BARRACK OBAMA! Democratic Nominee.... Who should be VP?

[BrendaQG]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA

The people of Iowa have choosen the best most electable choice. Obama will win if he is the nominee for two reasons. We are tired as a nation of republican rule. and...

THE PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS WILL VOTE FOR HIM. He will win his home state IL and our 21 electoral votes. This is his home state because he came in and took the seat that Hillary the carpetbagging bitch though was not good enough for her. FEW IF ANY have won the presidency w/o their home state voting for them.

Enough people have seen through her cynical political opportunism to know what kind of person Hillary is. This is the right time for a Black man or a woman to be President....Hillary just is not the right woman.

__________

I think we can now say Barrack will be the nominee if they so called "super delegates" break the way the pleged delegates did. If they do then for the first time in a long time we may see one party win all but one or two states. Something that hasn't happend since 1984 when Ronald Regan destroyed Walter Mondale.

_____

Even more than before Obama can now be said to be the Heir apparent to the office of president.
___________

Clinton would need to win ~65% of outstanding pledged delegates to overtake Obama. But this is not over. My father says McCain could fool around and win. I agree. If the democrats break for a "experience" candidate that person is Mc Cain.
________________
Well well it has been a while since we had a concrete result to digest.

Barrack Obama made every kind of mistake possible. He as a politician did the unthinkable.... He told the truth about some of the white people one will meet in the rural Midwest. He called his grandmother "gasp" a "typical white woman". (I have heard that statement taken out of context and twisted all around it sickens me.) So of course he looses there by a whooping 10%!....

You know what.

It dose not change any of the mathematics. He is ahead in the popular vote, and the pledged delegate count. It may even be such a lead that with Florida and Michigan counted he would still have the lead. (In one state Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot). The mathematics and logic should win. They should tell Hillary a supposedly reasonable logical person that the game is up.

Personally against McCain Obama my not win my vote. I mean a democratic house, senate, and president might not be in my interest.... The last time that happend the budgets of big science projects were cut so badly that the field I want to work in still has not really recovered.

[Yusef64240]

I was born in South Africa and since being in the US have seen just as much racism as in South Africa then. The US is just more on the dl about it. This under current would prevent a black person being president. I would love to see it but don't think I will.

[BrendaQG]

Perhaps. But I think that it is about time the USA had a black president. It is a lock that the US will either have a black president or a black vice president in 2009.

[Oli]

Perhaps. But I think that it is about time the USA had a black president. It is a lock that the US will either have a black president or a black vice president in 2009.

Obama won't take the VP job. If he doesn't get the nomination, he'll wait and take the top job in 2016.

[BrendaQG]

or 2012 if the next president sucks.

[eggbert]

Enough people have seen through her cynical political opportunism to know what kind of person Hillary is. This is the right time for a Black man or a woman to be President....Hillary just is not the right woman.[/quote]

I agree that Hillary is an opportunistic politician (you do have to get elected), but I don't understand the cynicism you attribute to her. She has a laudable resume and has been involved in many fights in favor of childrens rights, health benefits for the uninsured, civil rights, etc. I for one would have no problem voting for either Hillary or Barrack. Being in NJ, a state who's primary is inconsequential, all I can do is wait and see who ends up on the ballot in November.

Yusef, I disagree. Yes, this country still has a lot of racists, but Obama seems to be able to get the votes despite that. Is it because he speaks without a trace of ebonics? Is it because he's light skinned? Probably has something to do with it. Also, don't forget he's only half black. His mom is white. This goes back to the old argument of how black do you have to be to be black. Anyway, I think that of all the candidates, Obama is the candidate of change, and it looks to me like he's the man to beat.

[hippifried]

The squeaky wheel...

I don't think Americans in general were ever all that racist. Not like they're depicted in pop-history anyway. There's always been assholes & there still are, but was that ever majority thinking? It's been a hot button issue now & then, but it's always a handful of loudmouths when you look close. Even the terrorism of the Klan knew no racial boundaries. White people in the south were happy at the demise of that organization because they were just as much under their thumb as black folks.

[ezed]

Obama has a chance. He has charisma. Yeah he's black. In 1960 JFK was catholic. No way a catholic could get elected! But he did. 47 years later, I would give a black man the same odds as a catholic in 1960.

They say he's a senator and never ran anything. JFK was a senator who never ran anything. Will he prevail. Depends on him and the orgaization he's assembled (he runs this). We shall see. I hope he's the real deal! We will see over the coming six months.

[Odelay]

I was born in South Africa and since being in the US have seen just as much racism as in South Africa then. The US is just more on the dl about it. This under current would prevent a black person being president. I would love to see it but don't think I will.

I was on project in S.Africa in December and going back in January and February. And I was very intrigued by all of the conversations I had with white and black S.Africans. They speak more openly about these things, at least they did to me. And I was struck by the similarities of race relations between the 2 countries. Americans are just not objective about the undercurrent of racism here.

Obama is a transcendent candidate. It's intriguing to me that while campaigning non-stop in Iowa and New Hampshire, he is taking time out to call important politicians on both sides in Kenya, which is really undergoing a lot of electoral upheaval right now. I think African-Americans will respond positively to a candidate who actually cares about what's going on within the African continent.

[BrendaQG]

@ hippiefriend.

Oh yeah I'm sure that slavery thing was just a 400 year mistake. I'm sure my ancestor who was brought to virginia on a dutch ship in the 1620's just misunderstood something. Then therefore he is at fault for it. Opps our bad /sarcasm

@ eggbert.

Are you from Illinois?

Progerssive's from Illinois were looking forward to having Hillary run for senate here after her husband was no longer president.

While bill was president and before Hillary was Ms. Chicago. She was at 1/3 to 1/2 of Cubs homegames. Bill was in chicago quite often....he liked to helicopter into downtown and land a Meigs field (yes we used to have a nice airport for small planes right downtown). It seemed clear where they were going to go after bill was no longer president.

In stead because of political timing and opportunity we see Hillary WEARING A YANKEES BASEBALL CAP AND SAYING SHE WAS ALWAYS A YANKEES FAN! [i]That and she did not even feel her home state which loved her like a daughter was worth waiting for...so she could run against Peter Fitzgerald or whoever the IL republicans put up against her in 2004.

Instead Barack Obama ran against Jack Ryan who had to drop out of the race because his wife Jeri Ryan (7/9 from ST:Voyager ratted her husband out for wanting to go to swingers bars). He won and in the process gained such notieriety that he could run for president.

Wheras if Hillary had run for senate in IL she would have his seat and Barack Obama would just be a obscure state senator.

This truly is a case of one's chickens comming home to roost!

[hippifried]

Brenda,

Although slavery was a terrible violence against a lot of people, the reality is that the vast vast majority of white folks in America never owned a slave. Even among the priveleged elite, who were the only slaveowners & the ones who bankrolled the system, there was a raging debate over the ownership of other human beings.

You never see polls from the past. You see lots of writings from a couple of people, but you never really know what folks are thinking out in the country.

For instance: Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act in the senate. It passed anyway & Lyndon Johnson signed it. It became a huge issue in the '64 campaign. in fact, in '64, civil rights wasn't an issue. It was THE issue. The hate mongers were all over the air waves & print media. "If we let those negroes get their way, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it...blah blah blah..." Johnson won the election by a landslide. He was elected by white voters. Even with the extra black voters in the south, non-white voters only totaled in at around 15%. 20% tops.

My thinking is that most people aren't racist & never have been. Most people just want to mind their own business & wish everyone else would do the same. Most folks, regardless of their opinions about others, won't go out of their way to screw with people because of the accident of their birth. If you look close enough, it's always a core group of assholes who make all the noise, & it's the same assholes every time. I don't eally believe that most people are scared, stupid, or both, & that's all racism really is.

[sexynygirl1]

obama in '08!

[Tomfurbs]

I think Obama has a good chance at the nomination. When (if) he does, the gloves will really come off on the Republican side, and they will subject him to a furious character assasination; even worse than the one they pulled on Kerry.

The trouble with Obama is no-one knows anything about him really. He is too much of an unknown quantity, and I think the US will ultimately go with a safer choice.

[El Nino]

I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. He's CFR and AIPACS poster child. He's got strings attached. Don't believe me? Do the hard data gathering yourselves

[El Nino]

Why Obama Can't Save Us:
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1549

Seems like his priority is not serving the USA's best interest, as well as showing other allegiances.

[hippifried]

Rejoice! Alex Jones has brought forth the truth to set us all free.

Uh huh.

[El Nino]

Go back to sleep hippifried... nothing to see here. Just believe everything that Fox news jams down your throat.

[DJ_Asia]

Go back to sleep hippifried... nothing to see here. Just believe everything that Fox news jams down your throat.

LOL..no doubt about that...amazes me how easily the masses are in a not so subtle way told who to vote for by the major media...

I dont think Obama is going to win,but if he does enjoy him while you can...the good old boys arent going to put up with a black president,theyve already got a bullet with his name on it...sad...but true.

[hippifried]

Such pessimism. You guys do realize that the reason people don't buy into all this conspiracy crap is because it rarely pans out. Don't ya? Crying wolf just puts people off their guard against the real threats to their well-being.

Since my guy, Bill Richardson, is out of the race now, I'm actually leaning toward Sen Obama for the simple reason that Sen Clinton seems a little quick on the trigger to me. She's a bit conservative for my taste too, but I can live with that. I survived Reagan & both Bushes, not to mention the Nixon fiasco.

Obama is a leap of faith. If he gets the nomination, he'll probably win the election. In that case, we have to hope that he really is the Jackie Robinson of the political world. He has to play an "A" game for 8 solid years & have a skin thicker than a rhino. As young a man as he is, I can guarantee gray hair & a lot more wrinkles by the end of the first term.

That entire last paragraph also applies to Hillary Clinton. She however is a known commodity. The healthcare report of '93/'94 was impressive, & the problems addressed in the report have amplified through the lack of of followthrough. What disturbs me is the willingness to change what was a good plan just because it got stymied by political silliness the first time around. I'm also not happy with her willingness, along with so many others, to abdicate the power of the Congress to decide on going to war.

I'm not buying for one minute this goofy idea that this primary race is a fight between race & gender. I'll start giving credence to the pundits & wannabe celebrities that pass themselves off as reporters these days when they stop making themselves the story. I don't think I'm alone based on the number of people who decided to lie to the pollsters in New Hampshire. There's not one shred of credible analysis on the mindset of voters today. That won't change until the folks who need our trust to stay in business realize that "the horserace" is only a minor part of the story.

DJ,
Nobody's going to shoot Obama. If such a thing happened, unlike the Kennedy assassination, everybody would know why. The backlash would make your head spin. Anyone with a modicum of sense would know this & be deterred. That's not to say that bigots have much sense, but even an attempt would make them the targets of the lynch mobs. I'm not talking about black people getting up in arms. It's the white people in America that would show the wrath of God to these assholes if there were to be a physical attack on the POTUS because of skin pigmentation.

[El Nino]

Hey Hippifried, the greatest conspiracy of all, is the view that there are no government conspiracies. Just believe everything ABCNNBBCBS tells you. HA!

[El Nino]

Obama is a puppet with many, many, many strings attached. His allegiance to Israel and the CFR will contribute to the downfall of America's sovereignty, and no I am not Antisemitic. But any country with 300 nuclear weapons can defend themselves...
Watch his recent speech at an AIPAC conference online... his "Israel first" stance is dangerous and creates conflict. Makes me SICK. He's a joke and not a true American. The wars in the Middle-East will continue if this fluffhead gets into office. MARK MY WORDS

Who gets the most money donated to their campaign from the troops?? Why its Ron Paul. Doesn't that tell you something...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0fyxCzLsYc

[hippifried]

Doesn't tell much really, other than any politician will put any stat on a TV ad to try & draw an emotional vote. I don't know how far hero worship of "the troops" is going to fly this time around.

