Neither will cede to the other. Both are still going to spend money 'til they equal the equivalent of the GDP of most small nations. Their workers will be totally exhausted beyond exhaustion. Then, just when you think they've won, the winning candidate will have exactly 90 days to win a general election against a guy that will have been campaigning from March to November.

The Republicans will be forming policy, making policy, changing policy and raising money like there's no tomorrow....because for them, there is no tomorrow. Compare that to a candidate that will have to come up with a full-blown campaign stategy, a vice-presidential nominee and new-found ways to raise even more money. All that in a compact time frame. Sounds like the Dems will be broke for a couple years to come.

And, the question of the day is: How does one campaign for the working poor, the homeless, the needy losing their homes and a new economic outlook for the country when they just blew $150 million dollars each trying to win a nomination?

My goodness. John Edwards has to be just shaking his head right about now.

A positive move right?

Perhaps not for Canadians. Democrats are known to be more protectionist than Republicans (unfortunately), which could further impact the Canadian manufacturing sector.

We have already had a taste of some American's view of NAFTA vis-a-vis the softwood lumber lumber dispute.

quote:
__________________________________________________
Obama slammed the deal as one reason the country is facing economic turmoil and issued a rebuke to Clinton, whose husband pushed hard for NAFTA over the objections of many Democrats.

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control," he told workers at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wis.

"It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington - the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality its produced," he said.

Obama... who has called for a review of NAFTA and has recently voted against a number of new deals.

Last year, Obama told a forum that he'd immediately call the "presidents" of Canada and Mexico to try to amend NAFTA to include labour agreements." [to the benefit of Americans]
__________________________________________________

Mr. (John) Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate he could “never, ever do anything to reverse the action” of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton’s support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. Representative David Scott of Georgia, who was among the first to defect, said he, too, would not go against the will of voters in his district.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

We still don't know where a good number of super-delegates will go - they may be leaning Obama, but most will wait till Texas/Ohio.

The other wild cards in the air still are - who will John Edwards (or Al Gore) endorse? What will the Democrats do about Michigan and Florida (two perennial swing states that lost all of their delegates for holding early contests - won heavily by Clinton)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I hope the US becomes protectionist again. It is the only thing that saved us last time from reciprocity. Our own sycophants will never tear the NAFTA agreement up so it is nice to have at least a very slim hope of it disappearing into the sands of time. Unfortunately someone is likely to point out to him the energy clause that protects American supplies of oil and gas.

---

This is an utterly ridiculous and anti-worker proposition. Free trade agreements DO cause short-term dislocations as workers in relatively less efficient industries lose their jobs. This causes hardship, bad things, etc.

At the same time, enacting tariff barriers 20 years after signing a free trade agreement will have the same effect on a number of export-oriented industries, costing people their jobs. Formerly inefficient industries may now be competitive once again, but the people that lost their jobs 20 years ago aren't going to be coming back to them anytime soon.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama won the support Friday of the 1.9-million member Service Employees International Union, his second endorsement in as many days from large labor organizations and a fresh sign of momentum in the Democratic presidential race with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"There has never been a fight in Illinois or a fight in the nation where our members have not asked Barack Obama for assistance and he has not done everything he could to help us," Andy Stern, the union's president, told reporters in announcing the decision.

---

Every time I think I've figured it out, I get a new curve thrown at me. Like superdelegates in Toronto. WTF?

quote:

---

In the hunt for superdelegates who could determine the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are looking north to Toronto.

The only two superdelegates in Canada, Robert Bell and Toby Condliffe, are being targeted and wooed by both campaigns.

Superdelegates can vote for any candidate, unlike regular delegates who are bound by primary results and may, this year, be deadlocked.

"Oh, I tell you, I get three or four calls a day," says Bell. "It started late last year. I've had calls from both (former) president (Bill) Clinton and Senator Clinton. Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois (an Obama supporter and majority whip) called me from his cellphone. I've been polled by The New York Times, CNN and AP."

Yesterday, Condliffe arranged his afternoon around a conference call from Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe. Last week, there was a call from the candidate himself.

