Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Hell No
The Other 43 Percent

Truthdig Bazaar
American Foundations

American Foundations

Mark Dowie

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Down to the Wire

Posted on Feb 4, 2008
Obama, Clinton and California

Super Tuesday, when 22 states and American Samoa could decide the Democratic nominee, is one day away and no one knows what is going to happen. A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dead even nationally. Clinton led by as many as 15 points a month ago. But it’s the biggest prize of the contest, California, where only a week ago Clinton led by 17 points, that has everyone guessing.

One poll has Clinton strongly in the lead in the Golden State, several others show Obama close behind and, perhaps most surprisingly, a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll actually shows Obama ahead by double digits.

Of course, one of the recurring themes of this primary campaign has been the unreliability of polls, but statistics aren’t entirely without value. They are, after all, a matter of science, albeit a science that isn’t very good at predicting results in a close and extremely volatile election.

Volatile because, if one believes the numbers, Barack Obama has gained ground with extraordinary momentum.

That’s especially true in California, where the endorsements all seem to be breaking Obama’s way. There was the Los Angeles Times, the state’s largest paper, then La Opinión, the largest Spanish language newspaper in the country. The California Service Employees International Union gave him the nod. And When Oprah Winfrey stopped by UCLA to stump with Caroline Kennedy and Michelle Obama, she brought the state’s first lady, Maria Shriver, who announced that she, too, is supporting Obama. Even “Real Time” host Bill Maher announced his support on Friday.

The question is, will Obama’s momentum carry him to victory or will Hillary Clinton maintain her lead just long enough to win out and possibly secure the nomination.

That now appears unlikely. Super Tuesday is an important contest, but much more so for Clinton. She has been the front-runner in the biggest states by so much for so long that if it all fell apart over a week, it would devastate her campaign. Obama, on the other hand, could survive a loss in California, and even the other big states. He and his army of volunteers will have their work cut out for them, but as pollster John Zogby said, “The momentum is with Obama.”

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Douglas Chalmers, February 6, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

By Aegrus, February 5: ”...I know Hillary cannot do as much for America as Barack Obama can. She is not the best candidate… She is a fluke nominee…”

Its over,  Aegrus. Hillary won. If you want to find out why, read my post early February 4 in response to Hammo’s “Hispanics may be favoring Clinton due to perceived conflicts with the African-American community…”

By Mike Mid-City, February 4: “Would and end to the two party system be such a bad thing? If the Dems are crashing the Republicans are even more…”

That’s the first sensible thing you have said all year, Mike Mid-City. A preferential voting system would give a lot more people the chance to express their views without trashing their vote merely for the sake of protesting.

The real question is why do the major parties fear it? Voting for an independent or two and then nominating the Dems or RPG’s for a third or fourth preference would would reveal quite a lot! They would then no longer be able to lie…...

Report this

By Maani, February 5, 2008 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment


“Are you kidding me?  You would presume to tell the world that Jesus would forgive Hillary.  Will you now tell us that Jesus would endorse this warmongering woman?”

I don’t how you get from my comment that Jesus would forgive Hillary to the concept that He would “endorse” her.  I never suggested anything of the sort.  Indeed, as I pointed out, Jesus forgave the adultress (“Woman, where are those thine accusers?  Hath no man condemned thee?”  “No man, Lord.” “Neither do I condemn thee”), but did NOT condone her behavior (“Go, and sin no more.”).

Jesus would not endorse ANYONE since he was apolitical.  (Indeed, to suggest that He would endorse Obama, Edwards, Kucinich or anyone else would be equally ridiculous.)

But each of us - here and now, as flawed human beings - make our decisions based on our own individual feelings, beliefs, senses, etc.  And I do not make my political decisions based on one single factor, but on the totality of a person.  If you choose to make your decision based on a single factor, that is of course your prerogative.

Peace?  Really?  You are wishing people peace and voting for a warmonger.”

Once again, you use a word (warmonger) in such a hyperbolic way that it distorts the generally accepted definition.  A “warmonger” is a person like John McCain who (i) believes strongly in the IDEA of war, including as an acceptable, even time-honored, method of international “relations,” (ii) supports any and every war, including creating absurdist justifications for them, and (iii) looks for opportunities to engage in war, even when other alternatives are available.

Hillary simply does not fit this description.  She fought vigorously against the Vietnam War, and did not support Bush I’s Gulf War.  [N.B.  And, as noted, she “led the charge” in investigating what became known as Gulf War Syndrome, and obtaining additional benefits for vets suffering from it.]  As well, if you had read her speech to the Senate just prior to her vote on the Iraq War resolution, you would know that she is anything BUT a warmonger.