So, what are Obama's CFR connections? Don't forget the Trilateral Commission & all the rest of the think tanks all over the country. This all sounds more & more like a John Birch Society pamphlet out of the '60s. Same old shit.

[El Nino]

CFRs Mission Statement= One World Government, Dissolve America's Sovereignty and Constitution...
its that simple. Paul loves this country and the principles it was founded upon. Shouldn't you all too?

Dr. Paul speaks truth to power, that's why his support by troops is significant. They know better than anybody else how useless and destructive this war is. Connect these dots

[DJ_Asia]

DJ,
Nobody's going to shoot Obama. If such a thing happened, unlike the Kennedy assassination, everybody would know why. The backlash would make your head spin. Anyone with a modicum of sense would know this & be deterred. That's not to say that bigots have much sense, but even an attempt would make them the targets of the lynch mobs. I'm not talking about black people getting up in arms. It's the white people in America that would show the wrath of God to these assholes if there were to be a physical attack on the POTUS because of skin pigmentation.

Havent spent much time in the south have you?! Perhaps in NY or California where people are more progressive in their thoughts,but white supremists are alive and well and they really dont have anything to hide regarding their intent,nor do they care who they piss off as long as their agendas are met.
Again im not supporting nor advocating such behaviour,but obviously you have much more faith in the populus of America than I do.

Regardless I still support Dr. Paul and its beyond me how anyone who has actually listened to him can not support him.Perhaps its a mindset of " Hes not going to win anyways,so why waste a vote".If that is indeed is the case then is severe defeatism and the states are truly a lost cause.

[hippifried]

I've spent time in the south, & other parts of the country. This isn't the '60s anymore. Black people are moving south to escape the segregated bigotry of the northern industrial cities as we speak. The Klan was a terrorist organization. They terrorized as many white people as black people if not more. When they got busted up, the whole region gave a sigh of relief & they've been kept hiding under their rocks ever since. Racial muggings, police bigotry, & other organized ethnic brutality are just as likely to be happening in New York, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Cincinatti, Miami, or LA.

The civil rights movement in this country wasn't successful because black people organized. The 10 - 12% of the country that was black & mostly poor never had the clout to end institutionalized racism. It was white people, the majority of this country, that finally saw what was happening up close, got fed up with the insanity, stood up, & said "ENOUGH! This isn't who we are.". That's the legacy of Martin Luther King. He took away the racial barrier & made civil rights a cause for universal justice. While bigots may be loud & get more than their share of press, they don't represent the people of the US. That's why a black man with an Arab sounding name can have a good chance of becoming the next President. He won Iowa forchristsake. He's being "judged by the content of his character" & nothing else. What does that do to the stereotypes of America?

Changes of this magnitude are generational. They have to be because it's a change in the mindset. We're 2 or 3 generations into this now. There's been snags along the way, but we're not moving backwards. The hardcore supremicists have moved off to the woods, mostly the north woods, because people just don't want those assholes in their neighborhoods. All that bullshit is just tired, & nobody listens to it anymore.

[Mr_Choc69]

LMAO


I LOVE it when people say " There isn't any Racism in America". They are either ignorant or foolish. Either way it is futile to try to HELP them understand.

[hippifried]

I never said there wasn't racism here. I just argue that it isn't as bad as it was 40 years ago, & it isn't as widespread as people are led to believe. Most people don't want to be & won't go out of their way to be an asshole. As the stereotypes get exposed for what they are, things get a little better with each generation. As bigotry gets more stygmatized, people are just a little more careful what they teach their children. It's social evolution.

[chefmike]

Racism will always exist, but the assertion that there is currently more racism in the southern US than in the northern US is totally wrong.

[chefmike]

And while were on the subject of racism, and also the learned Dr. Paul, let's look at some of his quaint views on the black population in the US:

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.


Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.


If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers."

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

[Mr_Choc69]

Yeah I saw that. He has denied it - Interesting.

[El Nino]

Enough Said...

[DJ_Asia]

Changes of this magnitude are generational. They have to be because it's a change in the mindset. We're 2 or 3 generations into this now. There's been snags along the way, but we're not moving backwards. The hardcore supremicists have moved off to the woods, mostly the north woods, because people just don't want those assholes in their neighborhoods. All that bullshit is just tired, & nobody listens to it anymore.

Yup those White Supremists are long gone and would never stir up problems like they did back in the day... :roll:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080121/ap_on_re_us/jena_six_5;_ylt=AsMlagufKfDxDDqV6ZJXS7QE1vAI

[chefmike]

So where will all the Paulaholics go when the good doctor returns to his bunker?

[BrendaQG]

LOL

Like Ron Paul had any real chance ever. They might as well have casted write in ballots for Ross Perot.

I think we are seeing a steady change as he get's more exposure more people want to vote for Obama. I fell really good about his chances.

[El Nino]

Obama and his message of "Change" is a joke.

See: http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1887

[hippifried]

Yeah maybe, but Ron Paul's a joke in & of himself. What'd he pull? 4%?

[El Nino]

Hey hippicrack, why is the spreading the message of freedom, peace, Sound Monetary Policy and restoration of our Constitution a joke? HUH? What is wrong with you? What are you a fucking communist? Disinfo Agent? Or just an IDIOT? WAKE UP, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah, and maybe if the ALL the mainstream media wasn't owned by 5 massive corporations like GE etc, didn't neglect and disregard Ron Paul's message and when they do mention him, call him a "lunatic", MAYBE HE WOULD POLL A LITTLE BETTER. Maybe if the public was actually informed of the truth and not dumbed down with propaganda (like your's truly) HE WOULD POLL A LITTLE BETTER. This country is under attack by multi-nationalists with destruction of American sovereignty in mind. This in incontrovertible. keep smearing Ron Paul and see where that gets your free country JACK!

Section 802 of the Patriot Act: YOU the American Citizen, are now the terrorist. Feel Good? Ron Pauls message will prevail. Tyranny always loses

[El Nino]

There are 1000's of reasons Ron Paul doesn't poll as well as he could. Figure them out yourselves, it's literally staring you in the faces.

[chefmike]

Ron Paul may be a pacifist, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a right wing nutjob.

[El Nino]

Um, wait a minute. He is not a pacifist as you say, so don't blow shit out your ass. He believes in having a very strong military; but only using it for a just cause. Its just the illegal and unnecessary occupation of foreign countries that he is against, which cripple the US economy and generate hostility and mass death. "Right wing nut job" you say? Why? Because he believes in the Constitution, small government and freedom and equality for all? Well, I guess you could call Ben Franklin, T. Jefferson and the other founding father's who forged the majestic document, "right wing nut jobs" as well then. You know, the ones who gave you your Bill Of Rights, which are dwindling away now. You have a greater chance getting hit by lightning or seeing a fucking Unicorn than getting killed in a "terrorist" attack. Yet the American sheep gladly give up their civil liberties so that Big Brother can keep them safe. When did this mass pussification of the American male take place? I'm sorry to inform you, but a few poor bastards in a cave aren't the ones legislating your rights away... Support a real fucking American for our leader and spread the message of freedom. Learn some shit while your at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcm0KGHLFJ4

[chefmike]

Yes, I heard your bright boy ronnie saying that there was no justification for the Civil War on MSNBC...what a guy...and now he's just another forgotten member of the lunatic fringe, like yourself...deal with it, zippy.

[El Nino]

No, again your facts are wrong fuck face. He said that the federal government could have free'd the slaves by buying them off their owners, resulting in their freedom. As opposed to waging a bloodbath war. They had sufficient funds to do so AND it would have been a hell of a lot easier. That is how it has been executed throughout history in many circumstances. Ronnie, just pointed out a theoretical alternative. Again, learn your facts before you spew. Ron Paul has an higher than average I.Q. and understands the integration and complexities facing this nation. He would make a great President to any advanced civilization that has PEACE in mind. This is an objective and non-debatable fact. Kind of like how you are ill-informed, shit head

[hippifried]

He said that the federal government could have free'd the slaves by buying them off their owners, resulting in their freedom.
Wouldn't that concede that people can own other human beings in the first place? Or worse yet, that the government can own them? Oh I know the argument will be made that the plan would be to grant them their freedom, but that freedom is nobody's to grant. It's a pre-existing, always existing really, right. It supercedes any priveleges of property, as all rights do. Some alternative. It'd just be appeasement of the landed gentry & an admission of elite privelege. It flies in the face of Constitutional principles.

Looks like just one more reason for the 4% draw of support. This isn't the first time Ron Paul has run for President. He didn't do any better the last time. There's a reason for that. The American people don't want to return to the robber baron days of the 19th century. They don't want to be saddled with a VAT on demand that would necessarily be implemented if the income tax disappeared. They don't want to lose control of their infrastructure by handing it off to private business. Everything I've seen says that they'd like to see it expanded. Nobody really cares about "State's rights", because most people understand that there's no such thing.

The message will not prevail because nobody wants to step backward. it's just that simple.

[chefmike]

Ron Paul is a wild-eyed lunatic who has duped many people. Many of us would like to see a viable third party candidate...but it wasn't Ross Perot, and it damn sure isn't Ron Paul.

So suck it up and move on, pilgrim.

[BrendaQG]

Nino just face it. Ron Paul had a snowballs chance in a volcano of being president, vice presidnet, or for that matter the postmaster general. LOL

[Legend]

Don't you guys think www.truthnews.us should changed the url to www.truthtoronpaulloonatics.us seriously check out some of the bs on his site,

"Ron Paul in a Nutshell" should be changed to ron paul is a nutcase and so are his followers.

"Why Are Ron Paul Supporters So Angry?" Easy because he sucks and had no chance in hell of becoming president,a random person off the street had a better shot then him.


The only thing this guy would win is those irrelevant internet polls because he followers are basically crazy ass bloggers who voted a hundred times so they can say their guy won something.

[hippifried]

Well... Gotta give him his due. He did make a showing in Washington. For what that's worth. We'll see what happens in Texas.

[BrendaQG]

John Mc Cain is the republican Nominee that's all there is to it. Either Romney or Huckabee with be their VP. As for the Dems it will be an Obama Edwards ticket (let's be real too much of the heartland of America hates Hillary for her to win.)

[El Nino]

Actually, Paul did a lot better than 4% as you say here. He had a very strong grass roots campaign that fought against all odds and blatent media bias, smearing, and it was pretty fucking successful. Just look at a few of these numbers:

Iowa, 10%
Nevada, 2nd place, 14%
Maine, 2nd place 20%
Montana, 2nd place 25%
N. Dakota, 3rd place 21%
Alaska, 3rd place 17%
Minnesota, 16%

Washington St, 1rst 46%
Spokane Republican Caucus Results: With 90% of the precincts reporting - Ron Paul 46%, Mike Huckabee 20%, John Mccain 15%, Mitt Romney 9%, Uncommitted 10%.


****Although CNN etc. is NOT reporting ANYTHING for Washington State- HERE are the results so far:



Republican Caucus Results: With 87% of the precincts reporting - Ron Paul 45%, Mike Huckabee 20%, John Mccain 17%, Mitt Romney 9%, Uncommitted 9%.


Regarding these stunning results (given the circumstances) This is truly not about Ron Paul as President. This is about a revolution and a freedom movement that is permanent. There is no stopping it now. The sleeping giant has awoken. Downsize and smear the revolution all you want, it won't work... too much inertia going. You will now see other constitutionalists and freedom lovers, and government whistle blowers, running for all kinds of government positions. Its already happening.

More:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DN-fhY96p0

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/02/ron-paul-beats.html


UPDATE:

Hello everyone,
By our very preliminary count from you reports it is looking like we have at least twice the delegates as the other candidates!!
For this day and until the count shows otherwise I want you to congratulate yourselves for WINNING Washington State for Ron Paul!!
I wish I could share every single story I have heard over the past few days and all the happy reports from Ron Paul enclaves in WA towns I have never even heard of!
Please know this...the National Campaign is seeing these kind of successes all over the country...Every day that goes by we have new supporters and new contributers. I can't believe I am saying this...I thought certainly I would sleep for 4 days once the 9th was over...but I am already so excited to prepare for our County Conventions!! The next few weeks are going to be very important...There were stories from almost every precinct about Huckabee and Romney voters changing their support to Ron Paul. Unfortunately some of the biggest threats to the Freedom Revolution can still come from within...our own perceptions...please read Ron's letter again until you see the part that states he we are going to the National Convention! You know things have changed every day in this campaign with new information and new victories changing the course...now we have given him Washington and made the road to the Minneapolis a lot more golden!!
I will update you all when we get more final results...
You all did a wonderful job. Just wonderful.

Thank you for all you do!
Maureen McMahan Moore
Washington State Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008

[El Nino]

Um Legend, those online polls are actually one vote/ IP address. So you can only vote once from one computer. The reason he did well on online polls is because people who are online have greater exposure to so much more information, as opposed to Mainstream Media polls that act as Grandma's only source of info and only reach out to such people, respectively.

Proof in the pudding here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg

They have been excluding his name from conventional polls!!! He has been cheated.

The stronger DR. RON PAUL gets, the more the media is going to ignore him. dont expect for fairness, the media is working with the devil...

[El Nino]

Of course, Obama's still in the race. His allegiances are not with the USA. He's CFR and AIPACS poster-boy. (American and Israeli Public Affairs Committee)

New World Order Quotations

A collection of quotations from elite figures, media heads, government officials, persons from history, authors and more on the subject of the move toward a new world order under a one world government and a reduced human population.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.
George Washington

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite."
Senator William Jenner, 1954

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future."
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable."
Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The United States must stay involved in the world and we must lead. Today there is a strange coalition at work in Washington and across the country consisting of people on the political right and the political left coming together to keep us from staying involved. Big labor and liberal Democrats are joining some Republicans on the right in calling for America to come home, (saying) we have done our part and that it's time for others to do the heavy lifting on international leadership. And we must not listen to that siren's call of protection and isolation. "
Former President George Bush
Addressing Duke University Graduates May 17, 1998
USA Today May 29, 1998

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Rarely have Americans lived through so much change, in so many ways, in so short a time. Quietly, but with gathering force, the ground has shifted beneath our feet as we have moved into an Information Age, a global economy, a truly new world."
President William Clinton State of the Union Address 1998

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives...from the White House.... The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."
H. Rowan Gaither, Jr., President - Ford Foundation (as told to Norman Dodd, Congressional Reese Commission 1954)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it?"
H.G. Wells The New World Order 1939

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
Richard Salent, former president, CBS News

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."
President George Bush Texas A&M University 1989

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order - where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance."
President George Bush State of the Union Address 1991

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner. . . ." [This is compassionate liberalism.]
Fabian Socialist Bernard Shaw in his Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Since March 9, 1933, the United states has been in a state of national emergency. A majority of the people of the United States have their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (now 72 years) freedoms and governmental procedures, guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought forth by states of national emergency."
Senate Report 93-549 (1973).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
Sir Julian Huxley, first Director General of UNESCO, 1946-1948.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, outspoken atheist and socialist, founder of the Voluntary Parenthood League in 1914, and responsible for opening the first birth control clinic in the United States in New York City.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and CFR member.

[Omoi]

I would like to post my first post here.
What concerns me are the so-called black civil rights leaders who are on a different track to their constituents. These people are pointing another way when their people go to vote.
John Lewis, Charlie Rangel and the likes should be thrown into the garbage bins of history next time they try to get elected to office.

[trish]

' don't quite follow what your concerns are Omoi. Are you saying Rangel's view of civil rights differs from those of the citizens he represents? overshadows other concerns of his constituency? not in align with the traditional view of civil rights (since the 60's)? I'm just not getting it. And how do these concerns with Lewis and Rangel tie in, if at all, with Obama's candidacy?

[hippifried]

Butt butt butt butt he's black! :shock: & with a name like that, he must be a Muslim. Right? All these activists are putting us on the road to hell. They'll have us licking the hobnails of our Chinese overlords any day now. They'll just come in & take over without firing a shot, just like they have all the other dominoes. Never mind that everybody who's ever been in any kind of leadership position in this country (excluding Joe McCarthy & Ron Paul of course) has been & still are "communists". Even George Washington & the rest of the founders.

We're doomed I tell ya! Doomed!!! :cry: Hide under your pyramid & don't forget your tinfoil helmet because the sky is definitely falling. But since God is on our side, there just might still be a slim chance that people will see the light & win the war of cliches.

Another sad look at the state of "race" "relations":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KWgpGVGeL_g

[BrendaQG]

I need to change this title again. He's not just in the race right now he's Kicking Hillary's ass.

[thx1138]

"The voters decide nothing. The vote counters decide everything." Joe Stalin. To be sure the Diebold crew is out there waiting to spring into action in November if not sooner.

[ezed]

I need to change this title again. He's not just in the race right now he's Kicking Hillary's ass.

Yeah, he is Brenda. But research the term "super delegates". She has aces up her sleeve. It sucks but this is the country we live in. Money calls the shots.

Just look at your government. The country's head for recession. Oil and gas prices are stupid. (See the seventies) For years, companies were allowed to pop up and sucker a nation into subprime mortgages. And the people in power are getting rich and acquiring property through forclosures and redeveloping properties.

And we look at our esteemed representative toiling whether Roger Clemens is taking steriods or is Belicheck filming coaches.

Ask yourself, what is wrong with this picture. Scandel sells! Keep the masses in the dark and feed them shit.

We are mushrooms. We are given our daily soma pills of reality TV and Happy Meals.

We sit on the couch and type and watch and bitch.

WE ARE DOOMED! UNTIL WE GET OFF OUR ASSES AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!

[chefmike]

I hope that you're not talking revolution ezed, because I work hard enough at my regular job.

[BrendaQG]

I need to change this title again. He's not just in the race right now he's Kicking Hillary's ass.

Yeah, he is Brenda. But research the term "super delegates". She has aces up her sleeve. It sucks but this is the country we live in. Money calls the shots.

If they screw Obama like that I guarantee that John McCain will win. Because the places that Obama is mostly winning are places that Republicans need to win in November. Slighting the heartland using super delegates would really screw the Democrats.



Ask yourself, what is wrong with this picture. Scandel sells! Keep the masses in the dark and feed them shit.

We are mushrooms. We are given our daily soma pills of reality TV and Happy Meals.

We sit on the couch and type and watch and bitch.

WE ARE DOOMED! UNTIL WE GET OFF OUR ASSES AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!

Careful my friend. Some of the toadstools here may get the idea that you think you are better than them. Oh heaven forbid people to use their brains! :?

[Quinn]

I need to change this title again. He's not just in the race right now he's Kicking Hillary's ass.

Yeah, he is Brenda. But research the term "super delegates". She has aces up her sleeve. It sucks but this is the country we live in. Money calls the shots.

Unfortunately, Hillary's campaign has already started discussing the very option you're referencing, ezed. If that happens, the Democratic party can count me as a life-long adversary. Hillary is just as bad as the Republicans she opposes; that is, democracy suits her just fine – so long as it works in her favor. However, once it doesn’t, there’s no reason not to subvert it.

-Quinn

[hippifried]

Yeah, he is Brenda. But research the term "super delegates". She has aces up her sleeve. It sucks but this is the country we live in. Money calls the shots.
Yeah that all sounds real good for TV ratings or disgruntled Hillary haters, but the reality is that Obama has the money.

[Quinn]

It's all about the facts:

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama emerged from Tuesday’s primaries leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 100 delegates, a small but significant advantage that Democrats said would be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to make up in the remaining contests in the presidential nomination battle.

Neither candidate is expected to win the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to claim the nomination by the time the voting ends in June. But Mr. Obama’s campaign began making a case in earnest on Wednesday that if he maintained his edge in delegates won in primaries and caucuses, he would have the strongest claim to the backing of the 796 elected Democrats and party leaders known as superdelegates who are free to vote as they choose and who now stand to determine the outcome.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said she could still pull out a victory with victories in the biggest primaries still to come, including Ohio and Texas next month. But Mr. Obama’s clear lead in delegates allocated by the votes in nominating contests is one of a number of challenges facing her after a string of defeats in which Mr. Obama not only ran up big popular vote margins but also made inroads among the types of voters she had most been counting on, including women and lower-income people.

Should the cracks in her support among those groups show up in Ohio and Texas as well, it could undermine her hopes that those states will halt Mr. Obama’s momentum and allow her to claim dominance in many of the biggest primary battlegrounds.

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.

Mr. Obama’s aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.

Julian Bond, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called for the delegates to be seated, saying failure to do so would amount to disenfranchising minority voters in those states. But on Wednesday, such a move was denounced by the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who said many people in those states did not go the polls because they assumed their votes would not count.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to catch up in the race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning Ohio and Texas in three weeks and Pennsylvania in April. They said the Democratic Party’s rules, which award delegates relatively evenly among the candidates based on the proportion of the vote they receive, would require her to win by huge margins in those states to match Mr. Obama in delegates won through voting.

The delegate math set up a new front in the battle for the party’s presidential nomination, one based on competing views of how the party leaders and elected officials whose vote will determine the outcome should make their decisions.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the delegates should make their decision based on who they thought would be the stronger candidate and president. Mr. Obama argues that they should follow the will of the Democratic Party as expressed in the primary and caucuses — meaning the candidate with the most delegates from the voting.

Mr. Obama’s aides said they hoped to end the voting season with a delegate lead of more than 100, which they would seek to portray as a decisive affirmation by Democratic primary voters of Mr. Obama’s candidacy. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they were looking to bring the margin down significantly below 100 in hope of arguing that the result was too close for delegates to consider in deciding how to vote.

Much for Mrs. Clinton depends on shoring up her support in the portions of the electorate — including women, low- and middle-income voters and Hispanics — that have provided her with victories in key states.

“Hillary does better with blue-collar voters, working-class voters, union members,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. “Barack does better among African-Americans and younger voters and upper-income voters. If that holds, Ohio tilts toward Hillary.”

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign showed signs of being buffeted by conflicting forces as it sought to grapple with a dwindling number of options. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, after some discussion about whether to focus exclusively on Ohio and Texas for the next three weeks, finally decided to send her for three days this week to Wisconsin, which votes next Tuesday.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that they did not think she could win there but that they had concluded at this point they could not afford to leave any delegates on the table or allow Mr. Obama to run up another big margin of victory in the popular vote.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.

The final Democratic primary contests are in early June; Montana and South Dakota vote June 3, and Puerto Rico four days later. It would then be almost three months until the Democratic convention, a period in which, if enough superdelegates have not expressed a firm preference to decide the outcome, the party could face a period of intense horse trading or worse.

Meanwhile, the likely Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, would have a long period to rally his fractious party to his side and hone his attacks on the Democrats.

A delegate count by The New York Times, including projections from caucuses where delegates have not yet been chosen, showed Mr. Obama with a 113-delegate lead over Mrs. Clinton: 1,095 to 982.

Delegate counts by other news organizations and by the campaigns showed somewhat different results, reflecting the difficulty of trying to make exact delegate counts at this point in the process. The figures do not include superdelegates.

Mr. Obama’s campaign said that he had a lead of 1,139 to 1,003; by the count of the Clinton campaign organization, Mr. Obama was doing even better: 1,141 to 1,004 for Mrs. Clinton.

There are 1,082 delegates left to be selected.

By any measure, Mr. Obama is in a much stronger position on Wednesday than he was just a few days ago and in a significantly stronger position than Mrs. Clinton thought he would be at this point. That is because Mr. Obama not only won a series of states, but also won them by large margins — over 20 percentage points — so that he began picking up extra delegates and opening a lead on Mrs. Clinton.

And that is the problem for Mrs. Clinton going forward. If these were winner-take-all states, Mrs. Clinton could pick up 389 delegates in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Now she would have to beat Mr. Obama by more than 20 percentage points in order to pick up a majority of delegates in both states.

“We don’t think our lead will drop below 100 delegates,” David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said in an interview. “The math is the math.”

Mr. Plouffe said by his count, Mr. Obama had won 14 states by a margin of over 20 percentage points or more; Mrs. Clinton has won two states by that margin.

Mr. Penn said the Clinton campaign believed that it could mitigate the losses she suffered by winning in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. In addition to whatever demographic advantage she might have in Ohio, Mrs. Clinton enjoys the support of the governor, Ted Strickland.

“They are working very hard on her behalf,” said Chris Redfern, the party chairman, who is neutral in the race. “It’s not one of those ‘we show up the last week and do a press conference’ things.”

In Texas, Mr. Penn said Mrs. Clinton would be helped by the Latino vote — which he said could ultimately be as much as 40 percent of the electorate.

But Mrs. Clinton faces another problem there in the form of that state’s unusual delegation allocation rules. Delegates are allocated to state senatorial districts based on Democratic voter turn-out in the last election. Bruce Buchanan, a professor of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, noted that in the last election, turnout was low in predominantly Hispanic districts and unusually high in urban African-American districts.

That means more delegates will be available in districts that, based on the results so far, could be expected to go heavily for Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton, Dr. Buchanan said, “has got her work cut out for her.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Like I said, Democracy is all well and good for her – so long as it works in her favor. Otherwise, it’s little more than a minor inconvenience that’s easily dispensed with.

-Quinn

[hippifried]

Quinn,

I don't see how you can come to your conclusion based on the article you posted. What makes anyone think that Hillary Clinton has so much sway in the party that she could run the board of superdelegates? You really think this has something to do with the promise of favors or the transfer of cash in backroom deals? Well there may be some of that, but Obama is the one raking in the cash & there's no favors to be had if the party doesn't win in the fall.

The superdelegates are the party's activists. They're the ones who do all the work year round, organizing to win the general elections. There' a lot of experience & massive egos among the superdelegates as well as hard working ideologues, & the one thing they all have in common is they want to win. Regardless of their feelings toward the Clintons, the party superdelegates aren't beholden to them. The purpose of the convention is to choose a viable nominee with the best chance of derailing the competition, & that competition is John "I'm against torture unless it gets me a first ballot nomination" McCain & the republican party.

[Quinn]

Quinn,

I don't see how you can come to your conclusion based on the article you posted.

You’re kidding me, right? Frankly, given the specific statements made by Hillary’s campaign staff, I don’t see how one could reasonably arrive at any other conclusion. For example:

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the delegates should make their decision based on who they thought would be the stronger candidate and president. Mr. Obama argues that they should follow the will of the Democratic Party as expressed in the primary and caucuses — meaning the candidate with the most delegates from the voting.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.

Moreover, the New York Times is far from the only media source to address these and other statements of intent by the Clinton campaign.


What make anyone think that Hillary Clinton has so much sway in the party that she could run the board of superdelegates?

No one has, as yet, addressed anything other than her campaign’s intent – which is painfully clear. Furthermore, her campaign doesn’t need to “run the board of superdelegates” to win. Depending upon the outcome of the coming primaries/caucuses, it may literally come down to swaying a handful of superdelegates, something a number of political insiders are worried about.


You really think this has something to do with the promise of favors or the transfer of cash in backroom deals?

Take it from someone who married a woman who has held different political offices within New Jersey. Politics, at every level, is largely a matter of backroom deals (no matter what the party or affiliation).


The superdelegates are the party's activists. They're the ones who do all the work year round, organizing to win the general elections. There' a lot of experience & massive egos among the superdelegates as well as hard working ideologues, & the one thing they all have in common is they want to win. Regardless of their feelings toward the Clintons, the party superdelegates aren't behoden to them. The purpose of the convention is to choose a viable nominee with the best chance of derailing the competition, & that competition is John "I'm against torture unless it gets me a first ballot nomination" McCain & the republican party.

Your perspective and general lack of concern are not shared by those in the know. For example, here’s an article from nationally syndicated columnist David Sirota addressing precisely the aforementioned concern:

Looks like Hillary Clinton's campaign machine is getting its superdelegates (aka party insiders) to start softening up the public for a potential trampling of democracy that may mark the Democratic National Convention. This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy -- as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination.

Here in Colorado, we get this dispatch from Mannie Rodriguez in the
Rocky Mountain News:

Because regular delegates are allocated proportionally, some calculations show that even if Obama were to roll through the rest of the primary season, he would not be able to secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone. That could result in a floor fight during the convention -- with superdelegates key to the outcome.

"I'm going to stick to her 100 percent," Rodriguez said. "I hope it doesn't go to superdelgates deciding, but if it does, I'm with her all the way."
Forget that Colorado voters overwhelmingly supported Obama, forget that Obama may win the total, democratically awarded regular delegates...

Then in a suburban Philadelphia newspaper, we get this from Clinton-backing superdelegate Marcel Groen:

"It's worked for the past 40 years, for the most part, and largely it's an honorary position," he said. "But if it's going to be real close, then I think it's wise to let the leaders of the party do the right thing."

This follows Clinton hack Lanny Davis's missive on Huffington Post saying almost exactly the same thing (after embarrassing himself by claiming Adlai Stevenson was elected president). It also comes as the Boston Globe today reports that Clinton is determined to "take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote" with a plan to "persuade enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention." Clinton "will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson."

So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons.

Egomania knows no bounds and no loyalty -- not even to the founding principles of democracy.

Clinton partisans will counter that we should count the Florida and Michigan delegates because they were supposedly "disenfranchised." What a joke. The candidates agreed not to campaign there, and agreed that the delegates would not be seated. Now, of course, the Clinton partisans want those delegates to count, even though they were banana republic-style elections -- no campaigning, and in the case of Michigan, not even anyone other than Clinton on the ballot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/clinton-superdelegates-ec_b_86624.html?referer=sphere_related_content

Like I said, it's all about the facts.

-Quinn

[hippifried]

Moreover, the New York Times is far from the only media source to address these and other statements of intent by the Clinton campaign.
The entire media is jabbering incessantly about superdelegates & licking their chops over the idea of a brokered convention, just like they do every 4 years. Last time it happened was 1960. The Clinton campaign can make whatever case it wants, but that doesn't guarantee anybody's going to buy it.

You say:

Politics, at every level, is largely a matter of backroom deals
I don't think it's as "largely" as it's made out to be, from the campaigns I've been directly involved in. The farther up you go in levels, the less clout any one individual has. It's one thing to be the big dog at the local level, but at the national level, they're all big dogs. You can't just make a few backroom deals & deliver a whole block of delegates anymore. The only ones who are in control of any delegates are the 2 candidates who are still in the race.

You're not talking about a few deals here. You're talking about hundreds of deals & hundreds of more attempted deals. Nobody's following orders. The superdelegates are superdelegates because they're the ones who give orders. Besides, nobody's going to cut any kind of "deal", backroom or otherwise, unless you have something they want. This is the national convention. What they want is to win the Presidency, & to win desicively. They want a mandate. What they want is to increase their majority in both chambers of Congress. What they want is to win governorships, statehouses, county boards, city councils, mayor's offices, & judgeships at all levels from JP to federal appeals & SCOTUS. If you can't deliver a majority or even a plurality of pledged delegates to the convention, you certainly can't deliver any of that.

This isn't the republicans, where ideology & selective romantic memories of Ronald Reagan hold sway, & where someone can win a nominaion because it's their turn or they have a family name. This is the democrats, where pragmatic politics is the order of the day. This is politics at the highest & most cutthroat level, where there are no personal loyalties & even endorsements mean little to nothing. It's not even about "What have you done for me lately?". It's about "What can you do for me right now?". It's about clout, & you get that by winning. Obama isn't just winning. He's winning big, & he's making inroads into her base. He's most likely picking up the Edwards votes too. He's winning red states with bigger numbers than the entire republican turnout. That's a little tidbit that the media doesn't seem to care about, but you can bet that the party shakers are looking real hard at it.
From the article you posted:

But Mrs. Clinton faces another problem there in the form of that state’s unusual delegation allocation rules. Delegates are allocated to state senatorial districts based on Democratic voter turn-out in the last election. Bruce Buchanan, a professor of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, noted that in the last election, turnout was low in predominantly Hispanic districts and unusually high in urban African-American districts.

That means more delegates will be available in districts that, based on the results so far, could be expected to go heavily for Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton, Dr. Buchanan said, “has got her work cut out for her.”
She can't just win. To make a dent in the building momentum of the Obama juggernaut, she has to win big. Real big. Over 20% or 30% big. All he has to do is break even, & he could win Texas & Ohio outright. There's now shakeups at management level & negative ads aimed at Obama. Desperation is a sign that a campaign is going into its death throes.

[BrendaQG]

Well in the delgate count we have to realize that they could go ahead and count Florda which would give Clinton an edge. Then there is the fact that the super delgates are more likely than not to stick with whoever won in their particular state. Basically we are going to have a very interesting deomocratic convention. (Ahh if only David Brinkely were alive to comment on this. I can only imagine what he would have to say.)

[Quinn]

Moreover, the New York Times is far from the only media source to address these and other statements of intent by the Clinton campaign.
The entire media is jabbering incessantly about superdelegates & licking their chops over the idea of a brokered convention, just like they do every 4 years. Last time it happened was 1960. The Clinton campaign can make whatever case it wants, but that doesn't guarantee anybody's going to buy it.

With all due respect, I don’t think you can reasonably equate the particulars of this election cycle to any in recent history – particularly when it comes to the role superdelegates could potentially play. Moreover, the above article makes clear that the Clinton campaign’s anti-democratic entreaties are not falling upon uniformly deaf ears.



Politics, at every level, is largely a matter of backroom deals
I don't think it's as "largely" as it's made out to be, from the campaigns I've been directly involved in. The farther up you go in levels, the less clout any one individual has. It's one thing to be the big dog at the local level, but at the national level, they're all big dogs. You can't just make a few backroom deals & deliver a whole block of delegates anymore. The only ones who are in control of any delegates are the 2 candidates who are still in the race.

I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this point as my experiences in this matter run contrary to your own; that is to say, I’ve seen more backroom deals cut farther up the ladder than at the bottom (they just get more intricate).

Look, hippifred, in the end, you can serve as apologist for this most onerous of anti-democratic of tactics all you want, but the facts remain.

-Quinn

[thx1138]

I just can't believe the super delagates would throw the nomination to hillary if the polls showed had a much better chance of defeating McCain the Hillary herself. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3379024.ece

[thx1138]

oops: showed had = showed Obama had

[hippifried]

What antidemocratic tactics? Y'all talk like superdelegates are something new. They've been around for the last 30 years or so that I know of. If it comes down to there isn't a clear 1st ballot majority of pledged delegates, of course the candidates are going to make their case to the superdelegates. To hear you talk, one would think that Hillary was the only one doing it. Some of the superdelegates are already pledged, although they can change their mind, & they get counted into the media totals. MSNBC reported tonight that since super Tuesday, Obama has gained 13 of those pledges & Clinton had lost 3. What does that do to your theory?

Don't forget that the delegates who were chosen to represent any candidates who are no longer in the race are now free agents. Uncommitted. In other words, Edwards can't deliver his delegates to another candidate by rule. Even an endorsement would be nothing more than a recomendation. The idea that Hillary will automatically pick up those delegates or the superdelegates is just wishful thinking by pundits (mostly republican) who think a brokered convention would get them more face time on the tube. So far, there hasn't been a single pundit on the idiot box who's avoided getting egg on their face during this primary season.