"Clinton's campaign has called me a couple of times to say `We want you to know we're here and available if you want to talk to us.'"

The best of friends, Bell and Condliffe live near each other in midtown Toronto and regularly compare notes over breakfast at Seniors on Yonge St. or Rosie's Kitchen on Bayview Ave. or Boom on College St.

They're both 63, retired and American citizens. Both moved here from the U.S. in the mid-1970s. Both are executives of the Toronto chapter of Democrats Abroad.

And both will attend the party convention in Denver in August as superdelegates because of their affiliation with Democrats Abroad. That's where the similarity ends.

Bell is endorsing Clinton.

Condliffe is backing Obama.

So their votes will effectively cancel each other out.

"We make our case to each other," says Condliffe, "but without the expectation the other is going to change their mind."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I still can't wrap my brain around how the primary system works.

Every time I think I've figured it out, I get a new curve thrown at me. Like superdelegates in Toronto. WTF?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

We still don't know where a good number of super-delegates will go - they may be leaning Obama, but most will wait till Texas/Ohio.

The other wild cards in the air still are - who will John Edwards (or Al Gore) endorse? What will the Democrats do about Michigan and Florida (two perennial swing states that lost all of their delegates for holding early contests - won heavily by Clinton)?

If it goes to a convention, I should add, some interesting things could happen. You could even have Al Gore (or John Edwards) on the second ballot as a compromise candidate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:

Has anything like that happened before?
1972 and McGovern possibly?

---

Black man vs. White woman

Hillary Clinton contends with gender stereotypes, and Barack Obama with racial ones. Which bias runs deeper in the American psyche? The answer does not bode well for Clinton.(...)

Another insightful column, by Sally Kalson in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Sexist Gasbags Pillory Hillary
It's a lesson for young women: The fight for equality is far from won.
Mixed messages are a fact of life in American culture. We tell kids to delay sex, even as the media uses it to sell them music and shampoo. We preach healthy eating, even as the marketing industry herds them through a ubiquitous gauntlet of junk food.
Sorting out the negative influences is a constant battle. If you doubt it, look at the statistics on STDs and obesity.
Now we are knee deep in mixed messages surrounding Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, and there are some doozies in there for young girls considering their place in the world.
On the one hand, we've got the historic first of a woman with a real shot at a major party nomination. On the other hand, she's being targeted -- not by her opponent, but by the punditocracy -- with the same old double standard. (...)
A case in point: Nobody accused Mitt Romney of "pimping out" his sons when he sent them out on the campaign trail. But a televison loudmouth felt perfectly free to level exactly that charge against Mrs. Clinton when her daughter, Chelsea, waded into the fray. He apologized, but the stench lingers. (...)

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

(...)Amy Cuddy, a psychologist at Northwestern, suggests that the durability of gender stereotypes stems in part from the fact that most people have far more exposure to people of the opposite gender than to people of different races. As a result, they feel more entitled to their attitudes about gender.

"Contact hasn't undermined these stereotypes, and it might even strengthen them," she says. "Many people don't believe seeing women as kind or soft is a stereotype. They're not even going to question it, because they think it's a good thing."

Tooby takes a more biological view. As he argues, in the prehistoric environment in which our brains evolved, race had no meaning -- no one could travel far enough to meet anyone who didn't look like them. Gender, on the other hand, meant a lot. It predicted what someone's status would be, what their priorities were, whether they were a potential rival or a potential partner.(...)

---

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate he could “never, ever do anything to reverse the action” of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton’s support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. Representative David Scott of Georgia, who was among the first to defect, said he, too, would not go against the will of voters in his district.

---

Black Leader, a Clinton Ally, Tilts to Obama

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

We understand that you see all criticism of Hillary Clinton, whatever direction they come from and whatever the subject matter they use, as code for rejection of her based on her gender.

When people say they do not support her because she chose to be the quintessential Dem machine candidate, and for stances she has taken, you never address that directly. But since you dredge up yet another article that amounts to the 'its all code attacking her gender' card... that is your de facto answer, such as it is.

And now we get some articles about how deep seated antagonism to gender is- even deeper inherently than racism. I suppose that's to help explain how we're all dupes for the playing of the gender card without knowing it.

Until right now I've kept it entirely on the substantive level: simply repeating once again it's about Hillary Clinton's choice of politics.

But I also personally resent your inclusion of all of us with right wing ant-feminist attcaks on Hillary Clinton.

quote:

---

Tooby takes a more biological view. As he argues, in the prehistoric environment in which our brains evolved, race had no meaning -- no one could travel far enough to meet anyone who didn't look like them. Gender, on the other hand, meant a lot. It predicted what someone's status would be, what their priorities were, whether they were a potential rival or a potential partner.(...)

---

quote:

---

This is one of those rare points where the sensible response -- Tooby's, above -- seems so obvious I can't work out why it's even debated.

---

If people are NOT saying this means people will strongly tend to be more reactive to gender than race then please correct me.

Because it sounds like that is the point.

Its essentially a truism that race was rarely if ever relevant to social interatcion of prehistoric humans.

Have you EVER responded to the content of what people say about this issue?

"Testy"... to point out that someone says the same thing over and over and over again. As if everyone else is stupid or deluded.

quote:

---

If people are NOT saying this means people will strongly tend to be more reactive to gender than race then please correct me.

---

quote:

---

Is it also supposed to be a truism that because its prehistoric reactions around gender are prehistoric in origins that means they are supposed be wired deeper into us than reactions around raceyou know those people of different colours and just plain different from us who we have thousands of years of accumulated history and culture of conflict and contention?

---

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:

Has anything like that happened before?
1972 and McGovern possibly?

---

No, McGovern won the primaries, because Ed Muskie cried after losing Iowa (well he claimed it was snowing, and false allegations of infidelity to his wife had featured prominently in the campaign). That was also before they had super-delegates (largely to prevent a McGovern candidate from winning).

"Draft" candidates have been extremely rare since primaries were initiated in 1972. Prior to that, however, Hubert Humphrey somewhat fits the picture of a draft candidate. He ran in no primaries, but was selected leader by the party bosses in 1968 (over antiwar Eugene McCarthy).

This (focus on winning with superdelegates) demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton’s campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude toward the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that’s not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities — namely, it’s an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals, and one can’t but help assume that’s exactly the attitude they would take toward governance, too.

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

I was asking YOU what is YOUR point, what is its relevance in this discussion. Repeating the question:

quote:

---

If people are NOT saying this means people will strongly tend to be more reactive to gender than race then please correct me.

Because it sounds like that is the point.

---

This appering to be the umpteenth illustration of what I had just previously posted:

quote:

---

We understand that you see all criticism of Hillary Clinton, whatever direction they come from and whatever the subject matter they use, as code for rejection of her based on her gender.

When people say they do not support her because she chose to be the quintessential Dem machine candidate, and for stances she has taken, you never address that directly. But since you dredge up yet another article that amounts to the 'its all code attacking her gender' card... that is your de facto answer, such as it is.

---

The bottom line is that you never address directly or substantively the criticisms of Hillary Clinton. You just post another aricle / commentary or two which by context would seem to be you reminding us [again] that its all about attacking Hillary because of her gender- whether we know it or not.

Bad enough you never address the substance of what people have said, I thought I could at least get you to explicitly SAY what your point is.

quote:

---

The bullshit attacks thrown by the Obama camp is just too much to swallow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

Would you please specify what those are.

---

Oh I don’t know? Like maybe their race baiting attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton ? They have never said anything racist, if anyone is playing the race card, it’s Barack and Michelle. Michelle is the one who said “Black America has to wake up and get it!“ and vote for them.

Apparently, Hillary is always playing the gender card, she is also racist and she is everything that is evil in the world. No, fuck that. She suffered enough misogynist and bullshit attacks , I don’t like Obama one bit.

I know I can’t vote, but I sure as hell would vote for Hillary over Obama and I have VOTED IN NDP EVERY ELECTION since I turned 18 6 years ago.

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Oh I don’t know? Like maybe their race baiting attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton ? They have never said anything racist.

