Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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

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!

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: