I predict Hillary will win the state by a margin of 9 percentage points.

Hi Jasmin,

I'm not a fan of Hillary, but I respect your choice of her and your willingness to stick with her if she is your candidate of choice. May the best person win. In the end, I will support whoever is elected as our next President. I may not like it, but I believe in a nation united, not divided.

quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:
Hi Jasmin,

I'm not a fan of Hillary, but I respect your choice of her and your willingness to stick with her if she is your candidate of choice. May the best person win. In the end, I will support whoever is elected as our next President. I may not like it, but I believe in a nation united, not divided.

Amen, I strongly second that. Great Post Proud.

I will leave you with a testimony of one of your own (brain dead republicans), although this one just woke up from the comatose state:



Why this republican is Voting FOR Obama

Let me first put my bona fides to the test, lest someone think I'm not serious about what I am about to say. I am an over 40 white male from Georgia who clings to guns and religion and served as {local chair} the College Republicans, even supporting Jack Kemp in '88. I successfully ran for office as city councilman in my small rural town. I've voted republican in every election since '84. I've contributed to the Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth and I am a Life member of the NRA (the horror). And I now call Enough is Enough to my party. What is my rationale? As they say - do the jump ...


Over the last few presidential election cycles I've grown weary of the constant republican push to vote AGAINST the lesser of two evils. I much prefer to vote FOR a cause or a person.

I want to make clear that my reason to renounce and reject republican tactics is it serves no purpose but to foment divisiveness. Race baiting, jingoistic attitudes and an absolute disdain for constitutional protections has left me scratching my head and becoming more and more pissed off!

What has moved me to Senator Obama? Not just one thing - but the entire package. Let me explain:

1. Republican jingoism is one major issue. Over the last several years as illegal immigration has reached a feverish crescendo in policy circles, republicans have gleefully pursued all people of dark melanin as a threat to U.S. security. Hogwash, I say! Republicans wish to round up not specific people, but an entire ethnic population while federalizing local law enforcement to do it.

Mexicans we know to be like people everywhere, good bad and ugly. They wish to immigrate to the US like the Irish, Dutch, Jews and others have throughout history. Yes, I know everyone came by boat but some did not. Nevertheless, we had a way of making sure people entered legally. Where are the immigration checkpoints in Arizona? None there, but Mexicans wish to make their homes here, and no one is at the border to greet them.

Instead members of my party prefer to castigate, round-up and drive them underground, while tearing apart families and businesses to find wayward illegals. Can you say police state!

Shame on Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others in right wind radio who serve this pox on republicans. [Let it be known that I adamantly renounce and reject their insinuations on Senator Obama and other Americans]

But my enmity for the republican party doesn't stop there:

2. President Bush's unconstitutional power grab and violation of citizen rights to privacy is a travesty. He ignores the constitutional safeguards that our founders put in place just for exigencies this nation faces now. Constitutional protections are not to be used in times of fair weather but are precious in times of the foulest of weather - when politicians wish to set them aside for more power at our expense. Sure, they'll use language and fear to motivate voters to acquiesce their rights. (Remember Ben Franklin's admonition on security and liberty).

Anyway, warrantless wiretaps; expansive SWAT teams in small town America; suspension of habeas corpus because we divine a threat to national security, but ALL are threats to our civil liberties.

3. Hypocritical moralizing decorated as family values. My party is obsessed with regulating personal proclivities, a woman's womb and prayer in schools. We all differ in one degree or another over these issues, but to use the full force and coercion of government to champion one belief structure over another is, IMMORAL. To make it worse, republican officials are caught with their pants down; tapping their shoes; IMing teenage interns about *** and trying to explain it all a way. Their behaviors serve to eviscerate whatever legitimacy they may have wielded.

4. Finally, my children's future is too important to be voted away out of FEAR and JINGOISM. We have real problems to confront in this nation: education and access to college; healthcare; great access to jobs and so on. Political pablum over lapel flags, pledge of allegiance or contact with anyone whose ideas differ or behavior runs counter to my mind is as, Senator Obama makes clear - manufactured distraction.

UPDATED
5. An illegal war perpetrated by a coupd'etat within our own government. When politicians can lie, make-up excuses why to invade a sovereign nation and place our wealth and personal treasure on the line, we need to re-evaluate our priorities. The war in Iraq has torn too many families apart for a revenge killing. (Saddam Hussein). We've taken our eye off the ball in the war on terror and violated a basic principle to not invade sovereign nations without a declaration of war. A declaration never asked for by this president and contrary to what the Constitution prescribes.

Anyway, I've had enough of this bigotry and hate. Its time to stop it and lets move this nation forward and do good without splintering us into factions or tribes intent on destroying ourselves. America is indeed the last best hope (to borrow from Bill Bennett) and its about time we act like it.

As far as other republicans - I challenge them to read this and to challenge their thinking based on civic values and not FEAR. FDR said it best - We have nothing to fear but fear itself - thats what it means to make change, though. To accept change is to accept uncertainty and to stretch your cloak of comfort beyond what you are used to. That is good.

Obama is a symbol to the world that the US is a good and decent place to live and work, to raise a family and to know that all are accepted into our society. Georgia has voted and I cast my lot with the Senator from Illinois. He deserves my vote in the fall for tackling the tough issues no one else wishes to touch. I embrace change and look forward to an Obama administration. (I have other reasons I'm moving to progressive politics, but I've already intruded on enough of the readers time)

Thanks to everyone at dailykos who takes the time to read this screed. I feel better.

[Thank you to everyone for the rec, I don't know if it deserves that spot. i'm just glad people are interested in reading my thoughts.]

P.S. Once my Obama for President signs/stickers arrive they will find prominent places in the yard and on my non-Prius vehicle in my demographically mixed neighborhood.

link

I wish you all similar awakenings.

quote:

Originally posted by iperson:
You're all brain dead people on this forum..

Good to know you are not like us (brain dead)...

quote:

Originally posted by iperson: The White House (Bush administration) lied to the American people and you are all brain dead to not see it.

Whether Bush (or his administration) lied or not makes no difference in this election because he is not running for his 3 rd term...Talking about Bush is getting old...

quote:

Originally posted by iperson: Waste of my time to post anything here, or have a conversation about the state of the nation.

Wondering why do you waste your time to post anything here or even trying to have a conversation about the state of the nation when you know (at least said it all) that we (not you) are all brain dead people?? Leave us alone. Remember, we are brain dead people??

What does the North Carolina debate retreat mean?


The North Carolina Democratic Party canceled what looked to be the final debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton yesterday. Hillary had agreed to another debate, but Obama balked, citing scheduling conflicts:
The North Carolina Democratic Party has dropped plans for an April 27 debate, which would have been moderated by CBS’s Katie Couric.

Clinton had agreed to the debate; Obama did not, and the party said in a statement that the clock had run out to organize a debate. The party also cited worries about “party unity,” after last week’s combative debate in Philadelphia, a focused grilling of Senator Barack Obama on topics he would have preferred to avoid. …
The scrapping of the April 27 debate leaves the prospect for further showdowns between the two candidates unclear.

I’d say that it leaves the prospects very clear — Obama will not debate Hillary any longer. And the reasons are pretty clear after last Wednesday’s debacle in Pennsylvania. Obama simply doesn’t fare well when forced to defend himself extemporaneously. He gets almost incoherent, and not just on the supposed “distraction” questions, but also on policy His answers on capital-gains tax increases had Hillary smiling and the rest of the nation wondering if he had bothered to study the issue at all.

Marc Ambinder believes that Obama just doesn’t want to give Hillary any more oxygen, but even that explanation has its problems in terms of Obama as a candidate. If Obama has to worry about Hillary gaining exposure at this stage, it doesn’t bode well for his ability to beat McCain in a similar fashion. The man who transcended experience to charge to the front of the Democratic race has to be able to go toe-to-toe with both the other candidates and the media on a national stage, and Ambinder’s explanation suggests he can’t do that in a competitive environment.

Even worse, after last Wednesday, it looks like a retreat. Obama got a bloody nose, and suddenly he doesn’t want to appear on national TV, even up against a cupcake like Katie Couric. The strategy may be sound, but only if one has no confidence in Obama’s ability to stand up to tough questioning. In fact, his withdrawal from the debate appears to be an admission of exactly that.
This won’t hurt him much in North Carolina, where he will win by a comfortable margin. It may affect Obama’s standing in other primary races if voters perceive him to be running a little scared. People who cast their vote on electability may wonder whether Obama has what it takes to go against John McCain in a general election, and may reconsider Hillary on that basis



Did anyone watch the debate to comment if this article's evaluation is accurate ?

Congratulations to the Hillary supporters for a Penn win.

Clinton picks up delegates in Pennsylvania primary

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 23, 12:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cut into Sen. Barack Obama's delegate lead in early returns from Pennsylvania's Democratic primary.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Clinton won at least 66 delegates to the party's national convention, with 35 still to be awarded. Obama won at least 57, according to an analysis of election returns by The Associated Press.