---

Race baiting is a serious charge, you need to back that up. And the knock on the Clintons is not that they are racist.

I'm sure some Obama supporters have called them racist- but that isn't the general accusation.

I and others explicitly excused Hillary Clinton from some things that have been said on her behalf, despite the accusations being to her advantage, and her not repudiating them.

But unless you see nothing but partisanship and throw civility completely to the winds, you can't hold a candidate responsible for everything said on their behalf.

Its fair game to make a specific case that something said on their behalf is condoned by the candidate even if they don't claim ownership.

But sweeping claims of responsibility for everything said on their behalf are not legitimate.

So, where's your evidence that the Obama campaign in general engages in 'race baiting' or that the Clintons have been portrayed as racist.

What HAS been consistently argued by Obama supporters is that the Clintons- especially Bill because he is the one with the 'street cred'- have used their high regard among black Americans to dig away at Obama's credibility.

That's fair game, as is saying that criticising the Clinton's for it is lame or worse.

That's light years from anything that could be called race baiting or 'the Clintons are racists'.

quote:

---

if anyone is playing the race card, it’s Barack and Michelle. Michelle is the one who said “Black America has to wake up and get it!“ and vote for them.[QUOTE]

It was only early on before things got competitive and then nasty that anyone would claim Obama did not explicitly use race in his favour.

'Playing the race card' implies more than just using race in your favour. It means playing on peoples fears and resentments.

---

You are perfectly entitled to not like Obama.

But accusations with no basis are another story. Hilary playing the gender card is perfectly legitimate. Although there are questions of how. Until after New Hampshire she stayed away from explicit appeals to women, and instead ran attacks on Obama to undermine his standing with women.

THAT is playing the _____ card at its' worst. When she opened up more she claimed the mantle of candidate for women. That's fine. All power to her. Too bad she didn't do it before and instead CHOSE to coast in for her [presumed] coronation as the inevitable candidate.

[Which is why she earned the emnity of many of us- while you and Martin and others choose to portray that as being opposed to Hillary because she is a strong woman. That's a smear.]

quote:

---

If anyone thinks every “progressive” person on babble support Obama over Hillary, you are WRONG. But do continue the attacks on Hillary, I am sure she can take it, she’s tough woman.

---

And you go on characterising substantive criticisms of Hilary Clinton's politics and political actions as de facto misogynist attacks.

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2007/04/16/1176719239_7259.gif

So all in all, it's a tough choice for us Canadians.

Am I ever glad we don't get a vote.

Its my firm belief that if Edwards had stayed in the race Hillary would still be in front.

What this thread has proven is that there is just as much division among us Babblers as there is in the Dem Party itself. And THAT, my friends is helping nobody as a future candidate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Curran:
While I am thoroughly enjoying the banter around this post, I just thought I'd mention that the post is about the split in the Democratic Party allowing for the Repubs to get their shit together to win a victory against all odds.

---

If you convinced me that a Republican government would act differently in any meaningful sense than a Democratic one, I personally would stop bantering and start paying more attention.

feminist leaders support Barack Obama.

Some here must have missed the Judy Rebick thread a while ago Here's the Judy Rebick thread endorsing Barack Obama.

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan.
Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

---

This is also not yet that divisive. Not to mention that it will take willful self destruction for the Dems not to win the White House this time. They've got a long way to go before that.

Most women would rather have the BEST Presidential candidate elected possible as opposed to an ego gratification female President.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
One difference IMHO is the Supreme Court nominations either would make. While I'm not aware of either Obama or HRC sidscussing their thoughts on this, I feel any Dems nomination for the SC, as well as all the appointments to lower courts are going to be better, or at least less horrible than anything the Repubs would do, and that it's a really important and under discussed issue.

It's discussed here at The Huffington Post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Many of us lost our faith in Hillary given her record these last 8 years. While it would have been awesome having a first female American president sadly Hillary is not that woman.

Most women would rather have the BEST Presidential candidate elected possible as opposed to an ego gratification female President.