You can keep obsessively repeating and repeating that “she allowed the dimmest president in history to start a pre-emptive war,” but mere repetition of that statement simply ignores ALL the facts here, including (as Doug has noted) that it was Bush who started the war; that many other Congresspersons voted for the resolution, yet you do not take them to task with anything even resembling the vitriol you reserve for Hillary; and that people can learn from their mistakes, and change.

I believe that BOTH Hillary or Obama would end this war, and that NEITHER of them will be inclined to start another one - certainly not without attempting serious, ongoing diplomacy first.  As noted, unlike you and many others, I do not consider her vote on the Iraq resolution the be-all and end-all of reasons to vote for or against her.  In this regard, I support her because I believe her to be a better candidate OVERALL than Obama - who I do NOT “hate,” or even “dislike,” and who I will support if he is the nominee.


Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 5, 2008 at 6:25 am Link to this comment

It will all come out in the wash.  The Lobby comments of Obama are what I like to hear.  Not much from Hillary is what I like to hear.

Desperate no, just your aggressive Anti support of my candidate of non choice.

My choice was Kucinich, your support of a war candidate seems to be in question or hypocritical, since you are a Christian?
go figure.

Must say your steady stream of comments does make it look like you are on the payroll, but one could say he same of Chompers and he comes off like a imbecile.

Your peace maybe, depends on what you mean by peace?

Report this

By Aegrus, February 5, 2008 at 5:24 am Link to this comment

Yes, I think it is a dumb idea to vote for someone who causes such polarization in a time when partisanship is destroying the Congressional processes. I believe it to be an extremely foolish choice.

Additionally, I know Hillary cannot do as much for America as Barack Obama can. She is not the best candidate, despite your opinion. She is a fluke nominee who gets thousands of votes out of name recognition without any merit. In every state where early voting was allowed, she gained significant traction. This is, of course, nonsensical behavior, and the live voting which occurs always shows Barack and Hillary to be even if not in favor of Obama.

People want the man of change in the office. As I’ve said before, don’t hate Barack because Hillary has run on a false campaign filled with bad tactics and silly talking points. Don’t hate Obama because he is a better candidate with better experience and better judgment than Hillary Clinton. This is just the way it is. Barack Obama WILL be the next president of the United States of America.

Report this

By Maani, February 4, 2008 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment


Re your comments about the health plans, this might be of serious interest to you:;=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


Report this

By Maani, February 4, 2008 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment


“Maani, Hillary bashing really bothers you, but your Obma bashing is oakydokey…From what I have seen of your posts, you almost look like you are on the Hillary payroll.”

There is a HUGE difference between “bashing” - which is unsupported, visceral (as opposed to fact-based) dislike - and providing supportable arguments for debate.  I have NEVER “bashed” Obama.  What I have done is provide supportable information on him that is either ignored or simply not provided by anyone else here.  That is how one makes a case; by providing counter-arguments to those offered.  As for being on Hillary’s payroll, I could just as easily accuse some of the Obama supporters here of being on HIS payroll (and, indeed, at least one is).

“Your only option has been to turn into a one man swift boating of Obama.”

Again, there is difference between “swift-boating” - which would entail providing lies and/or complete distortions of the truth - and providing credible, supportable counter-arguments.  Indeed, the accusation that I (and other Hillary supporters here) are simply “bashing” Obama is an attmept by you, Cyrena and others to attempt to STIFLE debate. How very “American” of you!  Everyone has free speech rights - except if you are supporting Hillary!

“Obama offers hope and change, Hillary offers business as usual.  Hillary supports the war, Obama did not vote to go to war.  Obama says we need to stop Lobbies from undue influence of our government. Hillary has a close relationship with the lobbyists.”

Hillary and Obama are equally in the pockets of corporate America; anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.  Obama did not vote to go to war because he was not in the Senate at the time.  And despite his anti-war speech, you can only play “armchair quarterback” here, since you cannot POSSIBLY KNOW how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time.  Re Obama and lobbies, this is pure wind: true, he no longer takes money from lobbyists and PACs.  However, he takes money from the industries and businesses that lobbyists and PACs represent.  I see no significant difference here.

You and others here have a very transparent mindset: “I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts.”  It is typical of people with that mindset to accuse others of being shills, on payrolls, etc. - or, like Cyrena, to engage in vulgarity and name-calling, as if that somehow strengthens her position.

