settle for a repuk lite. If the old-line super demons, somehow swing the nomination to her that may well signal the end of the demon party, which may be the best thing that can happen. None of the candidates have a clue about what to do with the domestic policy, that, is why we are going to run on our foreign war policy. On the domestic front McCain tells the people of Michigan that their jobs will not come back. However, he will train them for the new economy. They can learn how to raise his kids, make his bed, mow his grass, serve his food, wait a minute that is why we have illegal aliens. The demons talk about trade policy but they only see the result of current policy but no solutions are offered. Clinton will dump money into infrastructure and some green energy; however, one can not build an economy based on welfare jobs. I am not sure what Obama has proposed. There is no doubt that Obama would be the best foreign policy President. We need to get out of the warrior mentality. Iran has been dying to become our ally ever since we destroyed their democracy. While you may not believe this, but in the space-time continuum it is time for Islam to be made whole again. Iran and Iraq can do this with a little help from Obama. While that may not be Obama’s goal, this is going to happen. I am putting my money on Obama.

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

» RE: The eyes of Texas Posted by: mkdelta69
Politics as ususal - No real change here
Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com on Mar 5, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep it up HRC. The Democrats are well on their way to losing the White House again. Why? Because the Republicans and Independents that are voting for Obama will not vote for Hillary. I'm one of them and I'm sure I'm not alone.
HRC is the same old "win at all costs" politician I am disgusted with. If she is the Democratic nominee, or if voters hold their nose and elect her as president, I have no confidence that she will deliver jobs, health care or end the war as promised. McCain might just as well be president because the troops will not come home in either case.

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

Ethics Matter Most
Posted by: snax on Mar 5, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just keep asking myself who I would trust more to follow the law: A person who continually attempts to alter the processes and rules to her advantage after the contest has already begun, or the person who won't let her get away with it?

I have no problem with voting for Clinton, but she has given me absolutely no reason to believe that she can be trusted to do anything she says or play by the rules. Obama represents an opportunity for a breakout from the status quo. Hillary, perhaps inadvertently, continually suggests the opposite approach.

No thanks!

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

» RE: thics Matter Most Posted by: mkdelta69
» RE: thics Matter Most Posted by: babs
» RE: thics Matter Most Posted by: snax
Unite or die
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Mar 5, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless this populace gets a clue and unites against the republicans at all costs, we will definitely get war, corruption and go straight down the tubes. Democrats, if given half a chance will change at least some things.

All things (like a third party, a Green Party or getting rid of the crooks and fundies running the country now (90% Repub)all these things take time.

Are you willing to wait until the mud clears and the waters settle? Tao te Ching.

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

Quit crying girlymen
Posted by: mkdelta69 on Mar 5, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quit crying. Politics is a dirty game. Exactly why religion shouldn't get involved directly.

When your supposed to represent all the people but you have powerful interests guarding the gates, you have to be a POLITICIAN. Thats why their not running for SAINT. And you may have to do and say things to move in that direction.

You support the best candidate that you believe can achieve the best for the country or your the Group Of Pigs who vote greed, war and aristocracy.

Too much crying about politics while using the same tactics. Harry and Loise against Clinton's health care plan is perfect example.

Quit crying and lets get the best candidate.

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

» RE: Quit crying girlymen Posted by: texshelters
Obama Should Run An AD
Posted by: desidid on Mar 5, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of Hillary answering the phone at 3:00 am mispronouncing the name of Russia's new president, then saying whatever, and ask is this really the person you want answering the phone?

As for the Florida and Michigan primaries, if they should be reheld, many democrats will realize that she is going to hijack the nomination regardless of what rules have to be broken. Edwards and Obama honored the party by not campaigning in those states. Not only will a do-over cost the taxpayers, it takes the teeth out of DNC leadership. Further it will disillusion the many new voters who came into these primaries believing in change.