Which is also why Stephen Harper will never get the majority of Canadian womens vote. hehehe!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Many of us lost our faith in Hillary given her record these last 8 years. While it would have been awesome having a first female American president sadly Hillary is not that woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

Was it awesome having a first female Prime Minister in the UK?

---

Maybe my American sisters want to learn from the U.K experience (mistake) and are all about electing the right and best candidate for their futures and for their children's future.

Barack Obama is the One. Not Hillary Clinton

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:

all presidential candidates have big freaking ego.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

No, McGovern won the primaries, because Ed Muskie cried after losing Iowa (well he claimed it was snowing, and false allegations of infidelity to his wife had featured prominently in the campaign).

---

Not to quibble, but Muskie did not lose Iowa. He "cried" while making a speech in front of the Manchester Union Leader newspaper building after the paper published a story that his staff had used the term "Canuck" in derogatory fashion, and had attacked his wife.

Not to flog a dead horse again, but the best candidate has been out of the race for two weeks now. All the talk of the first woman or the first black man to be president closed people's eyes to who the best candidate really was.

Edwards was talking about predatory lenders and high ratio mortgages last summer. Now all candidates are talking a tough game on those issues and the Pres. is legislating against foreclosures.

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: James Curran ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:

Righto but the female electorate are not voting on their ego gratification or else Hillary would have most of the female vote. Many American women will be voting for who is the BEST candidate for them and Obama is the one that they want.

---

quote:

---

It's one thing for supporters of Hillary Clinton to make the case that her experience in Washington politics would make her a better president than Barack Obama. But it's quite another to actually vilify Obama's ability to inspire as a "cult of the personality" or "nothing but words."

It is particularly disturbing when serious progressive writers who should know better repeat this attack on Obama's inspirational abilities. It demonstrates a failure to grasp the principal lesson of the last thirty years of American politics.

In fact, it is precisely the absence of inspiration in progressive politics that has kept Progressives on the political defensive for decades.

That's because to inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to something much more important than endless lists of policies and programs. To inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to our values and to our vision for the future.

---

The right wing know this stuff inside out on how to inspire their base whereas the progressive side are waaay less successful at this type of thing. Some of us here have discussed this "connecting with people" and "inspiring" talent that we wished Jack Layon and the NDP would show more of.

Finally a democratic candidate has this talent in spades. This is cause for celebration not the usual left wing incessant whining.

To Vilify Obama for his Ability to Inspire is to Ignore the Principal Lesson of the Last Three Decades of American Politics

Obama, ever the quick study, has picked up on the major mistakes of the John Kerry campaign and is doing things his way - successfully.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

It's one thing for supporters of Hillary Clinton to make the case that her experience in Washington politics would make her a better president than Barack Obama. But it's quite another to actually vilify Obama's ability to inspire as a "cult of the personality" or "nothing but words."
It is particularly disturbing when serious progressive writers who should know better repeat this attack on Obama's inspirational abilities.

---

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Martin Luther King used rhetoric, but his rhetoric was tied to specific policy goals (moreover he was not a politician running for public office, but somebody pushing a very specific set of changes).

By contrast Obama's rhetoric is hollow and empty because it does not push an actual message. He HAS policies, but when he does policy speeches he says "okay I am going to be boring now", or, as is more often the case for his advocates "see the website". Inspiration for inspiration's sake is meaningless, and this is why the cult accusation comes out: Obama does not have a dream, beyond his own becoming president.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Curran:
"Barack Obama is the ONE. Not Hillary Clinton"

Not to flog a dead horse again, but the best candidate has been out of the race for two weeks now. All the talk of the first woman or the first black man to be president closed people's eyes to who the best candidate really was.

Edwards was talking about predatory lenders and high ratio mortgages last summer. Now all candidates are talking a tough game on those issues and the Pres. is legislating against foreclosures.

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: James Curran ]

---

Edwards the one-term senator (spent mostly running for president) who voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and the China trade deal he now campaigns against (not to mention his wimpy stand on gay marriage "well... my wife supports it")?

(here is what Russ Feingold has to say about Edwards)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Feingold_Edwards_is_running_on_my_record.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:

And yet there is a lot of hope being pored into this man, from across a lot of spectrums and divides. If that broad spectrum can coalesce around some ideas, like they have around the image, then a lot of things could change. Maybe.