My “aggressive” support for my candidate of choice is no different from the aggressive support of Obama (or Edwards or Kucinich et al) by others here, or the aggressive ANTI-support of my candidate of choice.  To simply throw epithets and accusations at me only proves how desperate you are to shut me up and prevent any serious debate from occurring.

Peace.  (if you want it…)

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, February 4, 2008 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Maani February 4

No Maani, I’m not saying that exactly.

For instance, both candidates have a health-care plan.  Clinton’s health-care plan makes it MANDATORY for everyone to purchase health insurance.  Not only will this drive UP the cost, just like it does in states with mandatory auto insurance, where will the subsidies start and end.  At what cost to the consumer and the taxpayer?  Will it be affordable to everyone who now HAS to purchase it?

Whereas Obama’s plan is offered without the mandatory condition.  This allows for those, who, for whatever reason, may not be ABLE to purchase it at the supposed “affordable” subsidized rate.

Simply because something is subsidized does not in itself make it affordable. Add to that the plethora of circumstances and issues which need to be taken into account regarding each individual before they could or would consider something “affordable”.

So while what I said has to do with actions, there’s a bit more to it than that.  Simply taking action does not ENSURE a better outcome.  Bush proved that for us. In fact so has Clinton, and she has yet to say that she was WRONG to vote for the war.

Yes…. it’s not JUST what you do, it’s HOW you do it, too.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 4, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

un-Christlike conduct defined by Joe, war is good and infant torture is not, so Joe we should make you the referee with your definition of Christlike conduct.

Mani,  Hillary bashing really bothers you, but your Obma bashing is oakydokey, me thinks you show support to hypocrites.  From what I have seen of your posts, you almost look like you are on the Hillary payroll. 

All the reasons for your support of Hillary seems to have vaporized into the stagnate pool you so adamantly support.  Your only option has been to turn into a one man swift boating of Obama.

Obama offers hope and change, Hillary offers business as usual.  Hillary supports the war, Obama did not vote to go to war.  Obama says we need to stop Lobbies from undue influence of our government. Hillary has a close relationship with the lobbyists. 

When I listen to Obama he says what I want to hear, Hillary seems to be fumbling and her new idea everyone should have to pay for Medical Insurance sucks.  I liked the Kucinich medical option the best of them all. \

Well tomorrow will do the telling, thank goodness,  this is getting tiring.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 4, 2008 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

This one was sent out by Michelle Obama. She says it was put together by supporters. It’s a beautiful job.

Report this

By FRANK TELLS, February 4, 2008 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Report this

By Maani, February 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment


Re the comparative “corporatism” of Hillary and Obama, you said, “Clinton has been in it deep for many years and has some pretty sketchy business buddies and affiliations.”

Perhaps.  But now we have Rezko, and Obama’s outright lie that the “only” connection between them was “5 hours” of time Obama put in on a single case.  In actuality, Obama co-purchased a real estate lot with Rezko some time later, and Rezko donated tens of thousands of dollars to Obama’s campaign.  And if there is one Rezko, there are likely to be others - which is wonderful fodder for the GOP “investigate and smear” mill.

Re Hillary and Obama, you also said, “I do think they’re voting records are suspiciously similar, and it bothers me.  However, what also comes into play is the actual “playing out” of policy enacted.”

Actually, while Hillary can certainly be lambasted for some of her votes, I am actually MORE troubled by Obama’s record.  He holds himself out as the candidate of “principle,” yet he has more “NV” votes than Hillary, including on important civil rights and other issues.  Is it “principled” to speak out against a bill, but then not vote on it?  Indeed, this is an example of a complete LACK of “playing out policy”; i.e., he provides “words” - rhetoric, vehemence against various measures - yet fails to vote on those measures.  And if I hear you correctly, you are saying exactly this: that actions speak louder than words.


In response to my post from Stanley Fish, you said, “This is all absolutely true…Yes, the reasons most people give to vote against her are of scant validity, but the fact they exist cannot be denied.”

Let me ask you the same question I asked Felicity:

Setting Hillary aside for a moment, do you think that people should refuse to vote for a perfectly good candidate simply because there seems to be (or even is) a broad visceral dislike of that person? Is that an acceptable criterior for not electing someone?