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

» RE: Obama Should Run An AD Posted by: Tom Holum
JOHN L.
Posted by: JOHN L. on Mar 5, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I would dearly Love to see a woman or black win the presidency -Or green/pink/polkadotted/gay/atheist/what ever, _having worked and fought for all, for all people and peoples my entire adult life...

Not these two.

In a nutshell, both are eager, enthusiastic members of the Twinned Capitalist Parties.The parties that always side with corporate supremacy over both labor and consumer, war over peace, law over justice, rich over poor, until relatively recently, have overwhelmingly endorsed white supremacy and male domination, and continue to do so only marginaly reduced.

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

JFK
Posted by: mkdelta69 on Mar 5, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at all the dishonest positions and statements in his administration. What a politician has to do to advance an agenda, keeping in mind that their are counterforces to that agenda.

They are running as politicians, not rock stars or saints.

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

New people into process
Posted by: mkdelta69 on Mar 5, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean the ones that never materialized for Gore, Kerry or Bill Bradley?

When push comes to shove they tend NOT TO SHOW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

» umm, dude... Posted by: hurricane hugo
goHIllary
Posted by: tbpmom56 on Mar 5, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yea BabY !
Hillary took OHIO becuase we have serious econmomic issues here, and not just working-class, but college-educated people believe she is the best qualified and most competent candidate to take on such horrendous problems that George, Dick, et al will be leaving behind.
I like that Hillary is taking the men of power and spin on--- that is more than John kerry and Al Gore did.
HIllary all the WAY in 08!!! OH-IO

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

» RE: goHIllary Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: goHIllary Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: goHIllary Posted by: Figfest
» RE: goHIllary Posted by: babs
» Ohioans have short memories Posted by: meetmeineleusis
Aw, C'mon Hillary!
Posted by: Guster4321 on Mar 5, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I support a woman's (and man's) right to choose....their nominee for President. (and lots of other things.) But I'm really frustrated with what's going on here. A big part of me wishes that voters would just understand where the majority of the nation stands (with Obama...even if its a slight majority) and go that way, because he's MUCH harder to beat than Hillary. And more important than Barack or Hillary taking the White House, is a DEMOCRAT taking the White House, and Barack Obama gives us the best shot at that. But of course the other part of me understands that everyone has a right to choose their candidate, and it would be politically and civilly irresponsible not to make that choice when the time comes.

I'm not sure, it confuses me. But in the meantime, I've written a touch more on the subject here so feel free to take a look. Keep in mind it's facetious and supposed to be humorous.

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

» RE: Aw, C'mon Hillary! Posted by: marizara
» RE: Aw, C'mon Hillary! Posted by: Guster4321
A Hillary Obama ticket is the answer!
Posted by: arieden on Mar 5, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary should make a deal with Barack: she goes one term and then it's his turn in 4 years - he'll still be young and will have more expereince.
I think it is a wonderful compromise for all.

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

Hardball Hillary
Posted by: Quasar on Mar 5, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I don't buy any of the arguments put forth by Clinton, I do think that she has forced Obama to play insider hardball to win.

I trust that he will rise to the challenge like he has to everything other challenge thus far. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with.

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

If Billary gets the dem nomination...
Posted by: zooeyhall on Mar 5, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm just going to stay home on election day and watch a couple of DVD movies.

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

» RE: zooeyhall, no!!! Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: zooeyhall, no!!! Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: zooeyhall, no!!! Posted by: PumbyUmpkin
» RE: But Obama's NOT Devisive!! Posted by: Andie927
No Hollywood Ending? What? Me Worry?
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 5, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, kiddies. The media treat elections as horse races. Hollywood treats life as a horse race. "And they lived/died happily ever after." No, we cannot now go home and forget about what is at stake, because it's all wrapped up, show's over. Freedom is a hard road.

I was prepared to accept Bill Clinton's admission that it was over if HRC lost yesterday. The Clinton-haters on this thread seem really distressed and mouthy that even while she was outspent and dissed by the media, she managed to win. Get over it.