---

Yeah but WHAT IDEAS? Obama's record on bipartisanship is pretty thin - wow, he forged consensus on nuclear proliferation. Gee, it must have been hard to fend off all those people that love the idea of other countries getting nukes.

As a result, image starts coming into play. And so far, Obama's been quite effectively branded as the candidate of hope. Admittedly, this has a lot to do with the fact that he's a fresh face and a charismatic figure upon whom people are projecting a lot right now, ironically making him more the heir to 1992 Clintonmania than Hillary is, whereas Hillary Clinton is already indelibly branded in the American consciousness. Basically, that's the dynamic right now: Barack Obama's brand at the moment is "Candidate of Hope", while Hillary Clinton's is "Hillary Clinton". And that, fundamentally, is why Obama's got the momentum right now, even though very few people could actually name a specific policy that he stands for. All else being equal, people are generally going to gravitate to the candidate who excites them more.

The danger, of course, being that if Obama ultimately wins the presidency, he might have a hard time actually living up to the inflated expectations that are being invested in him right now. Think Bill Clinton's first year in office, or David Miller.

And if either candidate ultimately wins the presidency, there's also the very real danger that they'll become the rug under which American society tries to bury the fact that both African Americans and women still face major structural and sociological inequalities (i.e. "See? We have a black president...we're not a racist country anymore!")

But we also need to keep in mind that the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, has enough of a maverick reputation that he's possibly the only person left in that party who can convincingly present himself to the American public as representing a change from the Shrub years.

So, yeah, either Obama or Clinton would be vastly preferable to McCain. But I don't think we can safely assume that a Democratic victory is a sure thing.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: asterix ]

He is a great campaigner and doing things right so far in this campaign. Clinton can't even keep up with the well run Obama campaign so far.
Don't be a hater; learn from this man instead!

Good points also asterix.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
Can you imagine if only a few delegates seperated them, the loyalties of Super Delegates came into play and the non-seating of the Michigan and Florida Delegates was being fought in the court of law as well as public opinion - all on live TV?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
For all the naysayers: Go to Barack Obama's website and you'll see where he stands on the issues. As the campaign progresses more and more will be revealed.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

---

I have gone there - and I find it rather annoying that whenever anybody tries to engage in substantive debate about Obama they get told "oh go to his webpage." Don't you think it is problematic that one has to try hard to get Obama's positions from his public statements?

Please tell me how Obama's eloquence is valuable if it is not able to sell Americans on any of the ideas on that webpage - many of which remain controversial in the United States (moreover Obama's voting record is fairly Liberal).

Do you think that, in a general election, voters are likely to go to his webpage at all, much less, read the relatively bland statements there and say "huh, well clearly I am convinced."

quote:

---

...Too bad she didn't do it before and instead CHOSE to coast in for her [presumed] coronation as the inevitable candidate.
[Which is why she earned the emnity of many of us - while you and Martin and others choose to portray that as being opposed to Hillary because she is a strong woman. That's a smear.

---

He just won Wisconsin, his ninth is a row!

Obama cuts into Clinton’s support among women and union members.

Maybe this will be wrapped up sooner rather than later in the summer!

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
And when he wins the primary, and the general election, America will become... Obamalot!

---

Soon to be McCain's mantra:
"More Wars. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Jobs are not coming back. 100 years in Iraq: 2108."

Such a dangerous sourpuss.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
[QB]Winner - Barack!

He just won Wisconsin, his ninth is a row!

Obama cuts into Clinton’s support among women and union members.

---

The erosion of Clinton's base certainly augers well for Obama. If he wins either Ohio or Texas it's probably over. If he wins both it's definitely over.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
hehe!

Soon to be McCain's mantra:
"More Wars. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Jobs are not coming back. 100 years in Iraq: 2108."

Such a dangerous sourpuss.