I'm going to go out on a limb & predict a first round nomination of Barack Obama. He's got the "mo", & Ican't see anybody stopping it. Despite all the gab, the Clintons do not control the democratic party. Nobody does. That's why they're not republicans.

[hippifried]

Well in the delgate count we have to realize that they could go ahead and count Florda which would give Clinton an edge.
Not true. As it stands, if Florida & Michigan were seated with all their delegates, Obama would still be ahead. Maybe not as far ahead, but if he keeps winning, the delegates he gets from those states just might put him over the top & make the superdelegates moot.

You also have to remember that those were early primaries & nobody walked away with a majority. There's a chunk of uncommitted delegates from both.

[BrendaQG]

True true.

To be honest I kind of hope for a interesting Convention. It would give me something to look forward to this summer aside from recovering from surgery and the "taste of Chicago".

[Omoi]

Chelsea Clinton had lunch with a superdelegate who at 21 has never voted before. If superdelegates are the thing, them why have the primaries at all?
Let Bill, Hillary and Chelsea decide who wins the nomination.
These superdelegates have got favours from the Clintons and now is payback time. Does this decide the future of the USA?

[chefmike]

That puzzled me too. How does one get to be a superdelegate at such a young age?

[hippifried]

How does one get to be a superdelegate at such a young age?
Simple. He decided to get involved & work for the party at the age of 14 or so. These kids are all over. They're the ones who organize the highschool kids who show up to paint signs & put them up all over town as well as all the other drudge work like handing out flyers or walking the neighborhoods & putting them on doors & windshields. On top of that, he did his homework & made sure he could argue the issues. He's still in school & probably on his way to law school. This is where the folks who staff the Whitehouse & Congress come from. I saw the TV interview with this guy. He never let on which way he was leaning. He's dedicated to winning the Whitehouse for the party. He'll vote accordingly, as will most of the at large delegates. There's no personal loyalties involved. The idea that any candidate can buy off the at large delegates is just silly because they're all dedicated to winning the general election first & foremost. That means putting forth the candidate who has the best chance of beating the republicans. That's the prime directive.

[BrendaQG]

Ok by the last counts of pledged and super delegates that I have seen on CNN.com. Obama has a real lead. He also has all the momentum. It's time to really call it. Obama Edwards VS McCain Romney in November. That looks like the most likely match up to me.

[ezed]

Could be Brenda. But Obama can't get cocky yet. The Clintons will be pulling out all the stops for the next round (and I don't support Hillary). Huckabilly still not conceding. I bet it's him not Romney or some other conservative to placate the south.

The next round with Texas and Ohio will be the fourth quarter. If Ohbama does good there, than the super delegates got a major quandry on their hands if they go with Ms. Clinton.

Races are lost in the fourth quarter. But it's Ohbama's race to lose. He's got the pole position.

[hippifried]

Best odds are that none of the former candidates will be on the ticket in either party.

[chefmike]

Best odds are that none of the former candidates will be on the ticket in either party.

I agree. We won't see Edwards or Romney as running mates, or Huckleberry for that matter IMO.

[BrendaQG]

Hmmm... My second choice for Obama's running mate would be Ted Kennedy. Or someone like that to you know give him more "gravitas". Like the same reason that GWB supposedly picked Cheney.

[hippifried]

Kennedy would be as polarizing as Hillary. Maybe even more so. The key to winning an election is to convince those in the middle.

[Somedude21]

I actually like the idea of an Obama/Edwards ticket.

An Obama/Clinton ticket would be...disastrous in my mind.

[Cuchulain]

I'm betting Obama will court Sen. Jim Webb or Gov. Richardson for VP. Webb appeals to the middle while Richardson would be a big help with the Hispanic vote. Edwards would make a great AG. Hillary should make a run for Senate Majority leader - that wimp Harry Reid has to go.

McCain may make a play for that evil beast Condi Rice as his running mate.

[chefmike]

McCain may make a play for that evil beast Condi Rice as his running mate.

I suspect that you may be correct in your prediction that flip-floppin McCain might very well enlist the bride of frankenbush as his running mate. I'd love to see that bitch try to take on Jim Webb in a VP debate....he would eviscerate her in short order.

[thx1138]

I think McCain will take Mike Huckabee as VP to quell the criticism of the bible thumpers.

[qeuqheeg222]

the big tent republicans would love to have condi as vp;however they have to bow to the southern masters-bible thumpers so it most likely will be huckabbee....

[chefmike]

Did any of you catch Huckleberry on SNL? I thought that bit was hilarious. You gotta admit that's he's a likeable guy. Maybe McCain wll give him the nod after all.

[TSCURIOUS]

Just my .02 worth - Right now, Obama wins. However, that's on the emotion of the country. What does he stand for? All he ever says is that he loves this country - well so do millions.
If McCain (centralists) picks Leiberman - he's a shoe-in.
For all those who have some coins - the democrats will banktrupt you in taxes and especially capital gains taxes. If I put my house on the market and get what I can (2.2) and downsize to 1.0, I'll be paying 60% on the gain with them in the office. Even now, I'll be giving up 40%

[flabbybody]

I'd love Barack to pick Jim Webb as his veep. he's a tough prick who would balance Barack's easy going nice guy image.
Webb was the guy who basically said fuck you to George W's face when he was trying to make chit chat at a White House function for incoming senators back in '06

[tsluva]

Enough people have seen through her cynical political opportunism to know what kind of person Hillary is. This is the right time for a Black man or a woman to be President....Hillary just is not the right woman.

I agree that Hillary is an opportunistic politician (you do have to get elected), but I don't understand the cynicism you attribute to her. She has a laudable resume and has been involved in many fights in favor of childrens rights, health benefits for the uninsured, civil rights, etc. I for one would have no problem voting for either Hillary or Barrack. Being in NJ, a state who's primary is inconsequential, all I can do is wait and see who ends up on the ballot in November.

Yusef, I disagree. Yes, this country still has a lot of racists, but Obama seems to be able to get the votes despite that. Is it because he speaks without a trace of ebonics? Is it because he's light skinned? Probably has something to do with it. Also, don't forget he's only half black. His mom is white. This goes back to the old argument of how black do you have to be to be black. Anyway, I think that of all the candidates, Obama is the candidate of change, and it looks to me like he's the man to beat.[/quote]


Barack's wife is 100% black but i don't think his skin-complexion has
anything to do with it.
Like his strongest sponsor (Oprah), i think it is a matter of Obama's
very strong appeal to both conservatives and independents. It takes
a very rare and exceptional leader to make something like that happen.
When you combine that with what America has had to go thru in the
" Diablo " Bush era, it's easy to understand the worldwide hope,
optimism and enthusiasm for Obama. Time for a big time Change.

[thx1138]

Is Obama a member of the New World Order? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html

[thx1138]

update to Obama allegations: http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/26/whitehousecom-wont-honor-sinclair-check/#comment-39031

[BrendaQG]

Clinton wins primaries in Texas, rhode island, and Ohio. Obama wins the Texas Caucasus and the Vermont primary.

My father and I talked a bit about this. The fact is Clinton needs to win ~60% of pledged delegates. She would still need back room deals to win. If democrats screw Obama their party will split. Then McCain will win the presidency.

[chefmike]

Is Obama a member of the New World Order? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html

Are you a fucking idiot?

Yes!

http://alexjonesexposed.blogspot.com/

[chefmike]

I love the thought of Hillary answering the phone at 3 am while Bubba is nailing some slutty intern down the hall in the Lincoln bedroom. It doesn't get much better than that!

So quit your bitching and support whoever the dem nominee is...or vote for McCain...

[thx1138]

How can you make a judgement on political matters? Just because you have breakfast at IHOP and sell hotdogs doesn't make you an expert. I have an IQ of 134. What's yours?

[chefmike]

How can you make a judgement on political matters? Just because you have breakfast at IHOP and sell hotdogs doesn't make you an expert. I have an IQ of 134. What's yours?

LMFAO...looks like thxtinfoil is getting rattled. What a nancyboy. I'm supposed to be impressed that you have an IQ of 134? My mother is a retired teacher, and yes I know that my IQ is in the 1thirties(not that it's any of your business), higher in the 1thirties than my two younger sisters. So what? What you need to do is take off your tinfoil hat and get some common sense and some knowledge of the real world, Francis.

And maybe grow a pair of balls.

[El Nino]

Chefmike's Realworld View = The only world there is...

[thx1138]

I hardly ever get rattled but I am disappointed when someone with your supposed intelligence can't understand simple political reality. Perhaps if you started reading newspapers and blogs instead of comic books you'd gain a better perspective on things that are really important.

[trish]

Chefmike's Realworld View = The only world there is...

actually there is only one world and it's best if one's view of it aligns as closely as possible with that world.

[ezed]

I have an IQ of 134. What's yours?

Shiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttt! We're in trouble. You have a 134 IQ and you're using blogs to justify your positions. I read the Huffington one and The Big Head one. What the fuck?

I GOT TO START A BLOG!!!!!

It will be a religious one seeking donations for the cause!

You got a 134 IQ and you buy into this shit? I could make millions!

Fess up, you're White Male from Canada aren't you?

I never realized it was so easy to snow supposedly smart people, never mind the dumb ones.

[chefmike]

Chefmike's Realworld View = The only world there is...

actually there is only one world and it's best if one's view of it aligns as closely as possible with that world.

Once again thanks for that refreshing breath of sanity, trish.

[chefmike]

I have an IQ of 134. What's yours?

Shiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttt! We're in trouble. You have a 134 IQ and you're using blogs to justify your positions. I read the Huffington one and The Big Head one. What the fuck?

I GOT TO START A BLOG!!!!!

It will be a religious one seeking donations for the cause!

You got a 134 IQ and you buy into this shit? I could make millions!

Fess up, you're White Male from Canada aren't you?

I never realized it was so easy to snow supposedly smart people, never mind the dumb ones.

LMFAO...thanks for your usual breath of sanity and hilarity, ezed. All we need now is for Jamie Michelle to show up...Jamie, thxtinfoil, and El Ninny...an axis of absurdity...break out the butterfly nets and the lithium...

[thx1138]

ezed: you don't have a clue, do you? Start your blog. Let us know what it's called so I can comment. I'm not in Canada but may have to migrate there seeing how far down the tubes the US has gone.

[thx1138]

McCain trails Obama and Clinton: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0565259320080306

[bucatini70]

not sure if this is off your subject but i have to be enlightened a bit ....does anyone actually change their vote because of television commercial or late debate? they seem to be unable to identify their candidate at this late stage in the game it seems bizzare please someone give me some input to thinking of these people

[Cuchulain]

bucatini70 - Well, as far as the primaries go, after Edwards dropped out, it took me awhile to decide between Obama and Hillary. I finally settled on Obama, but once again I'm voting for the lesser of two evils.

In any election, I'm afraid there are an awful lot of people who don't pay close attention and can change back and forth depending on commercials, debates or news stories. Sad, but true. Who was it that said 'Democracy means you get the government you deserve"?

[El Nino]

Investigate 911

[trish]

Investigate 911

Been there. Done that.

[El Nino]

You ain't but scratched the surface woman

[BrendaQG]

Barrack Obama made every kind of mistake possible. He as a politician did the unthinkable.... He told the truth about some of the white people one will meet in the rural Midwest. He called his grandmother "gasp" a "typical white woman". (I have heard that statement taken out of context and twisted all around it sickens me.) So of course he looses there by a whooping 10%!....

You know what.

It dose not change any of the mathematics. He is ahead in the popular vote, and the pledged delegate count. It may even be such a lead that with Florida and Michigan counted he would still have the lead. (In one state Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot). The mathematics and logic should win. They should tell Hillary a supposedly reasonable logical person that the game is up.

Personally against McCain Obama my not win my vote. I mean a democratic house, senate, and president might not be in my interest.... The last time that happend the budgets of big science projects were cut so badly that the field I want to work in still has not really recovered.

[trish]

We'll always have a hard time convincing the public that what we do is worth an investment of tax dollars. We'll never have the cache we had when we were just discovering for the first time how to blow entire island atolls with a single bomb. The new brand of conservative, however, has shown themselves to be anti-science. They censor, withhold and modify the reports of government scientists before they're published. They show a great deal of inertia on the issue of global climate change, they're against stem cell research, they still think the science is out on evolution and cosmic expansion.

I think, without a doubt, Obama or Hillary is a better bet for science than McCain. Just a few months ago McCain was complaining about a very inexpensive goverment grant that supported DNA based demographic studies of grizzly bear populations. Some of the western states have been plagued by grizzlies intruding into their towns and homes. Understanding the dynamics of grizzly bear populations seems like it may have more than just scientific application.

[Cuchulain]

The Republican War on Science
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_republican_war_on_science1/

[BrendaQG]

We'll always have a hard time convincing the public that what we do is worth an investment of tax dollars. We'll never have the cache we had when we were just discovering for the first time how to blow entire island atolls with a single bomb.

I had the honor of going on a really behind the scenes tour at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. I raised that issue with many of the scientist there. They say we should sell the ideas of higher education and intellectual enrichment. :-? I don't think that will work. So far it hasn't worked as the very lab I was at will be all but shut down in a couple of years.

What the A and H bombs were was practical. People could relate on a basic level to what they did and why it was important to have them. High energy particle physics, space exploration, .... anything that could be called "basic research" just dosent pop. At least not the way it's being sold. Their is a reluctance to admit the problem is one of marketing. It's like a girl at the bar wearing sweatpants and no makeup who expects to be asked to the back.

If I had the power I would actually spend some of NASA's and the DOE's budgets on advertisement. Connect the dots for people. (i.e. no Ben franklin in the 1700's means no lightbulb in the 1900's and no Internet in the 2000's).



The new brand of conservative, however, has shown themselves to be anti-science. They censor, withhold and modify the reports of government scientists before they're published. They show a great deal of inertia on the issue of global climate change, they're against stem cell research, they still think the science is out on evolution and cosmic expansion.


That is true. I don't and will never say that republicans are uniformly good for science. I will say that republicans that are not beholden to and slaves of the "religious right" are better for science in general than any democrat. Historically Republicans have provided political backing for the space program and the department of energy in very large part.

While on the other hand.....



I think, without a doubt, Obama or Hillary is a better bet for science than McCain. Just a few months ago McCain was complaining about a very inexpensive goverment grant that supported DNA based demographic studies of grizzly bear populations. Some of the western states have been plagued by grizzlies intruding into their towns and homes. Understanding the dynamics of grizzly bear populations seems like it may have more than just scientific application.

I don't know. All I can think of is how a democratic president, congress, and Texas Govt all worked to scrap the Super Conductive Super Collider. A decision that U.S. Physics has yet to recover from.

[trish]

Hi Brenda. It's Friday night and I'm out with my friends at a coffee bar, so this will be quick and ungrammatical.

Though you and I may disagree I know that intellectually you’re a girl who has her head on straight, and I respect your views and decisions. I suspect that we may differ a tad in our priorities.

First and foremost, I think we need to put an end to our military involvement in this fiasco in Iraq and we need to pull back from making the same mistake in Iran (which is a much more formidable nation). The war is draining our wealth, our resources and the lives of our soldiers. Our economic decline is linked to the trillions of dollars we’re dropping into this quagmire. Those trillions of dollars could have sponsored a lot of science projects. Those trillions of dollars could educate children, care for the sick, aid the homeless, shore up medicare and social security etc. etc. etc. Who has those trillions now? Not the Iraqi’s. Certainly not us. Try Haliburton and subsidiaries. Since 2002 McCain’s vision of the war has not been substantially different than Bush’s. With McCain will get another 4 to 8 years of the same old shit. We’ll be so deep in toilet there will be no getting out. No money for government programs and no money for basic research.

As you may have surmised already, my second priority is the economic welfare of this country. McCain has no ideas there. Nada.

I must admit, even though I’m a scientist, science funding in general isn’t near the top of my list of priorities. But I do think government should be involved in sponsoring basic research into alternative energies, conservation and environmental studies. I admit, I was broken-hearted when the super conductive super collider was scotched during the Clinton administration. But at least we haven’t heard Obama or Hillary speak derogatorily about science. McCain, on the other hand, supports Bush’s take over of the science related government agencies. McCain makes fun of scientific projects which he made no effort to try to understand. On the issue of science, unless it’s military science, you can’t generalize dems will do this and republicans will do that. On this issue you got to look at the individual candidate. In my opinion, McCain is failing the course; the other two haven’t turned in their papers yet.

Okay, maybe that wasn't quick, but it was probably ungrammatical. I'm headed back to the party. Have a great weekend. G'night.

[BrendaQG]

Hey Trish.

For me the funding being cut to the big science labs here in IL is not just a political issue. It is hiring freeze, layoffs, and plain job loss for people I have known for years. This is happening now.

It certainly has much to do with the war. It also has allot to do with a democrat controlled congress which is unwilling to keep funding on par with inflation.

I am just very pessimistic about electing Obama bringing peace. Let us not forget he said that if it was proven that Bin Laden was in Pakistan he would attack. Pakistan has the H bomb. He has also committed to staying in Afganistan to hunt for Bin Laden. Iraq has only costed more because we have spent more on it. Afganistan is in many respects still the worse of the two.

A vote for Obama or McCain may not mean no more war. Just a different war in a different place. (I would vote for Nader but I gave him my protest votes twice already.) War will be with us until we have OBL's head on a pike.

[trish]

Hi Brenda;

You correctly assert:

...the funding being cut to the big science labs...is not just a political issue. It is hiring freeze, layoffs, and plain job loss for people...

It certainly has much to do with the war. It also has allot to do with a democrat controlled congress which is unwilling to keep funding on par with inflation.

That inflation also has a lot to do with the current administration's economic failures and the inability of congress to deal with it has a lot to do with the fact that the dems only have a simple majority.

Personally I'm happy with many of Illinois's representatives; in particular Durbin and O'Hare. On a State level, however, I agree with you. The dems suck and especially Blagojevich. In the last race for Gov, I voted green.

I too don't want to be drawn into a quagmire in Afghanistan, nor in Pakistan. Never-the-less, for those concerned with the "war on terror", these should've been the focus of our attention and our best efforts for the last five years, not Iraq and certainly not Iran. Instead of war in Iraq, we could've been building schools and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Afghanistan could've been Bush's showcase example of a middle eastern democracy. Just because bin Laden's out there, we don't have to be fighting a literal war as we are now in Iraq. The "war on terror" is a metaphor, and as a metaphor the fronts need not be literal battlelines with soldiers and citizens losing their lives. What's clear to me is that we need a change of strategy. The sooner the better. What I hear McCain saying is the surge is working, the current strategy is basically sound, just wait, things are getting better.

In any case, nice to hear from you. Hope things are going well for you. Take care.

[Oli]

For me the funding being cut to the big science labs here in IL is not just a political issue. It is hiring freeze, layoffs, and plain job loss for people I have known for years. This is happening now.

It certainly has much to do with the war. It also has allot to do with a democrat controlled congress which is unwilling to keep funding on par with inflation.

The Federal Budget deficit is projected at $400 billion this year(this does not include the cost fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have never been included by President Bush in his budgets). The debt is approaching $9.5 trillion and a fifty year high as a percentage of total GDP (War bonds were coming due in the 1950's). Interest on the debt consumes 19% of the budget. The war in Iraq alone is costing $9.6 billion/month.
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

The latest R & D numbers I could find come from fiscal 2006. The Federal government allocated $132 billion for all R & D, including military, which received just over 40%. I couldn't find a detailed breakdown, but that is still a boat load of government funding.

Where do you want the increased funding, or continual inflation adjusted funding, to come from? R & D funding is always the first thing cut by the government when times get tough.

[BrendaQG]

@Trish

I don't much like GWB's administration. I am just not willing to say that he is the best the republicans have to offer.

I totally agree that we should have been focusing on Pakistan and Afganistan all these years. I don't think we can go back and do that now. The Pakistani's are as a nation not willing to help us in any big way any more. Our WOT has almost been a civil war to them.

@Oli

132 Billion sounds like allot dosen't it? You have found that 40% goes to the millitary. I have read that NASA's budget is steady at about 15 Billion ~10% of the 132 Billion. There goes 1/2 of that budget right there. That leaves 65 billion that has to be split between all of the other science projects that are going on in the whole country.

On a per scientist basis that means $18571.42 was being spent in 2005 (Which is about as much money as a graduate student gets in total student aid for a year. Figure 65 billion/3.5 million scientist.)

So where should the rest of the money come from? The government spent 95 million on so called pork projects. How about using some of that money for science? I'm sure some of those projects are meritorious but by and large pork projects are a waste.

[Oli]

132 Billion sounds like allot dosen't it? You have found that 40% goes to the millitary. I have read that NASA's budget is steady at about 15 Billion ~10% of the 132 Billion. There goes 1/2 of that budget right there. That leaves 65 billion that has to be split between all of the other science projects that are going on in the whole country.

On a per scientist basis that means $18571.42 was being spent in 2005 (Which is about as much money as a graduate student gets in total student aid for a year. Figure 65 billion/3.5 million scientist.)

So where should the rest of the money come from? The government spent 95 million on so called pork projects. How about using some of that money for science? I'm sure some of those projects are meritorious but by and large pork projects are a waste.

I guess my question would be, is it the government's responsibility to employ all theoretical scientists?

[BrendaQG]

132 Billion sounds like allot dosen't it? You have found that 40% goes to the millitary. I have read that NASA's budget is steady at about 15 Billion ~10% of the 132 Billion. There goes 1/2 of that budget right there. That leaves 65 billion that has to be split between all of the other science projects that are going on in the whole country.

On a per scientist basis that means $18571.42 was being spent in 2005 (Which is about as much money as a graduate student gets in total student aid for a year. Figure 65 billion/3.5 million scientist.)

So where should the rest of the money come from? The government spent 95 million on so called pork projects. How about using some of that money for science? I'm sure some of those projects are meritorious but by and large pork projects are a waste.

I guess my question would be, is it the government's responsibility to employ all theoretical scientists?

Not just theoretical scientist. Theorist like me need only pencils and paper to work. Experimenters are the ones who need billions. At the end of the day we all get our money directly or indirectly from uncle sam...and the few companies that do finance some basic research.

I would not say it's a "responsibility". Look at it this way. Generally governments fund basic scientific research. That's a fact. If a government stops funding research scientist will either go into other lines of work, or go to other countries. The result. The USA looses the benefit of those scientist innovations and falls behind technologically.

Funding for scientific research is not a responsibility it's just good planning.

On the topic of the candidates and their public records.

Another reason that McCain is attractive is that he has taken a stand on so called "earmarks" or "pork" spending. Whereby in his career he has never asked for such spending. Such earmarks result in massive government waste. If you are wondering where money to rebuild our bridges has gone that's where it is (yes yes and the war. A war that we would be having in some form or fasion after 9/11 no matter who was Prez.)

I'm just saying that while I like Obama over Clinton. I have not made up my mind about Obama VS McCain. I want to see some debates first.

[trish]

You do realize that the Texas supercollider which we didn't build would have been...no has been... labeled pork by every one of the other forty nine states. When McCain says pork he's talking exactly about those DNA based demographic studies of grizzy bear populations, supercolliders, radio-observatories and other projects whose importance he can't comprehend.

It's my opinion science will do better under the dems than under McCain; if only because the dems will not interfere with the function of government science. They won't censor governmental scientific reports and websites which was the style of the Bush administration. I do not think Bush is the worst the conservatives have to offer. On the contrary. I agree with J.R.Gott, that most people live in ordinary times and that Bush is the paradigm of conservative leadership in these few decades spanning the turn of the century. McCain shows every promise of continuing down all the same lackluster roads.

I'm afraid science is a low priority for most politicians. It's hard to justify any project on the basis of it's spinoff. The best justification one can give for the public expenditure of money on X is "the public wants to spend money on X". If the public is not interested in the results of fundamental research, if the public can't even follow the questions being pursued by that research, can we really justify spending the public's money. The solution here is better science PR. The public will get what it wants. These days it wants more celebrity scandal. How many taxpayers want to know why the cosmic expansion is accelerating? How many taxpayers are curious to know why galactic rotation velocities defy Newtonian physics? Until the public's curiosity in scientifc matters returns, we will not be able to easily justify public expenditures on these types of projects...because ultimately the desire to know IS the real justification.

[SugaSweet]

Who the hell is thinking one candidate will win 48 of 50 states.Have you seen any of the polling data.Jesus H Christ,I could care less if McCain or Obama win or if Hillary somehow wins out,which as of this date is impossible.None of these candidates are addressing any issues of relevance=corporatism,the US's ignorant infatuation with the most racist people on earth (Jews and Israel),and the billions of dollars being spent on ILLEGALS,that is right:not non documented workers but ILLEGALS in this country.I will say this,you can bet Hillary will say the right things after conceding and at the convention.After that watch her,Bill,and Carville do everything they can under the table to prevent an Obama victory.They will want to set the stage for Hillary 2012.

[trish]

Who the hell is thinking one candidate will win 48 of 50 states.

I don’t know, who?


Jesus H Christ
Three points to the Christian who can tell us (without looking it up) what the H stands for. No cheating now.


...US's ignorant infatuation with the…(Jews and Israel),

You’re looking at the foreground and not the background. What the US is doing is ignoring Hamas, Iran and a score of other countries around the world. Bush somehow thinks that conversation is a reward nations and other bodies earn by kissing U.S. ass. Obama promises to talk and at least listen to the other players on the world stage.


...billions of dollars being spent on ILLEGALS...

As long as you realize that the majority of “illegals” are people from Europe who’ve let their green cards elapse. I wouldn’t want you to support a policy you mistook to be anti-hispanic only to find otherwise.


After that watch her,Bill,and Carville...

I don’t think the Clintons nor Carville want to see the republicans in office for another four years, especially not McCain, who promises to continue almost all of Bush’s idiotic policies. It's not ALL about personal power.

[BrendaQG]

For the record. Since Seeing Obama on Meet the Press I am less concerned. He was at least open to the idea of Nuclear power as an alternative fuel source. Which says to me he is not a total slave to the usual idea of what is "green" energy.

Which indirectly says to me he is someone I can think more favorably about in the general election. That is all I wanted for him. I mean....I would hate to vote in a prez. and have him effectively fire me. (selfish but a girl has to eat).

[trish]

It's true that as oil supplies slide away from peak production, all forms of energy have to be reviewed and reconsidered...including nuclear. What makes me and others most nervous about nuclear is the waste disposal problem and the potential for proliferation. It difficult for me to believe that we can't make more efficient fission reactors that produce less waste. I must admit I haven't kept very current on the subject of nuclear energy. Do you have any good sources on the subject, Brenda?

[SugaSweet]

There is no past to the USA and Zionism.It will continue as long as the Israeli lobby exists.We could talk about the Balfour agreement but it would take too long.As for European Illegals you must be going back to the Irish,Scotish,and intelligent Anglo's who left the King and his Church behind on the Mayflower.This was the higher level of British society which left the Island.Reagan granted a one time amnesty in the 1980's.In the next decade,we may see less illegal immigrants,as there will be less construction and other jobs to occupy labor.I would think China and India will open their borders next since more and more products will be manufactured in a population base of 2 billion than 320 million.In the Clinton's case Trish,yes it is ALL about personal power.The H in Jesus,by the way,stands for Harrison(the late George Harrison who looked a bit Jesus like in the early seventies with his longer hair,beard,and Gretsch guitar).Three points.

[SugaSweet]

There is no past to the USA and Zionism.It will continue as long as the Israeli lobby exists.We could talk about the Balfour agreement but it would take too long.As for European Illegals you must be going back to the Irish,Scotish,and intelligent Anglo's who left the King and his Church behind on the Mayflower.This was the higher level of British society which left the Island.Reagan granted a one time amnesty in the 1980's.In the next decade,we may see less illegal immigrants,as there will be less construction and other jobs to occupy labor.I would think China and India will open their borders next since more and more products will be manufactured in a population base of 2 billion than 320 million.In the Clinton's case Trish,yes it is ALL about personal power.The H in Jesus,by the way,stands for Harrison(the late George Harrison who looked a bit Jesus like in the early seventies with his longer hair,beard,and Gretsch guitar).Three points.

[BrendaQG]

Hey Trish

The people who would label the SSC as pork are people who are to short sighted to see the long term benefits of the basic research that would have been carried out at such a laboratory.

As for disposal of Nuclear waste. All we need to do is find a suitably deep and geologically stable rock formation to bury it in. Any doubt that such a formation could contain nuclear waste was put to rest by the discovery of natural nuclear reactors. These natural reactors formed in a certain region of africa and have managed to contain their own waste products for hundreds of thousands of years with no contamination to the environment. (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml) That said I realize facts are not the problem. The psychology of having nuclear waste buried near one's home is. We will just have to get over it some day.

_________________

I have been waiting for an announcement from Hillary that she has finally seen that a continued fight is futile. That she will drop out and let the general campaign begin. Their are not enough outstanding pledged delegates for her to catch Obama. Super delegates are not going to overturn the will of the people and the party is not going to change the rules at the end of the game so that she can win with MI and FL. The game is up, over, finito. If Obama is not the declared nominee heads will roll.

[trish]

People have to realize that all power production (on the giga-watt scale) is a dangerous proposition. Besides the danger, there is a massive heat and waste disposal problem. Depending on the mode of production the wastes can be solid, liquid, particulate and gaseous and are often toxic or otherwise degrading of the environment. Nuclear, coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric etc. are all dangerous and polluting in their own way.

Thanks, for the Oklo link, Brenda. The existence of a natural fission reactor (even if it only produced at the 1-100 KW scale) is definitely intriguing. People used to think only stars could produce heavy elements naturally! I always thought the purpose of human kind was to produce the heaviest, most unnatural elements. :) The Oklo reactors are no longer producing, but when they were, ground water was integral to their operation (providing a barrier to slow ejected neutrons and allowing them to build to sufficient density to sustain a chain-reaction). I can’t help but wonder, whether water is still seeping into those sites. If so, does it accumulate in a subterranean well, or flow elsewhere?

Concerning Obama's willingness to consider nuclear as one energy source to be exploited, my guess is that this minimal conession is not unique among the candidates. Anyone know Clinton's or McCain's thoughts on the matter?

[trish]

Just occurred to me, Brenda, that you might be taking finals this week or sometime soon. So I just want to wish you GOOD LUCK. Knock 'em dead girl.

[BrendaQG]

Thanks Trish.

But in the courses I took this year their were no finals. I hope I did ok.

(Update: I got an A and a B. Which I hope is good enough.)
_____________________________________________

Any other Simpsons fans here? Remember when "Side Show Bob" ran for mayor? The news report said "Side Show Bob wins by 99% mayor Quimby gets 1% with a margin of error of 1%". Even if Hillary did this she would not really make a dent in Obama's total delegate lead.

Obama has picked up since the last primaries 28 or 29 super delegates. W. VA has that many pledged delegates and Hillary will not get all of them.

Can some one tell me what is driving her at this point. Is it vanity? Is is delusions of grandeur? WTH?

[BrendaQG]

CNN Choose a really deranged looking picture of Hillary for their top of site headline "After W.Va., a determined Clinton vows to 'carry on' (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/wv.primary/index.html)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/05/13/wv.primary/t1home.hillarywin2.ap.jpg

We can safely say they have expressed an opinion by choosing such a picture.

[chefmike]

Re all the speculation about an Obama/Clinton ticket in the media...I can't help but wonder about a couple of things....

Would Obama worry about x-prez Bill Clinton banging his wife Michelle?

How long would it take for Bubba to get into the first lady's britches? He is after all a smooth talkin' sumbitch who is reputedly no stranger to a little brown sugar every now and then...

[BrendaQG]

Re all the speculation about an Obama/Clinton ticket in the media...I can't help but wonder about a couple of things....

Would Obama worry about x-prez Bill Clinton banging his wife Michelle?

How long would it take for Bubba to get into the first lady's britches? He is after all a smooth talkin' sumbitch who is reputedly no stranger to a little brown sugar every now and then...

Yeah I recall seeing a story in the tabloids about him having a child with a black lady. Hmmm. I think Barrack Obama would have to make him Ambassador to.....England or something. Just to get him out of his hair.

Seriously though. If I were Obama I would pick someone white with strong working class credentials OR a Hispanic. So My money would be on John Edwards or Bill Richardson. With a slight edge to Richardson because he has not been on a loosing ticket, he was/is a governor, he ca pass for white though 3/4 of his grandparents were Hispanic.

Bill Richardson's being hispanic could bring the hispanics strongly on to Obama's side. Mexicans out side of Illinois have mostly went for Clinton or voted republican this time around. I won't speculate on why. But Perhaps if one of them says 'look this guy's ok' they could vote for him then.

John Edwards has a southern and common touch to him so the likes of the west virginians who at a rate of 20% admitted to not voting for Obama due to his race could be brought around by his selection. Though I am more confident that white working class men who have historically voted democrat will not vote for McCain and the continuance of an economy that has screwed them.

[El Nino]

HC is deranged

[chefmike]

Yeah I recall seeing a story in the tabloids about him having a child with a black lady.

It wasn't just mentioned in the tabloids, Brenda. The great documentary film 'The War Room' about Clinton, Carville, et al. has a scene regarding the matter, and the whole sordid mess was also in the book and film 'Primary Colors'....I'm certainly not one to buy into BS right wing conspiracy propaganda like 'The Clinton Chronicles,' but this story rings true to me...so what, all the best presidents were womanizers...

[hippifried]

Bill Richardson is running for Secretary of State.
John Edwards is fishing for Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton's probably done.
I'm thinking Barry O'Bama might need another Irish guy on the ticket.

[BrendaQG]

Yeah I recall seeing a story in the tabloids about him having a child with a black lady.

It wasn't just mentioned in the tabloids, Brenda. The great documentary film 'The War Room' about Clinton, Carville, et al. has a scene regarding the matter, and the whole sordid mess was also in the book and film 'Primary Colors'....I'm certainly not one to buy into BS right wing conspiracy propaganda like 'The Clinton Chronicles,' but this story rings true to me...so what, all the best presidents were womanizers...

Really though. I didn't know about all that. It does make sense that Bill would wander. Hillary, god bless her, just does not look like a woman with much of a sex drive. Such a woman could not keep a man like Bill happy in the sack.

@hippie

Interesting, Who could he pick. I mean I think the bell tolls for Ted Kennedy.... You aren't thinking of Rich Daley are you? I mean hey he's Mayor of Chicago but he's got an image of being as corrupt as Joe Quimby (looks like him too).

[qeuqheeg222]

he really could use the tough working mans white guy-jim webb-gun totin and southrin with war credentials....former reagan demo/repug...bill richardson sounds good but the ticket would alienate independent white guy types that sit on the fence listenenin to rush with one ear while holdin a dwindlin paycheck in their hands......hispanics dont want to vote for him cuz from what ive been hearin is the race thing too...which is really sad,cuz we are all really in the same boat the repugs have tried to sink(or outsource).....

[El Nino]

What do you Obama supporters actually think he is going to do to change anything in this country? And by what means? This is a serious question. I'm just curious.

[BrendaQG]

Barrack Obama will usher in a change of direction. Instead of trying to be a millitarily dominating and menacing force in the world the USA will be a force for real peace. We will pull out of Iraq and go whole heartedly into Afganistan. With a president who understands Islamic cultures we would not be trying to make them be like us, Christian. We would instead focus on building up a real govt. there that could not be bought by rich angry arabs like bin Laden. We could also capture bin laden.

From there we can put the 911 era behind us and move on to a brighter future. One where we have a real energy policy. One not dictated by either Oil companies or radical environmentalist concerns. We would stop this biofuel instanity and focus on real technologies like clean coal. Then look to a future were americas cars and trucks burn (not in a fuel cell but in a combustion engine) hydrogen produced by specially consturcted nuclear power plants.

These are all things that Obama could initiate by executive order. However he would have a democratic congress to work with him on all of this.

[hippifried]

What do you Obama supporters actually think he is going to do to change anything in this country? And by what means? This is a serious question. I'm just curious.
The only thing a President actually can do. Change the mindset.

It's the job of the President to lead. He can't make law. The President proposes while the Congress disposes, but Congress represents specific constituancies. Those constituancies have the power to pressure their delegations to accept or reject proposals by the President. The President has a tremendous amount of clout by virtue of his office anyway. The bigger the margin of his win, the more clout he has. The more popular support he can garner for his specific proposals, the more clout he has. It also helps if his party controls the Congress.

What else you want to know?

Change the mindset & you change the world.

[qeuqheeg222]

notice how none of the candidates in their energy policy blather mention solar.....always this clean cola(coal) ,nuke or windpwoer all sources of energy that a big daddy utility company could continue to monopolize....they dont want you to generate your own power and sell it back to their greedy asses...........

[gummi baer]

Yeah I recall seeing a story in the tabloids about him having a child with a black lady.

It wasn't just mentioned in the tabloids, Brenda. The great documentary film 'The War Room' about Clinton, Carville, et al. has a scene regarding the matter, and the whole sordid mess was also in the book and film 'Primary Colors'....I'm certainly not one to buy into BS right wing conspiracy propaganda like 'The Clinton Chronicles,' but this story rings true to me...so what, all the best presidents were womanizers...

Really though. I didn't know about all that. It does make sense that Bill would wander. Hillary, god bless her, just does not look like a woman with much of a sex drive. Such a woman could not keep a man like Bill happy in the sack.

@hippie

Interesting, Who could he pick. I mean I think the bell tolls for Ted Kennedy.... You aren't thinking of Rich Daley are you? I mean hey he's Mayor of Chicago but he's got an image of being as corrupt as Joe Quimby (looks like him too).A white guy from Chicago with a half-black guy from Chicago? Certainly the most unusual way to balance a ticket. :roll: Claire McCaskill from all the way over the river in Missouri would be a better fit. Maybe some other lesser Clintonista or the Hispanic Bill Richardson; although New Mexico doesn't have a whole heck of alot of electoral votes.

[chefmike]

he really could use the tough working mans white guy-jim webb-gun totin and southrin with war credentials.
That is sounding like a better idea all the time, but it also sounds like Webb isn't even on Obama's short list. I heard VA gov Tim Kaine mentioned, who has all the charisma and presence of a houseplant. :roll:

[hippifried]

@hippie

Interesting, Who could he pick. I mean I think the bell tolls for Ted Kennedy.... You aren't thinking of Rich Daley are you? I mean hey he's Mayor of Chicago but he's got an image of being as corrupt as Joe Quimby (looks like him too).
I believe there's a rule that the President & Veep can't be from the same state. That's why Cheney had to reestablish his residence in Wyoming.

I was thinking more along the lines of somebody like Wesley Clark. That's close enough to Irish. Everybody wears green once a year. He has both military & foreign policy credentials. I don't know where he lives though. He was born in Czechago. I don't think he retired there though. Probably Virginia. But then again, he came out in support of Hillary Clinton & has actively campaigned for her. If he comes out in support of Barry O'Bama, he might be fishing for Secretary of Defence. If he stays loyal to Hillary, he might be a better choice for VP. Politics is wierd.

Ted Kennedy was never an option. No Kennedy is. My Irish comment was a thinly disguised code for a white guy. There's an underlying conservatism in America (if you hadn't noticed). Breaking any racial barrier is an uphill climb to start with. Any barrier really. The attacks on Obama are already beyond viscious. A second minority on the ticket, or even a woman (another barrier that has yet to be broken), would tend to bring out the phobias of the independents that just might be willing to give him a chance. To gain immediate acceptance, changes have to come incrementally. One at a time. He has to be the Jackie Robinson of politics. As popular as JFK was, he broke the religious barrier & barely got elected. Once the color barrier falls (that's the really big one), the others will follow suit much easier. If Obama hadn't gotten into the race, Hillary would most likely be our next President. But she would be under constant pressure to prove that she's "tougher" than the guys. Obama isn't under pressure to prove he's a badass. He just has to prove that he's competent. That should be a little easier because of who he's following into office. But he better be the right guy because if he screws up, it'll set everything back decades.

[BrendaQG]

@qeuqheeg222

That's because any physicist will tell you that Solar Power is a pipe dream. While it is true the sun beams literally tons of energy at every square meter of the earth every day most of it is not of the correct wavelength to function in the photoelectric effect. Of that energy only the most efficient solar cells, which are used on the international space station and impractically expensive, convert 30% into energy.

The more cost effective solar cells are made of plastic but are only7% efficient.

Not to mention the toxic waste produced by manufacturing solar cells of any kind. It's as bad as radioactive waste if it gets in your system.

Those are some of the reasons that solar looks good on TV but in practice it sucks.

Their are solar applications that do not depend on the photoelectric effect and do not have the disadvantages I mention....But they all involve large power stations where Mirrors track the sun and big electricity companies would still control them.

[qeuqheeg222]

i know some people here in the sunshine state who have installed these japanese solar panels on the roof and they sell quite a bit of excess power to FPL......if reagan had kept the solar panels on the roof of the whitehouse and science could have been properly funded throught the 80's and 90's we would really be somewhere with this technology...shit look at where computers were in say 1982? ...trs 80???? to today...reeagan bought the oil and gas monopoly 20 or so yrs with that early 80's oil bust to get cheap erl back to our gas guzzlin asses...

[BrendaQG]

I am sure that is true. However have you considered.

How much it cost to produce those solar cells in the first place?

How much toxic waste was produced to manufacture those solar cells?

Where was that toxic waste put?

What will be done with the old solar cells once they are worn and need replacement?

Multiply all of those things by a factor of 400 million and you see why having solar cells on top of every roof is not a solution to all of our problems.

Take a look at this government data. According to this it takes two years for the most advanced solar cells we have now to produce as much energy as it took to create them! The once we anticipate being able to make in the future will take one year to produce that much energy! These I think are also the ones that are cheap and inefficient so they don't produce much wattage or requier much energy to create (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37322.pdf)

(Not to mention that solar power does not work so well up here in the north even in summer. Try buying and running a solar powered radio one of these days... Then think about relying on a solar panel for your heat in the dead of winter.)

[qeuqheeg222]

back to the topic..what is all this talk of wesley clark???military dude from arkansas yeah but the charisma of a flak jacket....

[BrendaQG]

True. But Mr. Clark would give the ticket good foreign policy credentials. He was commander of NATO forces in Europe. I would have reservations for what that would mean for how militaristic our foreign policy will be. Pacifist did not join the army during the cold war.

Hillary not admitting defeat....to me that sounds like a president who would be a worse war leader than bush. One of the signs of a great war leader is knowing when you cannot win. As we have ourselves defined victory in the middle east (The western style democratization of the middle east) we cannot win. Such is why she would be a bad president.

[dafame]

True. But Mr. Clark would give the ticket good foreign policy credentials. He was commander of NATO forces in Europe. I would have reservations for what that would mean for how militaristic our foreign policy will be. Pacifist did not join the army during the cold war.

Hillary not admitting defeat....to me that sounds like a president who would be a worse war leader than bush. One of the signs of a great war leader is knowing when you cannot win. As we have ourselves defined victory in the middle east (The western style democratization of the middle east) we cannot win. Such is why she would be a bad president.

Good point Brenda but there's something that I think you're missing here. The issue over Iraq has been the main topic of this early campaigning by McCain and Obama simply because Obama is still pulling the weight of a tractor trailer behind him which is the Democratic Primary contest. With this being the case the Democrats (Obama) have been playing defense in the sense of having to allow McCain to set the agenda. The war in Iraq will not be the primary focus once we get closer to the general election. With the primary race essentially ending today with the DNC meeting (officially ending Tuesday once Obama has the needed number of delegates to put him across the finish line) you will now see the Democrats go into attack mode and that will be based on the economy. Gas prices are at a national average of $4.00 and expected to be in the ballpark of $7.00 per gallon by the first quarter of next year. Obama's message regarding Iraq is centered around ending that pointless war and fixing the economic and energy problems that we have at home, his message will resonate with the voters much louder than McCain's message of Obama not having the experience to make the right judgment regarding Iraq. I do agree that if the main issue was going to be Iraq then Obama would best be suiting by picking a VP with a strong military background, but after what happened at the meeting today in the way that the Clinton supporters expressed their anger regarding her not getting the favorable ruling and thus eliminating her from contention, Obama is basically forced to take her as the VP or they will certainly lose the election. But again, this move will be ok because Iraq or better yet, Obama's lack of experience in foreign policy will not seem as big of an issue as the general campaign rolls on.

[hippifried]

The war in Iraq will not be the primary focus once we get closer to the general election.
Sure it will. It'll be the biggest issue. Not just Iraq, but the planned expansion into Iran & Pakistan, & maybe beyond. It's also the biggest drain on the economy. Lame tax & budget policies don't help, but military occupation requires a blank check. Nobody knows where the money's going, but everybody knows it's all coming off a diamond studded platinum credit card known as the national debt. It's climbing daily. Over a third of the annual national budget is swallowed up by debt service & that doesn't touch the principal. It's artificially depressing our currency & forcing the private sector into recession at the same time. There's a name for that. The term "stagflation" was coined in the early 70s. This is what happened during VietNam. Same shit. We never really pulled out of it. 5 years after we tailassed out of VietNam, we started a military buildup that's done nothing but grow ever since. It's all just a bunch of counterproductive nonsense with everybody & their brother skimming off the top till our great grandchildren won't be able to see an end to it. Our military policies are the only issue. They're plunging us into bankrupsy. Even the economic woes that aren't directly attributable to them are exaserbated by them.

As for Wesley Clark: I think he could add some credibility on the foreign policy front. He's got the credentials. I'm always a bit suspicious about having Generals turn into Presidents, but Obama's fairly young & healthy so that's a long shot unless the unthinkable happens. I suspect Clark might be fishing for Secretary of Defense, but I'm even more (a lot more) suspicious about putting Generals in that spot. I have no qualms with Clark's integrity, but I hope the next secretary of defense will be an accountant by trade.

[Cuchulain]

I think hippifried nailed it. President Eisenhower (a pretty good egg, for a Republican), warned us about the power of the military industrial complex and the piling up of debt for future generations way back in '61:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.......

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Regarding VP, I said awhile ago that Webb or Bill Richardson would be good choices. I think I heard or read recently that Webb has flatly said he is not interested. That's a shame, if true. Richardson would help greatly with the Hispanic vote and New Mexico is a swing state. Recent polls shaow Obama/Hillary as a strong ticket. Obama may be forced to offer her the job. Poor Barack - as VP, Hillary may make Mad Dog Cheney look like a wallflower.

Still, we need to keep 'Bomb Bomb" McCain out of the White House at all costs. The Dems will need an overwhelming victory to keep the election from being stolen again.