The final delegate count isn't expected until Wednesday at the earliest because many of Pennsylvania's counties are split into multiple congressional districts. Pennsylvania awards delegates according to the statewide vote as well as the vote in individual congressional districts.

"Election officials were working early Wednesday to assign votes from split counties to the appropriate congressional districts.

"In the overall race for the nomination, Obama led with 1,705.5 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Clinton had 1,575.5 delegates, according to the AP tally.

"It will take 2,025 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.

"On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain clinched the party nomination in March.

"The AP tracks the delegate races by calculating the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.

"Most primaries and some caucuses are binding, meaning delegates won by the candidates are pledged to support that candidate at the national conventions this summer.

"Political parties in some states, however, use multistep procedures to award national delegates. Typically, such states use local caucuses to elect delegates to state or congressional district conventions, where national delegates are selected. In these states, the AP uses the results from local caucuses to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate will win, if the candidate's level of support at the caucus doesn't change."

quote:

Congratulations to the Hillary supporters for a Penn win.

Ditto. This came as no surprise to me at all.

quote:

Congratulations to the Hillary supporters for a Penn win.

Thanks Hudson

An article as to how Hillary is breaking the glass ceiling and making headway for the women: (for Speed and Jasmin )


Clinton's struggle vexes feminists
To some, her skills losing out to style
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | February 19, 2008

WASHINGTON - As Hillary Clinton struggles to regain her momentum in the presidential race, frustrated feminists are looking at what they see as the ultimate glass ceiling: A female candidate with a hyper-substantive career is now threatened with losing the nomination to a man whose charismatic style and powerful rhetoric are trumping her decades of experience.

The style-vs.-substance clash is common to presidential contests, and has hurt wonky male candidates as well, women's leaders say. But they argue that Clinton has a peculiar burden in this year's contest because she never would have been able to reach the final stages of the nomination process unless she had spent her life emphasizing her professional record over stylistic abilities.

"I do think at some level there is a Catch-22 for women" running for president, said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women and a Clinton supporter. "Showing your heart has never been a plus for high-achieving women."

Martha Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations, said the senator from New York is being hurt because she is not the "glamour" candidate.

"She characterizes herself as being a workhorse and not a show horse," said Burk, who has endorsed Clinton. "She is being punished in a certain way for being competent and not j***y. If he were female, with his credentials, age, and track record, I don't think he'd be anywhere near the presidency of the United States," Burk said.

Many feminist leaders were careful to say that they do not think Clinton lacks the ability to connect with voters or that Senator Barack Obama is without substance. And despite Obama's recent spate of victories, they insist Clinton will prevail as the nominee. But having backed the best-prepared female candidate in recent history for president, women's activists are maddened and baffled that Clinton's policy-heavy message - "solutions for America" - has not eclipsed a candidate whose central themes are hope and change.

"All of the substance, all of the work, all of the policies, all of the accomplishments probably don't come off as flashy," said Ramona Oliver, communications director for EMILY's List, which raises funds for female Democratic candidates. Comparing Obama with Clinton, Oliver said: "There's inspiration, and there's effectiveness."

Female candidates for all elective offices face the conundrum of having to appear strong and confident without looking unfeminine, according to specialists on women and politics. But the dilemma is more pronounced at the presidential election level, they say, because voters are more likely to be guided by their gut reactions to candidates rather than comparisons of the contenders' records.

Choosing a president is the most personal vote most Americans will cast, said Democratic consultant Peter Fenn, and voters often will be attracted to a candidate's general vision and leadership style more than to his or her specific policy agenda. Democratic presidential contenders Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John F. Kerry, for example, suffered from the perception that they were less personable than their GOP opponents, several political analysts observed.

The 2000 election had voters asking "who would you want to have a beer with?" said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "Al Gore was the guy who knew everything about every issue and was the policy wonk, but they liked George Bush. They felt like he was one of them," she said.

But female candidates have an added burden, say women's leaders and political specialists not associated with the Clinton campaign.

"This whole thing, that women have to be smarter than men, more articulate than men, better on foreign policy, less emotional, all those crazy things. Finally you have a candidate who's basically done that," Fenn said, and yet Obama's sizzle is competing mightily with her steak. "It has to be depressing" for her, said Fenn, who is not associated with either Democratic candidate.

On the campaign trail, Democratic voters across the country have said in interviews that they respected Clinton's experience and ability, while Obama voters have countered that they believed he could unite the country.

"That is what we've seen for women candidates, that they have to know everything about every issue" to be politically viable, Walsh said. "But that's not what seems to be, at this moment, what's capturing a large part of the electorate. It's certainly not what's capturing the imaginations of young people right now."

Carol Hardy-Fanta, director of the Center for Women in Politics & Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, said that "charisma does play a big part in a campaign," forcing Clinton to prove not only that she is serious and tough but also likable.

"I think to some extent, it's true that women are called on the carpet for these qualities after they've had to become smart and commanding to get ahead," Hardy-Fanta said. "It's a ****ed-if-you-do, ****ed-if-you-don't situation."

But Obama's message of change - dismissed by Clinton on the campaign trail as "rhetorical flourish" - is helping the Illinois lawmaker gain ground among voters in several groups normally sympathetic to Clinton, including women.

For most of the primary season, female voters favored Clinton, who owed her critical victory in New Hampshire in large part to female voters, and who went on to capture a majority of the women's vote in nearly every contest through Feb. 5.

The gender gap is particularly critical in Democratic primaries and caucuses, in which female voters consistently outnumber their male counterparts. For example, Clinton beat Obama among women by a 12-point margin in New Hampshire, while Obama bested Clinton among men by an 11-point margin.

But since women made up 57 percent of the New Hampshire Democratic vote, Clinton benefited much more from the gender gap, and won the state by two percentage points.

But recently, Obama has made inroads among female voters, winning 60 percent of the women's vote in Virginia and 55 percent of female voters in Maryland.

Clinton has stepped up her focus on her policy proposals recently, frequently repeating that she is in the "solutions business" instead of "the promises business." Her campaign hopes that the issue-heavy message will resonate in Ohio and Pennsylvania and turn out the low-income voters who have largely favored the New York lawmaker over Obama. Obama, meanwhile, is emphasizing his policy proposals more, while continuing the message of hope and change that has drawn many voters to his side.

"Political analysts always say that personality trumps issues nine times out of 10" in a presidential race, said Jon Delano, an adjunct professor of politics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. "But the bar for women is much higher - sad but true."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/19/c...es_feminists?mode=PF

Got to be fair - for my friends supporting Obama - an article that I hope will put in context his speech about "bitter small-town voters"

www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-go...pr01,1,4869593.story

chicagotribune.com
CAMPAIGN 2008
Obama touts populist themes
By Mike Dorning

Tribune correspondent

11:12 PM CDT, March 31, 2008

ALLENTOWN, Pa.

As Barack Obama caravans through the hardscrabble towns of rural Pennsylvania, he is making clear the politics of hope has an enemies list.

Oil companies, predatory lenders, highly paid corporate CEOs and health insurance companies all rank high on it

In between drop-ins at bowling alleys, sports bars and other blue-collar hangouts, Obama is stoking an us-against-them populism that makes common purpose with the grievances of working-class families feeling pinched by the hard economic times.

Despite his lead in national polls, Obama is engaged in a fierce struggle with rival Hillary Clinton heading into Pennsylvania's April 22 primary, the next contest in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. And the white working-class voters he has had difficultly attracting in recent contests will be crucial to the outcome here.

With his sunny persona and more measured style, Obama does not match the hard-core populism that drove former Sen. John Edwards' failed presidential campaign. But the Illinois senator, who also won the endorsement Monday of Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), is showing plenty of outrage these days.

Among the first television ads he aired to introduce himself to Pennsylvania voters was a commercial excoriating Exxon Mobil for its $40 billion profit last year and blaming big oil companies that "block change" for rising gas prices. A President Obama, he vows, would make them "pay a penalty" with a windfall profits tax.

At a town hall meeting in Lancaster, Pa., on Monday, his target was $19 million in bonuses awarded to the two top executives of sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial.

"These are the folks who are responsible for infecting the economy and creating, helping create a home foreclosure crisis—2 million people may end up losing their homes," Obama fumed, pacing back and forth in front of a wooden lectern.

"Now what's wrong with this picture?" Obama continued, drawing shouts from the crowd. "Everything's wrong with it. But the problem is we've almost come to expect it…because nobody in Washington seems to be outraged about it."

In Pittsburgh, at a rally Friday that marked the beginning of a six-day bus tour through the state, a world view suspicious of corporate power even shaped Obama's retelling of his biography.

He usually casts his early experience as a community organizer in uplifting terms that focus on the choice he made to pursue public service and lessons he learned about the power of ordinary people to create change. But in Pittsburgh, he put a darker spin on the period, portraying it as a struggle to right damage done by unseen "big corporations."

"A lot of the economic decisions weren't being made in the community," Obama said, describing the shutdown of steel mills on Chicago's South Side during the 1980s. "They were being made in New York and Dallas. They were a bunch of people shuffling paper and deciding to, you know, wreck entire communities without knowing sort of what it meant to those people."

The approach represents a shift for a candidate whose persona has been so tied to hopes he can transcend racial and political divisions and unify the country.

But Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, argued that it is not a thematic break for a campaign that has long stressed the corrosive influence of Washington lobbyists. And he noted confrontational speeches Obama gave to Detroit automakers last May challenging them on the environment and to the Wall Street financial community in September challenging them on an economy that serves the middle class.

"These are not new themes, but we're certainly punching them hard here because they're central to the concerns of people," Axelrod said.

Obama ally Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), a social conservative with a large following among blue-collar voters in the state, appears to be a believer in the approach, enthusiastically presenting Obama as engaged in a struggle against power.

Casey regularly invokes the political forces arrayed against Obama in the state, suggesting a parallel between Obama's campaign challenges and the economic forces stacked against Pennsylvania's working families.

The Democratic political establishment, including Gov. Ed. Rendell and the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, has sided with rival Clinton, who leads in recent polls of the state.

"I know something about our state," Casey told a crowd in Harrisburg, Pa, in a typical introduction, "Our state loves an underdog and a fighter, and we have one in Barack Obama."

mdorning@tribune.com

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

And a little something good about McCain - for my Republican friends -

Poll Finds McCain Best Commander-in-Chief

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 8:04 AM

By: Monisha Bansal Article Font Size



Americans say Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumed Republican presidential nominee, would be a better commander-in-chief than the Democratic candidates: Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) or Barack Obama (Ill.), according to a new poll.


The poll by the Everett Group found that 51 percent of Americans think McCain would be a better commander-in-chief than Clinton, at 32 percent. When asked about Obama and McCain, the survey found that 53 percent favored McCain while 35 percent viewed Obama as a better commander-in-chief.


"A commander-in-chief has to keep America strong at home and around the world, but John McCain seems intent on proving he's the wrong person for the job," said Karen Finney, communications director for the Democratic National Committee.


"In the coming months, the American people will get to know the real John McCain, the 3rd Bush-termer who has not put forward a plan on Iraq other than to say he's willing to keep troops there for 100 years, the McCain that time and time again has gotten the facts on the ground wrong, the McCain who can't say how he would continue to pay for the war or how he would restore balance to America's military and national guard forces," she told Cybercast News Service.


Bernard Finel, a senior fellow with the liberal-leaning American Security Project, said that while the results are not surprising because polls have shown McCain consistently strong on the war on terror, "he hasn't really been challenged by anyone on national security at this juncture."


"I think those numbers will drop off once he gets a direct head-to-head challenge from one of the Democratic candidates," Finel said.


Finel added that it's "hard to disentangle it from other issues."


"Even though people say they trust him more on national security or on terrorism issues, the same polls will show people are favoring Obama or Clinton against him in national polls," he told Cybercast News Service.


Finel noted that the majority of Americans see the economy as the biggest issue in this next election.


"While voters have some broad sense of Senator McCain's personal history, they readily acknowledge that they know little about his positions and record on the issues they care about the most-especially the economy and health care," Finney wrote in a memo.


"When voters hear what Senator McCain has said and done on those issues, they see someone who has a backward looking approach and who is badly out of touch with the realities average people face in their lives today," Finney added.


"No one can be totally prepared for the presidency," Bob Maginnis, a Defense Department analyst, wrote in an op-ed in Human Events.


"Arguably the president's most important role is that of commander-in-chief and Sen. John McCain has demonstrated a treasure chest full of characteristics, experiences and well-considered proposals that suit the position and time," he said.


Maginnis also refuted the DNC's claims that McCain would continue the Bush administration's policies. "McCain promises a number of significant changes," he said.


"He will not limit the counterterrorism efforts to stateless groups operating in safe havens," said Maginnis. "He points out that Iran, the 'world's chief state sponsor of terrorism,' continues its quest for nuclear weapons. He fears an Iran protected by a nuclear arsenal would be even more willing and able to sponsor terrorist attacks."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain_Best_commander/2008/04/08/86281.html

Good articles Mrs. B. Enjoyed them all.