---

Time for the Democrats to dust off the Daisy Ad.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

Time for the Democrats to dust off the Daisy Ad.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

---

I disagree - Iraq is actually a bad issue for either of the Dems, while this is counter-intuitive. Here is why:

The fact that Harold Ickes, Hillary's chief delegate counter and one of the Democratic Party's long-time rules junkies (he got me hooked back in 1980), has now changed his tune on seating delegations from Florida and Michigan should tell you how the Clinton people see this playing out. One way or another, every state ends up with delegates on the floor, no matter what the party threatens in advance.

The question is how they get there, or in this case, according to what vote they get apportioned. The Clinton people will argue that the only fair thing is to apportion them based on the votes that were actually cast in the admittedly verboten primaries. The Obama people, who are specialists in caucuses, will argue that they should be picked by the state parties, or by caucuses, or by some other procedure that Hillary hasn't already won.

Who wins? Believe me, this isn't a question of principle. It's all politics, and it will depend both on how well Hillary does between now and then, and on how much support she has on the Democratic National Committee.

Technically, the decision could be made in the first instance by the DNC, and then challenged (or affirmed) by the Credentials Committee to the Convention, and the Convention itself.

The composition of the Credentials committee is based on the division of pledged delegates to the convention, which doesn't tell you anything yet, and if it's left to the convention reviewing the Credential Report, then it's pledged delegates plus superdelegates minus the Michigan and Florida delegations, who don't get to vote on their own challenges. Which is to say, again, who knows?

[ 20 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Tough Talk on Pakistan from Obama

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
How significant is it for those who associate Obama with "Change" that he stated seven months ago that he would bomb Pakistan to get at "Al-Qaida", even without that country's consent?

Tough Talk on Pakistan from Obama

Video

---

Hillary's negatives will drive white men to John McCain; Obama's inexperience will require a gut check on the part of voters. What if the super delegates decide not to decide, denying either candidate the requisite number of delegates to secure the party's nomination. Democrats want to win. The new rallying cry: Gore on the second ballot.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Righto but the female electorate are not voting on their ego gratification or else Hillary would have most of the female vote. Many American women will be voting for who is the BEST candidate for them and Obama is the one that they want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
The right wing know this stuff inside out on how to inspire their base whereas the progressive side are waaay less successful at this type of thing. Some of us here have discussed this "connecting with people" and "inspiring" talent that we wished Jack Layon and the NDP would show more of.

Finally a democratic candidate has this talent in spades. This is cause for celebration not the usual left wing incessant whining.

---

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Obama starts from the strongest position viz McCain- lack of experience talk alone will never stick enough.

While Clinton would be weaker on that score, only relative to Obama. Both Dems start with the strong hand when it comes to swing voters.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
intriguing thesis -- Al Gore to the rescue?

---

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Albireo ]

And I know Obama loves the swell of applause, outpouring of affection and all the adulation going his way. His ego can handle it. Hope his ego will be able to handle the Karl Rovian Republican negative attacks soon to come his way should he win the nomination.

Michelle I sometimes get his first and last names mixed up even calling and posting "Obama Barack" instead of "Barack Obama" no harm intended just early symtoms of dementia on my part I guess heheh.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

In 2006 Obama took up the cause of Illinois residents who were angry with Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator, for not having disclosed a leak at one of their nuclear plants in the state. Obama responded by quickly introducing a bill that would require nuclear facilities to immediately notify state and federal agencies of all leaks, large or small.

At first it seemed Obama was intent on making a change in the reporting protocol, even demonizing Exelon's inaction in the press. But Obama could only go so far, as Exelon executives, including Chairman John W. Rowe who serves as a key lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Lobby, have long been campaign backers, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars dating back to Obama's days in the Illinois State Legislature.

Despite his initial push to advance the legislation, Obama's office eventually rewrote the bill, producing a version that was palatable to Exelon and the rest of the nuclear industry. "Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Illinois, where the nuclear leaks had polluted local ground water. "The teeth were just taken out of it."

Inevitably the bill died a slow death in the Senate. And like an experienced political operative, Obama came out of the battle as a martyr for both sides of the cause. His constituents back in Illinois thought he fought a good fight while industry insiders knew the Obama machine was worth investing in.

---