I believe that what will happen if Hillary wins the nomination is that the “fever pitch” of Hillary-bashing (at least on the left and center) will ease up (at least a little) as the majority of people band together to keep the REAL war-monger (among other things) from taking office.  And if Hillary wins the general election, the visceral dislike will ease even more.  In no event do I believe that it will affect her ability to govern, much less to work with Congress (most members of which she has very good working relationships with, on both sides of the aisle) or as a world leader.

No, what will probably happen is that Hillary, like any other president, will make both good and bad decisions, and will very likely do alot of good FOR THE PEOPLE - DESPITE themselves and their visceral dislike.


Report this

By odlid, February 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...Hillary got only 4% of her campaign donations from lobbyists and PACs.”

Maani, where are you getting this horseshit? You are simply making up numbers. Please sleep with a neocon and die of stupid.


Report this

By Joe, February 4, 2008 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The specter of two pro-war candidates, Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton, being our choice in November is stunning to me and to others who believe in ending our longstanding policy of overseas military domination.
Senator Obama will be a fine President, if that comes about, but I would find even this pro-abortion candidate impossible to vote for. Killing, other than in self-defense, is wrong at all levels: executions, invasions, death by neglect are all unacceptable to the civilized man. Infant torture, though, holds the prize for disgraceful, un-Christlike conduct. The founding feminists, almost universally, condemned the practice as “aborticide” and considered this act as both premeditated murder and an outrage against women. The issue of teenage girls who have fallen into despair and depression after falling prey to abortionists is never addressed by the NARAL proponents.

Report this

By jackpine savage, February 4, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

No, it wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.  We might all get candidates that we want to vote for, instead of spending our lives trying to discern the lesser of two evils.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, February 4, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

RE: Maani February 4:

“But to suggest that Obama is somehow “innocent” in this regard, or that he is less a “corporatist” than Hillary is simply not the case.”

**I disagree.  I think Obama is less of a corporatist than Clinton.  Clinton has been in it deep for many years and has some pretty sketchy business buddies and affiliations.  So in this regard “less is more”.

Douglas Chalmers February 4:

“If there is one thing for sure, it is that the Republicans WON’T be voting for a woman or a colored man.”

** This is partially true.  DIE HARD republicans will vote republican NO MATTER WHAT, so their votes aren’t really an issue here.  But those who vote republican for “values” issues WILL vote for “a woman or a colored man”.  If for no other reason than because that is what some of them are.  So I agree that it is media propaganda used with the intent to “scare” voters away from democrats altogether, and not just Clinton.

” The real issues are experience and capability or unknown presumed change.”

** I don’t think these are the issues by any means.  I think the issue for most voters is more one of, who does the voter gauge to be on “we the people’s” side.  Clinton does not come across this way.  Whereas Obama does.

I know you are for Clinton, but people see her as out for herself and hawkish.  I do too.  She is most likely to get votes from republican business interests if she gets the endorsement than Obama is.
However, republican “values” voters are more likely to go to Obama.  Of course, again, I’m excluding hard-core republican voters since they’re really not a swing vote.

I do think they’re voting records are suspiciously similar, and it bothers me.  However, what also comes into play is the actual “playing out” of policy enacted.  In other words, as a parent I might have the same rules as another parent.  Although implementation and punishment/correction could be miles apart.  This is where Obama and Clinton clash.

It’s not just what you do…it’s ALSO how you do it.

Report this

By jackpine savage, February 4, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

Democratic primaries are almost all proportional; consequently, if neither candidates wins big across the board, the only thing to really be gained is momentum.

For Clinton, it is hers to lose.  It also means that the later primaries will matter for a change.  They are much more spread out: a couple every two weeks or so.  In this, the advantage goes to Obama, because he seems to do better the more time he has for voters to get to know him.

But in the end, we are likely to see no clear winner before the convention in August.  This is why Edwards suspended his campaign rather than dropped out.  His delegates may not count for much, but his alliance could.  We must also consider that the rules of the Democratic nomination were established to give overwhelming control to the party itself.  Nearly half of the required delegates can be had in the super-delegates alone.  Here, the advantage goes to Clinton.

But there are complications.  The delegates of MI & FL will need to be seated in a close race, but any way you cut that there will be massive amounts of ill feelings and even possible law suits.

A brokered convention will be “interesting”, as the word is used in that old Chinese blessing/curse about interesting times.  If there will ever be a pitched battle over control of the Democratic Party, it will be then.  The new guard has done all of the landscaping, and they control significant amounts of money.  The old guard has the structure of the Party.

I refuse to make predictions.  But it could well mean the death of the Democratic Party as we know it; on the other hand, creation and destruction are nothing more than two sides of the same coin.  Shiva’s dance is eternal.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 4, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

By Hammo, February 4: “Hispanics may be favoring Clinton due to perceived conflicts with the African-American community…”

One of the reasons why ethnic issues are important and deserve careful thought is that it is not simply about an individual’s ethnicity but the ethnic groups they inevitably represent and how they will act as a group once they have a leader of their own kind.

There was a sense of change when Bill Clinton was referred to as “the first black president”. Even though he wasn’t from a minority group, there was an acknowledgement of acceptance. That was a big step forward from the age-old prejudices of the USA of the 1960’s.

Whether African Americans as a group will be so inclined, especially at first, if Barack Obama ever does become president is another thing. They will want to assert themselves first of all. How that eventually develops is something else altogether, though.

The previous Clinton experience was with a man from a majority group who were finally comnfortable in making concessions to minority groups. That is not at all the case with a man from a minority group and particularly from one so repressed in the past.

Don’t forget that Iraq, as one example, was ruled by a minority. Sunni Arabs had dominated the country since its independence in 1932, despite making up only a fifth of Iraq’s population. Finally, Saddam Hussein’s regime repressed the Shias, who constitute the vast majority of the country’s 25 million people.

Thus, the question may be whether a peaceful regime in the USA can be guaranteed by a black president and a black minority? Obviously, Hammo, the Hispanic group can see this more clearly if the politically naive and oh-so-PC white majority cannot. Just wanting “change” does not mean that positive change will eventuate.

Report this

By Aegrus, February 4, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment


This is all absolutely true, and fuels the fact Hillary is (whether merited or unmerited, true or false)extremely polarizing and not electable. Progressives dislike her for her war vote, and Republicans hate her for “socialized health care.” Yes, the reasons most people give to vote against her are of scant validity, but the fact they exist cannot be denied. Just come over to the Obama team. We are actually going to win in November! };>

Report this

By Maani, February 4, 2008 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

Finally!  A voice of reason.  From Stanley Fish:

“In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz describes the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.”...This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies…You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change…But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts…Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesn’t do…If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, she’s just play-acting. If she cries, she’s faking. If she doesn’t, she’s too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, she’s dowdy. If she doesn’t, she’s inappropriately provocative…Horowitz observes that there is an “inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility,” but that “the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one.” The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine…Compared to this, the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry was a model of objectivity.”


Report this

By Hammo, February 4, 2008 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

According to published news reports, Hispanics may be favoring Clinton due to perceived conflicts with the African-American community.

The Hispanic vote could help decide the Dem nominee.

These kinds of ethnic issues are important and deserve careful thought. Along these lines, the article ...

“Mixed-ethnicity Americans face challenges”
January 30, 2008

Report this

By Aegrus, February 4, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

No, what is absurd is how Hillary Clinton reiterates “Republicans won’t just give up without a fight” and how she is “battle-tested” with these militaristic rhetoric related to the war on terror. Americans are united against scare tactics.

The Democratic party is united in how we all want the best candidate. Some people don’t see Hillary’s positions as ephemeral as I do. That’s fine. The Republicans will not win this election, so the contest really is only between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Report this

By Expat, February 4, 2008 at 7:21 am Link to this comment


Report this

By Expat, February 4, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

^ thanks for your reply.  Mid twenties, okay.  This gives me some hope.  At 62 soon to be 63 I’m very happy to see you so involved and thoughtful.  I’ve been out of the states for 5 years and have lost touch with the younger generation.  I think you are not typical though.  Anyway, I hope your “connection” is correct as I’m about to write off my country as lost, finished, done for, and dead to freedom.  Let us hope together, that there is yet hope.  Looking back 50 years; it’s so sad to see where we are going.  I wish at your young age you had this perspective; it would light you up to the things lost; because of fear.  Remember; fear is a theif, do not let it steal from you.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, February 4, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cynicism (n): a cynical feeling of distrust

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.   
-George Bernard Shaw

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 4, 2008 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

Ther was something really naive being put about in the media that “Republicans will be united against Hillary Clinton”...... what does that mean, really? That they wouldn’t be “united” against Obama???

How absurd but that is the kind of drivel the media is coming up with recently in its desperation to avoid voting for a woman. If there is one thing for sure, it is that the Republicans WON’T be voting for a woman or a colored man.

The reality is that the Democrats are the ones who are NOT united and are tearing themselves apart over PC issues of who is “nice” or “not nice” which really interprets as covert racism or sexism. The real issues are experience and capability or unknown presumed change.

Report this

By datadave, February 4, 2008 at 7:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After I heard Hillary that she’d not raise tax levels on upper incomed people and Obama honestly saying that it’s needed….

And Hillary’s demand that all lower middle class people be forced to pay high premium health insurance even if they can’t afford it… I think Obama’s got my support. But we don’t vote in our state yet. He’s got a long way against some very entrenched interests in the Democratic Party…(who seem just a pale imitation of Republicans)

Report this

By Aegrus, February 4, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

While it isn’t likely Hillary Clinton will win the democratic nomination, I will say you should vote for her if she does. We do not need McCain’s blatant war mongering even if Hillary has made bad decisions regarding military action in the Middle East. She is a populist at heart, and would do far better than McCain or Romney (Mitt Romney: Pro-Zombie!)

Report this

By Aegrus, February 4, 2008 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

A lot of it is hype, but there are so many authentic points to affirm his leadership skills on tough issues. Death penalty reform, ethics reform, financing reform. 8 years in state legislation is remarkable experience, so is his grass-roots organizing via bottom-up change.

Not to brag, but on the large I’ve been right with all my calls on this campaign season. For some reason, I can feel out how things play from state to state, and can accurately tune in with American opinion. Maybe it’s because I study polls and supporter numbers a lot? Maybe it’s because I judge campaigns well. Being that I’m in my mid-twenties, I think it’s cool to have my judgments become realities because this election is a lot about bringing youth back to the table (not that we make great decisions as a whole, but ... you know .. inclusion is always good even when those included are wrong).

Not for nothing, but I endorsed Kucinich a long time ago. It’s just sad that he was snuffed out by the MSM, and really lacked an ability to inspire people the way Obama has. Obama was my second choice, and now is my only choice. I always liked his campaign a lot, and felt he had good qualities for executive office.

Report this

By Expat, February 4, 2008 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

^ innocents at this point.  Obama is possibly just naive enough to try to change some things.  Who in gods name could be worst than Bush?  Clinton may be as bad, not worse.  I want some inexperienced naïve guy who doesn’t have a clue; but has a brain and some intelligence and….most importantly….knows how to apply that intelligence!!!!!!  Obama is that guy…..the rest is shit and I don’t care.  Kucinich was my guy, but maybe he wasn’t really as savvy as Obama in dealing with the total disaster we are being left with.  We need a player and Obama may be just that player…with some heart.  The biggest missing quality in this present fascist administration….so, go suck an egg!  Hahahahaha…..humor even……

Report this

By blueshift, February 4, 2008 at 6:50 am Link to this comment

So be it. No more Clintons. I confess my naivete. It’s better than cynicism.

Report this

By Expat, February 4, 2008 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

^ post you were young….how old are you?  You already know I’m not young.

Report this

By Expat, February 4, 2008 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

Not that Obama was my first choice (Kucinich) but boy oh boy do I hope you’re right.  Can he live up to his hype; I don’t know.  But, he seems the only “hope”.  I “hope” your crystal ball is tuned in.

Report this

By Maani, February 4, 2008 at 6:42 am Link to this comment


You are being awfuly naive if you think Obama is not a “corporatist” in the sense that he is as “bought and paid for” by industries and businesses as is Clinton.

Consider.  Between 1996 and 2004 (his Illinois Senate years), he raised fully two-thirds of his campaign money from PACs, including real estate, health care and oil.  In 2004, in his run for the U.S. Senate, he took $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs.  That represented about 8% of his donations.  Yet the same year, Hillary got only 4% of her campaign donations from lobbyists and PACs.

As well, in 2007, Obama got over $1.4 million from law firms who represent lobbyists.

I’m not suggesting that Hillary hasn’t gotten even more from lobbyists and PACs; she has.  But to suggest that Obama is somehow “innocent” in this regard, or that he is less a “corporatist” than Hillary is simply not the case.


Report this

By blueshift, February 4, 2008 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

I will vote for anybody but Hillary if she wins the nomination. (And I voted for the demeaned and demeaning Mr. Clinton twice.) A Clinton on the ticket is the proverbial deathwish for her party’s White House ambitions. No more Clintons. No more corporatists. Please.

Report this

By Aegrus, February 4, 2008 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

Barack Obama will win big tomorrow. Those who have underestimated his greatness as a political leader will soon learn the error of their ways. Gaps are closing, Obama is leading in many states. Just face it, Hillary has already lost the Democratic nomination. The old party will dissolve. Change for America!

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook