Tony:

You said, “[C]onfronted with a choice between the political thing and the right thing, Hillary will do the political thing every single time.”

I will assume that “every single time” is an exaggeration; the kind of phrase we use “in the moment” but realize later is probably not entirely correct.

I will give you just one example of where Hillary not only chose the “right” thing over the “political” thing, but created a firestorm for doing so: when she was First Lady, SHE was the first politico (or, I guess, quasi-politico) to investigate and expose what came to be known as Gulf War Syndrome.  And she followed up by fighting vehemently - and successfully - for additional health benefits for Gulf War vets.

Again, this is just one example.  But I am happy to provide others.

Peace.

I would go so far as to say, along with most of my fellow anti-war activists, that though they may be forgiven, and I am not calling for drumming them out of the Democratic party, nobody who voted for the Iraq war deserves to be President.

My real point is this: confronted with a choice between the political thing and the right thing, Hillary will do the political thing every single time. The main proof of this is her vote on the Iraq war. Her vote was not “sincere”, any more than the votes of a lot of other pusilanimous Democrats who voted against it. Her real reason, like that of the others was political - the 2002 midterm elections were coming up and she and they did not want to look “soft on terrorism”, especially Hillary, who was positioning herself for an eventual presidential run.

Obama gave that great anti-war speech at the same time because he believed it was right, even though it was very unpopular at the time to oppose the Bush jingoism.

“Oh, Maani - I’m not trying to smear her. That wasn’t my point.”

Fine.  Then what WAS your point?

Peace.

As I said, Hillary looks better the farther she gets from Bill. If he will continue to sit down and shut is big fat mouth, she will do much better. I am sure she has told him that in no uncertain terms.

If she wins the nomination, I will support her enthusiastically against the likes of McCain or Romney.

Oh, Maani - I’m not trying to smear her. That wasn’t my point.

Tony:

NOW who’s engaging in propaganda?!

ONE photo was released, of Rezko standing between Hillary and Bill in what is clearly a “standard” type photo taken in any number of situations, from fundraisers to more innocuous situations.  However, the “right wing” - and particularly conservative blogs - are spinning this mercilessly in order to get traction from it.

Hey, guess what?  I ALSO posed with Hillary and Bill (at a White House Christmas party where a friend of mine was entertaining), yet I have never given a DIME to either of them, nor had any dealings with either of them except that single photo!!  (Okay, I did meet Hillary twice, once at a NARAL function and once when she dedicated a statue of Eleanor Roosevelt at the park near me.  But I did nothing more than shake her hand and wish her well.)

So what does that photo prove?  Absolutely NOTHING, except that the right wing (and, according to you, Obama himself) will find ANYTHING it can to try to smear her.

Nice try.

Peace.

Did you know that the Obama camp has published some photos of Hillary Clinton hugging Rezco?

No politician is perfectly clean. Obama has said this, including himself. Remember that Robin Williams routine about Gandhi? “Somewhere in a bar someone is saying, “I knew Gandhi. He was a prick…”. Putting one’s candidate on a pedestal is a very widespread flaw.

Still, compared with Clinton, I say Obama is a breath of fresh air.

You might find it surprising to know that I totally agree with that…

Peace.

No, no - exactly like them them. However, gender identity politics helps Hillary, whereas racial identity will hurt Obama, given that blacks are a minority of the electorate whereas women are a majority. It’s a natural advantage that Hillary enjoys. I am just expressing the pious hope that women as well as blacks will follow MLK and “judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin” - or their sex.

What’s with all the gender, race, and religious targeting? How could that get ANYONE a majority?

What happens if you’re a non-religious black woman, a non-religious Latino man? The Latino vote went solidly Republican not too long ago, mainly because of the religious aspect. Now Latinos are being targeted by Democrats because of the “immigrant” debate, although millions have lived in the U.S. before there even WAS a U.S.

If there’s any more dividing, there won’t be anybody that anybody will want to vote for.

Tony:

“You go ahead and join Hillary with your gender identity politics. Identity distorts judgment. A lot of women will vote for her because they identify with her as a woman, whatever her faults.”

You mean, unlike the racial identity politics that will cause many black people to vote for Obama because they identify with his race, whatever his faults?”

Peace.

Probably Florida doesn’t change EJ’s message. Obama’s strength seems to be turning out the younger vote and since he didn’t campaign in Fla, that didn’t happen.

The real pity of Florida and Michigan is that the petty squabbling of the party Dems with these states disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan and that carries shades of Rove in Florida and Ohio, using trickery and fraud to get his mediocrity elected.

In our so-called model democracy, we have so many problems providing free, unconstrained, democratic voting, it smacks of a banana republic.

Between poorly programmed voting machines, most manufactured by neocon sympathizers, the potential for hacking, the undemocratic electoral college system, the mishmash of states granting full or partial credit for votes (Florida all for McCain with less than 40% of the vote), gerrymandering and no recount in Florida, we sound like a banana republic.

Sang Ze,

Inaction is just another form of action. In your case it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, since shrugging the shoulders and giving up because “...the Republicans have one [sic - I assume you mean “won”?]” is the most certain way to ensure that they have.

Our liberal founders (“liberal” is not the swear word the neocon spin machine has turned it into; it shares the word-root with other words like “liberate”—to free, or a state of freedom) faced the single biggest super-power in the world and said, “screw you!” From that day forward, We the People began our liberal revolution and liberal experiment that this country has represented.

The neocons win only if the true lions of revolution give up.

So, if you want to ensure the loss of Constitution and country, go ahead. Stay home. Join the 50+ percent of dispirited complainers who don’t vote, and don’t vote.

If you say “tread on me,” they always will.

“Liberal blogs slobbering over Obama”? You mean, liberals everywhere realizing that Obama is their man and supporting him?

You go ahead and join Hillary with your gender identity politics. Identity distorts judgment. A lot of women will vote for her because they identify with her as a woman, whatever her faults. Women are a majority of Democrats, so this sentiment might be enough to get her the nomination. I hope not.

First, I should disclose I voted for Bill Clinton twice. Second, I should disclose my total conviction that, where it may not have been organized or orchestrated in the manner of a true “conspiracy,” it was so obvious it hurt that the NeoCon right tripped all over themselves to do everything possible to derail both Clintons and to cast them as veritable demons.

I don’t think they are racists. I think the media is, by and large, a remorseless orgiastically sensationalizing collection of corporate competitors as ever were invented. Their uncoordinated goal is to distort *everything.*

Still, I am no Clinton fan. I was no NAFTA fan, when you could audibly hear the sucking sound of jobs blowing through our borders. I was no fan of parsing and twisting and shaping messages—saying whatever would win a vote to maintain power.

That is the history Hillary is proud of and lays claim to. That is her “experience.” That and, unlike her husband, she could not inspire a dish rag to get wet.

General Douglas MacArthur once said that, in the end, even mastery of strategy and tactics — what some might view as “practical” experience — count for very little if you can’t inspire the ground soldiers to march face first against impossible odds.

We the People need an inspirational leader in these dire times where the neoconservative revolution against our Constitution is almost complete. We have maybe one last chance before the tattered remains of the Constitution are gone. And I am not inspired that Hillary is even interested in restoring that balance.

I believe she is only interested in having the power, and I have not heard anything from her or her husband’s lips that they even perceive the damage done, the damage her husband’s collaborations with a neoconservative Congress helped to create.

Please explain how John McCain is a viable candidate. I would love to hear it.

“When Dodd, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich were running, it made no sense to me how Hillary had the most experience to use that campaign slogan.”

Agreed! Dodd is a veteran of the Washington scene and is fighting the FISA bill nonsense as I type this.

And I have little sympathy for Hilruh. Sorry.

I think it is true. Obama has the ability to appeal to a much broader coalition than Clinton, including lots of Republicans, independents and first-time voters.

You’re no help. Does this mean you are not even going to bother voting?

The key to this statement is how Obama’s campaign doesn’t involve in smear, and Hillary’s does via Bill’s foot-to-mouth disease. She doesn’t apologize, and certainly reaps the benefits of Obama bashing.

Pundits are really awful people, and our MSM cannot be trusted with its power anymore. I’m sorry for the stupid arguments against Hillary as a person, but it’s hard for me to rush to her aid like so many others do. Just don’t like what little she has said about her policies, and running as an “experienced candidate” is a whole lot of hogwash. Perhaps, that’s the ultimate reason why I didn’t like her from the get-go. When Dodd, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich were running, it made no sense to me how Hillary had the most experience to use that campaign slogan.

What bunk! That “sudden” shift in the wind has been caused by weeks of unremitting attacks on the Clintons by the Clinton Hating Media and by most liberal blogs slobbering over Obama. Add Bill Clinton out there sticking his foot in his mouth, or having it stuck in his mouth by media “pundits” twisting everything he says and you have the perfect storm. Having now painted the Clintons as racists there is little they can do to counter that perception. Obama may not have been involved in this smear tactic, but he is reaping the benefits. Thus there are still some of us out here not falling all over ourselves to find his simplistic message inspiring. Were he a 40 something woman with so little practical experience he would be laughed off the world stage as he so richly deserves.

But Obama has shown that he can attract many first-time voters. Because of him Democratic turnout may double. McCain is antedeluvian. What’s his message - that the fight against militant Islam is going to last 100 years? Americans are sick of war. Can such a message go anywhere in the general election? I can’t see how.

The McCain argument can be made because he has some history of support with independents, but I think his time-slot was given to Bush. John is cozy with the media, and (as I have thought since 2006)is the only authentic option for the Republican party as a candidate. This doesn’t secure his nomination or victory, though.

Also, I don’t think Bush Republicans are disenchanted or marginalized as might be claimed. Romney plays ball in W’s park better than McCain. Mitt’s incredible financial fortitude might also be enough to secure his position as the Republican candidate. Money talks to conservatives.

All this said, Barack is something more than a longshot. I trust the man who speaks to all Americans instead of being a partisan elitist running on a campaign of entitlement. It doesn’t seem probable to me that John McCain could appeal to a broader audience than Obama.

Agreed.  Sometimes i start to wonder if a Clinton candidacy can bring out the full 43% that you mention; though i assume that at least half the people who say they won’t vote for Clinton will, in fact, vote for her come election day.

I have to believe that in a Clinton/McCain contest, the latter gets the better part of those 19%.  Not only because of Clinton hatred, but also because her “experience” platform won’t match up so well against McCain.

How divisive McCain’s candidacy will be among the Republicans is hard to judge.  The party discipline on that side is strong.

I know a good many conservatives, and quite a few like Obama (after the Republican attacks, who knows).  I think that he stacks up well against McCain because it becomes a simple matter of “change” vs. “stay the course”.  Change can bring voters out.

Here is the secret to presidental politics

43% of the vote will go to the democratic candidate no matter who he/she is.

on the flip side 38 % will go to the GOP candidate no matter who he/she is.

It is the remaining 19 % who decide the election.
A large number of this 19% hate Hillary.
Obama has a better chance of getting the vote of this 19%.
However if McCain gets the nomination he stands to do well with this group also.

^ is; how or rather who of the republicans will vote for Obama but wouldn’t give Hillary a vote.  I keep hearing about the republicans who are fed up with their party, but passionately “hate”  Hillary.  Is this true?  I don’t know.