We are in the mess we are in because liberals and progressives deserted Gore, apparently believing the lie that Demos are just as bad as the GOP. No one is just as bad as Bush. He who slops mops.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone as honorable as either HRC or BHO would want the lousy job that Bush is leaving behind. Cleaning up his mess is nothing but walking in quicksand. It will take at least a generation to clean up what Reagan et. al. have left behind. Time to get back to work.

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

» RE: A Clear Voice Posted by: namaste
» Nonsense Posted by: Sil
Beware Hellary
Posted by: marizara on Mar 5, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Hillary is accusing Barack of something, rest assured, she's already DOING IT. It's a tactic called "Deflection". If you are engaged in something you'd rather not have attention drawn to, simply accuse your opponent of doing that exact thing. That way the eyes are on him rather than on you. It works every time! Kids learn it on schoolyards, and it's a very effective tactic. Unfortunately, it's one that should have been left behind in the playground. Naughty child.

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

Make My Vote Count
Posted by: Make My Vote Count on Mar 5, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree, the Hillary is in it for herself, not anyone else. All she cares about is winning the power and the cash. If you really listen to what she says you will realize she doesn't take a definative stand on anything. She carefully crafts her statements so that most people will take it as an agreement no matter which side of the issue you are on. She continually makes statements that she can later use to deny and obfuscate issues that come up. It doesn't matter what you think you hear her say, she can twist it around until it seems to be the exact oppisite of what you were sure you heard.
If she gets in power, I believe you will see the biggest egomaniac since Richard Nixon.

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

The is no republican and republican lite
Posted by: Joe on Mar 5, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
both hillary and mccain are collectivists. both are doing what they perceive is in the best interest of "the people". mccain with the war. hillary with healthcare(you can take it further than war and healthcare but those are the primary topics). in both a selective group with connections benefit -- those who dole out the money and those who lobby for military and healthcare contracts. believing a centralized healthcare system with all the money flowing in will be free from corruption is naive. people don't walk out of government wealthier than when they entered government for being saints. in the end all people will get is a false perception of security and health and less money in their pockets.

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

My haircutter knows this author, He LOVES Obama
Posted by: catfish on Mar 5, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author lives in San Francisco as do I. I just got my hair cut by a woman who dates Steve Rosenfeld. She said Rosenfeld has loved Obama since last year. He is NOT objective!

I fell hard out of love with Obama. When you look at the nitty gritty you see he votes however his corporate donors want him too. He wants to keep mercenaries in Iraq! Mercenaries, Blackwater!

Please Alternet, give some objective reporting some time on your site.

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

Obama is the narcissist
Posted by: catfish on Mar 5, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are out of your mind. Hillary is a workhorse, likes to work, and has been working for children and families her entire life.

Obama, as smart as he is, doesn't even know much about American history! He told the New Yorker, aside from about 10 presidents, he doesn't know what the rest of them did.

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

» No, he's just better-looking Posted by: wagadog
» RE: Obama is the narcissist Posted by: desidid
My Precinct Convention
Posted by: Julie428 on Mar 5, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm in NW Austin. We had a record turn out at our precinct convention. It was held in a school cafeteria and it spilled out into the parking lot. We divided into Clinton and Obama groups, the Obama group was at least 5 times bigger than the Clinton group. It was simply obvious that we won and won big. I find the whole cheating thing a ruse. The Clintons are tearing up the party and, as the GOP have requested of them, bloodying up Barak Obama. Someone, perhaps MoveOn or one of the other 527s, is going to have to go negative on her and remind everyone just what kind of person she really is. One thing for sure, she's not a real liberal or a real Democrat.

Julie in Austin

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

» Alternet, get a grip! Posted by: wisewebwoman
Race still matters to the ignorant
Posted by: Kym525 on Mar 5, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island (three places I will NEVER go in spite of having family in Texas) proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama's race is still an issue for the ignorant. I'm still seeing that 60 Minutes segment where the white guy from Ohio admits that he's leaning towards Obama but had "problems" with him like "not knowing the pledge of allegiance" (a huge lie by the way) and not being "patriotic" enough. And in spite of Steve Croft refuting all those charges, I could see in that man's eyes that his real reason for not going with Obama is race. I also remembered hearing a latino woman on talk radio who made it very clear that she would NEVER vote for a black person no matter what. So much for people using their brains.

Contrary to all the ignorance being bandied about--even here in alternet--Barack Obama is more than qualified to be president because he has a proven track record of getting things done in a shorter amount of time than Hilary has. He's been a civil rights lawyer concerned about the rights of ALL citizens, including women and children. He has promised to run a positive campaign based on truth and the facts, which he has done and which the pundits, long used to rampant mudslinging, have no idea how to deal with it. His campaign has brought so many disparate groups together--it's amazing. And unlike the Hilary-ista feminists, he hasn't relied on oppression politics to get his point across.

Having said all that, if Hilary becomes the Democratic nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her because a McCain presidency is far worse. However, I will exercise my rights as a citizen and make my senators and congresspeople accountable for every piece of legislation that goes against the principles I hold dear.

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

With the recent results...
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 5, 2008 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the recent results and the Hillary campaign getting more dirty in it's fight to stay alive, I suspect the Obama campaign will get more aggressive as well.

One thing he needs to do (and I think he's doing it already) is question Hillary's vast experience. A lot of it is hot air and up until now hasn't been challenged. She's only been a US Senator for a few years just like Obama.

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

Obama's screwed any way you look at it
Posted by: xbj on Mar 5, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the moment his campaign took advice from Karl Rove, to contributions from the GOP through phony front organizations, to Larry Sinclair coming out two MONTHS before Rove and the GOP-owned mainstream media planned to pull Sinclair and his witnesses AND OTHERS out regarding Obama's ADULT sexual downlow flings and drug use, to this latest relatively minor scandal where Obama precinct captains apparently stole Hillary precinct captain's report books in MANY precincts (which explains perfectly how he "won" the caucuses there but lost the primaries), the man is screwed.

One day even ObamaNation will wake up and go "Dayum! This man was setup by The Man to fail!"

Straw man... go look it up. Judas Goat. Go look that up too while you're at it. DESPITE the HUNDREDS of hysterical shills on here for Rove, Obama, the GOP, and God knows who else, probably now the McCain campaign too, TRUTH IS TRUTH.

And every nasty bit of it IS coming out. Too soon for Rove and crew.

And not an iota, not one atom, not one tiny piece of the lying crap they've hurled NONSTOP against Hillary FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARS has stuck.

Not a shred. They know, they've always known, against Hillary, they're SCREWED.

Obama is certainly screwed, anyway you look at it. He was ALWAYS screwed. He was invented to be screwed, setup to be screwed, and screwed himself when he went to the dark side for their support.

Just like making a deal with ANY white devil, it comes at a huge price, and Obama is just about to pay it, in full public view.

Unless he's smart enough to shove the arrogance, shove the GOP Hillary hate, cut a deal to be Hillary's VP and live to play again another day. Hopefully 2016.

No one is going to give a damn about Larry Sinclair and crack dealers if he's the Vice Presidential candidate, and such a tactic completely decimates Rove's strategy to put warmonger geezer Insane McCain in the White House DESPITE an overwhelming American People majority demanding an end to their immoral money-bleeding war.

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

» RE: Posted by: Kym525
» Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Posted by: xbj
C'mon Obama--: Quit Thinking You Can Stay Clean In A Mud Fight
Posted by: SweetEarth on Mar 5, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Birth Of The Clinton Paradigm And
Hillary’s Commencement Speech
I'd definitely bet the ranch that GWB- -who merely followed the Clinton paradigm--totally enjoys getting all the "credit". Among the biggest lies ever told was that Hillary had been "vetted." It's little known she took the 5th 200+ times, let alone their career-long involvement with the most nefarious characters, & their convoluted schemes such that the sheer complicity of smoking guns proves fatiguing to most, if not intimidating. One would think NAFTA, at least, would have been an issue, but it took almost a generation to hear, just recently, from a big union leader (whose rank & file voted to endorse O) that: "Finally, our workers begin to connect the dots." In a democracy they would have read it in the press-- 15 years ago, before Bill disabled the free press. That they cultivate the worst of us & our instincts, has to be chief among the reasons why I've always seen Hill & Bill as so uniquely threatening

And here's where it all started:
Wellesley College
1969 Student Commencement Speech
Hillary D. Rodham's (Problem With Empathy)

May 31, 1969
Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:

Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities.

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

Obama, Leadership????
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 5, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sell Out, is more like it!! He 'sold' out tthe healthcare plan in Ill. to the big Insurance and Pharma! Then he sold out his constituents in Ill. as US Senator, to the Nuclear Power Co. Exelon! He agreed to 'voluntery compliance", after they had repeatedly, spilled radio active waste, that contaiminated wells!

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

Obama gets FREE Media coverage--Obama=Bush
Posted by: militaryhater on Mar 5, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN and MSNBC gave Obamas San Antonio speech a free broadcast. NO Candidate should get a FREE Ride on TV. Yes, his "I HAVE A DREAM" presidential speech....what a blowhard.

Obama obviously is the 'True' candidate for corporations and to continue Bushies policy.
He walks the talk of Bush and will continue the policies. He already is signing up his 'Republican cabinet' as if 'he is already President. Yes, Chuck Hagel...Republican will be part of his 'Administration' as President. In fact, he already declares himself the candidate.

Males love him as they would rather have a 'black' man as president than a woman. They hate women more. I see this on blogs etc..mostly men 'want her to drop out'.

Well, more of the Same policies..the only Change Obama brings is a 'black' man to the white house. That is the ONLY CHANGE Americans will see..He has SNO JOBBED all of you.

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

Politics is Rough
Posted by: Southern Gal on Mar 5, 2008 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politics is a rough game. The Republicans are experts at playing rough. The media has been called on their lack of critical coverage of Obama and the Republican hounds are on the attack. Hillary has been fighting the right wing media since Bill's presidency and has been tested. Obama is going to have to prove that he can stand up to these Republicans and their smear tactics.

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

» RE: Politics is Rough Posted by: texshelters
» RE: Politics is Rough Posted by: rickiey
Obama is more Presidential
Posted by: thinkverybig on Mar 5, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama will get my vote and I believe he will be the next President of the Untited States. Hillary and Bill Clinton continues to lose my respect. This lady deserves no one's vote or respect from the way she has ran her campaign. If Hillary by chance get the Democratic nomination, I will NOT vote for her instead I will vote for Cynthia McKinney.

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

Obama Should Have Won It
Posted by: MobileSucks on Mar 5, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has plenty to be rueful about. He managed the astounding feat of being on the defensive in Ohio about trade, at the hands of a Clinton. The history of the late 1980s and 1990s was the Clintons at the head of the Democratic Leadership Council, arguing that the -free trade agreements were essential to America's future. Ohio, devastated by job flight was treated to the spectacle of the Obama campaign failing on this very issue, because Obama shrank from making the full case against what Clinton did to working people in the 1990s. He could have slaughtered the Clinton record on Hillary's disastrous effort at health care reform, on the trade agreements, on the welfare bill, on the well- documented fact that the people who did well in the Clinton era were the rich. He was too innately cautious to play the populist card and he paid the price.
-CounterPunch

This paragraph sums it up. Actually, today I'm wondering how prepared Barrack Obama really is to run against McCain. If he's going to let the Clintons get away with what he has... How will he fight the hateful lying Right and beat them?

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

» RE: Obama Should Have Won It Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Obama Should Have Won It Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Obama Should Have Won It Posted by: MobileSucks
Sad
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 5, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You sound a Republican, which is not unlike how Hillary has acted in this campaign...attacking the messenger not discussing the message.

Years as first lady means she was the wife of the president, but did not hold elected office or responsibilities. Oh wait, she was supposed to have implemented a health care plan, but ended up making so many enemies she couldn't get anything off the ground. That's experience to be really proud of?

How about her experience promoting Republicans? She recently bragged about her time a while back help organize and register voters in Texas...but that was in support of a Republican candidate. So it's no surprise that she employs the same dirty tactics that Republicans do...such as closing certain caucuses 30 minutes early in Nevada to suppress votes for Obama.

Hillary as President would just result in more of the same that we have now...dirty administration, no respect for law or prior agreements, no diplomacy, and divisive politics as usual.

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

Thanks to Clinton, McCain with be Presdient
Posted by: texshelters on Mar 5, 2008 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to the Clinton Campaign, John McCain with be the next president of the United States.

Clinton's kitchen sink approach of attacking Obama has damaged him and hurt her credibility.

Using innuendo, rumor, and talking things out of context, Obama has been accused of corruption, lying about NATFA, and not being "ready on day one". None of the accusations have been verified. Perhaps Obama sent a representative to Canada to say, "Hey, we want to renegotiate NAFTA to help workers" and that's bad? Again, Obama is being accused of not being ready or being weak or lying because he's talking to allies about trade! What?!

Clinton's tone, anger, fear mongering, Republican-like tactics, accusations of Obama while not being specific about what she would do will turn off many progressive that won't vote for her now. If she steals Florida or Michigan, or steals the nomination by taking Super delegates despite Obama's lead, she will lose half of her "base".

So, no matter who is nominated, McCain will win. Thank Senator Clinton!

Tex Shelters

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

Newsflash: A Historical Moment
Posted by: Kym525 on Mar 5, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can vote for Hilary, Obama, McCain or the Coconut Monkey if you so desire, but the constant smears on both sides does no good. Think about the fact that we have both a black man and a white woman running for the highest office in the land. Both Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud. This is a great moment in our country. We should celebrate that.

Honestly though the level of ignorance that this story and others like it has generated is appalling. I expect this kind of idiocy from wacko conservatives who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face.

I mean we've got one fool in here who thinks that Obama is some kind of Republican shill. Of course this person has no proof of such assertions, save that it probably came from some right-wing website (and we all know how fair and balanced THOSE are). We've got another fool who tells half the truth concerning Obama and the NRC, but won't go to the mat to tell the whole story. We've got others who think Hilary's the next Bush (which as questionable as her tactics and her stances on the war and NAFTA are, still don't merit THAT kind of comparison). And yet we have the few Hilary-ista feminists who continue to play oppression politics by dismissing the importance of race in favor of gender. The sad thing about all these people is that they're playing right into the hands of the very people they claim to despise. It won't be Hilary or Obama destroying the Democratic party; it will be those in here with their slander who will do it. And when we're worse off under McCain and engaged in another war, you'll only have yourselves to blame.

All of this negativity proves to me that there are some in this so-called "progressive" community who don't want change. Don't get it twisted, I think it's great that we all challenge the candidates on the ISSUES. As an informed electorate, we SHOULD. But I'm sick and tired of the lies and the distortions. If you don't like Hilary, give us CONCRETE facts. If you don't like Obama, same thing. Let's try to behave somewhat like thinking and rational adults.

I will say that some of the more negative posters here seem to not want to do the hard work to make the political process ours again. They simply want to complain endlessly about how bad things are so they can bore us with their blogs. Personally, I think they just like hearing themselves talk.

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

» RE: Newsflash: A Historical Moment Posted by: MobileSucks
Never Underestimate the Ability
Posted by: JSquercia on Mar 5, 2008 1:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory . It reminds me the old joke where someone asks a guy if he is a member of an organized party and he replies NO I'm a Democrat .
I agree with what Obama who said that I can win her voters BUT CAN she get my voters and I truly believe THAT is correct . Obama is drawing people who are not normally voters and if he loses the nomination THEY will stay home .

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

Obama is fucked.
Posted by: cindyn on Mar 5, 2008 1:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He set himself us as holier-than-thou and above it all. That was easy to do when he was winning the 11 straight states that don't count. Now that he's losing all the big states that matter, he's desperate. Going negative will backfire on Obama because he's the candidate that sold himself as the non-negative transformer.

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

» Losing?-A free civics lesson! Posted by: lasarte-oria
» RE: Obama is fucked. Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Obama is fucked. Posted by: desidid
PROOF of Alternet's real anti-Democrat bias?
Posted by: xbj on Mar 5, 2008 2:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The e-mail in my mailbox for this very article used the denigrating term invented by Rove and the GOP-owned mainstream media for Democrats, "Dem"/"Dems".

"DEM Race turns cutthroat."

Anti-Democrats use this word because it has the connotation of being an abbreviation for "Demons" and "Demonic", which plays up real big with the GOP's Christianist right-wing base.

Democrats do not use "Dems" to EVER describe themselves, because they're well aware of the connotation.

Slipping....

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

And That is Why...
Posted by: meganlangreck on Mar 5, 2008 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republican candidate will probably win this Presidential election. The Democratic candidates are too busy trying to kill EACHOTHER, while the Republicans have lined up behind their man and are standing by him - - even though he is a man that many Republicans do not like. I have become increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic candidates and am greatly discouraged at them not having the obvious path to the presidency: TEAMING UP TOGETHER TO POSSIBLY BEAT THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE probably by the narrowest margin, who now has all these months to prepare to win the presidency for his party. I don't like this feeling of being unavoidably screwed for another eight years.

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

To all those who would not vote for Hillary...
Posted by: arieden on Mar 5, 2008 2:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you really serious that you would rather have at least 4 more years of "Bush" than vote for Hillary? Everyone on this website knows that Hillary would be a vast improvement over the Republicans.
Voting against her because you don't like her (or perhaps don't like women in power)would be just as ignorant as all those people who voted against their economic self-interest (for Bush) so that fags couldn't get married.

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

» You forgot to mention Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» No. Obama. Posted by: xbj
Even AlterNet biases the photo spread
Posted by: OliverTwist on Mar 5, 2008 3:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The photo spread over this picture shows a bright on-color picture of Hillary on the left facing a dim off-color picture of Obama on the right.

It is a beautifully biased image. Hillary looks great and Obama looks not so great.

We need to look out for the preparation of biased photo spreads in the media. It's rampant right now on the internet and even on TV.

The CNN Situation room tonight showed a nice bright closeup picture of Hillary on the left and a dark and distant picture of somebody on the right who might have been Obama with somebody else. I couldn't be sure whether it was Obama since I couldn't make out the two people shown standing in the dark.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words it is a great way for media to send biased messages that are effective but not explicit.

It shouldn't happen here that's for sure.

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

The REAL Republican operative is here
Posted by: Kym525 on Mar 5, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and we all know him.

His tactics are eerily similar to Karl Rove's, which means he's been schooled very well in the politics of character destruction and fear.

This person, like Rove, has no problem with putting out disinformation and outright lies that cannot be proved beyond even reasonable doubt. Kinda like the loser on YouTube who claimed that Obama did coke and had sex with him only to fail a polygraph test TWICE. If that doesn't work, he falls back on calling people ignorant and uninformed, much like far-right evangelicals calling all liberals "godless". Failing that, he falls back on the ye old scare tactic by saying if McCain gets in office, it will be YOUR fault for voting for the "wrong" person!

It's pretty obvious that he's a part of the far-right GOP establishment who know their days may be numbered and aren't willing to go out with some grace. Instead, this person continues to fan the flames of fear and intolerance (much like the GOP he supports) in the hopes that those not enamored of either Hilary or Obama will just sit out the election and thereby giving John McCain an easy win--since we all know McCain's "straight-talk express" has been permanently derailed.

In the immortal words of Public Enemy...Don't Believe the Hype.

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

Hillary
Posted by: data23 on Mar 5, 2008 5:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never had really felt one way or the other about Hillary before this race began. I never really understood the vitriol that some people had towards her, until the past couple of weeks. Now, I can't stand her. Her dirty politics are repulsive to say the least.She's got this air of entitlement to the presidency that really is laughable. She a freakin' republican in a pantsuit, Karl Rove in drag. Obama got my vote yesterday and I pray he becomes our next president. I don't know what I'll do if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I suppose I'll just have to hold my nose and vote the republican-lite ticket, as much as I would hate too.

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

Hillary Clinton:Pro War and Anti-Liberty
Posted by: left_libertarian on Mar 5, 2008 5:47 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act.

I would not vote for her if a gun was put to my head.

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

Hillary will win and then lose
Posted by: Ingarose on Mar 5, 2008 6:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary scared a lot of people with her last add, telling people that their babies would die if Obama would be president. Fine, the people bought it and she is still in.

Hillary will be nominated and then she will lose to McBombMcCain.

Obama has not been put through the desert yet. He thinks that unity and love can overcome all. While he is right in that respect he has not figured out that it takes a fight first.

Let Hillary lose to McCain and McCain will inherit the Bush bullshit (war, foreclosures, high energy prices, dollar in the tank, the world hates us, etc.) Then, only then people might wake up and take another look at a uniter who will truly fight for the people this time.

Fight first and then unite.

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

cheryl lynne- southbury,CT
Posted by: cherylsass123 on Mar 5, 2008 11:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mc Cain feels what he represents is "in america's best interests"? really? LOL and what may those be? more tax breaks for the upper 5% wealthiest? outlawing abortion rights and then, promotion of "abstinence based" sexual education[ something I'm sure many unmarried + pregnant teenage girl dropouts down in milton, florida and lubbock texas find really made them decide to not have sex till they were married] ??? that , and sty in Iraq till we kill at least another 15 million american soldiers?? remember? those are in " america's best interests" after all???

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

Bottom line for me
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 6, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Clinton has slowed, halted, or even taken Obama's momentum with the recent wins (time will tell which). However, she didn't gain much ground on Obama in terms of total delegate count. Regardless of how you spin it, Clinton needs to at least half Obama's lead if she wants to pull enough superdelegates to win the nomination.

Here's why: superdelegates know they will lose a lot of Democrat voters if they overturn a clear delegate leader at the convention. But if there is no clear leader, superdelegates will be free to choose either candidate.

That is why Hillary is fighing hard to gain ground on Obama, to narrow that lead as much as possible before the convention. It is because she knows that if she can get close enough, she might be able to convince enough supers to fall her way at the convention.

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

Is DNC in violation of 15th Amendment?
Posted by: 4/5thperson on Mar 9, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is DNC in violation of 15th Amendment?
My answer is - Yes!
My argument…
1. DNC with their “Super delegates,” are in essence giving Black voters a similar value/consideration of 4/5th of how white and other non-black voters vote are counted - as in yesteryears. So, now, to make it “fair” the “Super delegates” will make not only Blacks’ voters once again a 4/5th of a person - they will make Blacks voters and everyone else a 4/5th s person!
WOW! Thank you super delegates!

2. The DNC not being willing to count the Florida & Michigan votes - is once again saying - we will not make the Black vote be worth 4/5th a vote - we will make it worth…ZERO/Fifths! AND - to make it “fair,” - we will make EVERYONES vote be worth ZERO/Fifths!

Black organizations should stand up for their rights, and sue the DNC for multi-millions!

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