Thinking Right

By OneForTheRoad

March 6, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

Jim,

I take government’s role in our lives seriously. I voted for Ron Paul in the Georgia primaries. I’ll vote for the “lesser of the evils” in the Presidential race. Based on my current feelings regarding state and local politicians, I’ll vote against any Incumbent Republican. I don’t believe in playing games with people’s lives. If you REALLY want to know more of what I am talking about then you can get just a little sampling by reading the information at www.ngass.com. I’d bet that there are other people that can provide even more for you to digest. Is it time for a change? Yes. Will we get the type of change this country needs? I seriously doubt it.

By Curious Observer

March 6, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

The most recent ABC poll shows Obama beating McCain by 12 points and Clinton beating him by 6. And given Clinton’s 51% negative approval rating, there’s no question Obama is the tougher candidate against McCain.

Nice work in convicting Obama before any trial, Wooten. Keep dragging those carcasses from beneath the rocks. I can hardly wait for those campaign ads featuring McCain embracing Bush and the constant refrain of McCainBush. All the smears in the world, including the recycled redneck e-mails claiming that Obama is a Muslim who won’t recite the pledge of allegiance or acknowledge the flag, won’t save the Republicans this time.

By Glenn

March 6, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

He’s better off against Clintons. One of the dynamics of the past week was the successful spin, Hillary Machine -> Media, of the mantra, “Hillary’s been vetted, but so far Obama has escaped vetting.” The cupidity of the young voters, as showcased on this week’s “Saturday Night Live”, is that they buy this line as some sort of reality check.

They think they’re getting realistic and mature about their bobbysoxing by taking what to them is a hard look at Obama—-unaware all the while that they’ve been spun. The point of the spin was not so much to encourage the vetting of Obama as to pretend that Hillary needs no further vetting. That’s dead wrong. The Press may prefer the style of the fresh, quotable and telegenic Barack over the control-freakish style of Hillary, but giving Billary a hard time over their whatever-it-takes persona hardly qualifies as intrepid journalistic research into just what exactly those two have been up to for the past seven years, and with whom.

McCain can more easily beat Clintons than Obama for three simple reasons:

1) Hillary’s extraordinarily high negatives;

2) McCain won’t hesitate to do what the press has failed to do: reveal how truly venal she is;

3) Clinton fatigue, exacerbated by another eight months of this bizarre positioning and repositioning of Bill, the Original Thing That Wouldn’t Leave.

I don’t agree that “the young, attracted to Obama’s campaign by his promise of ‘change,’ will jump ship in a heartbeat once they sense that his rhetoric is just to win”. The young are too shallow for such a move, and most of them are too shallow to show up at the polls anyway. To them, Obama’s “change” factor is as immutable as the color of his skin.

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Always nice to see Glenn’s contempt for the young people of America, who are apparently too DUMB to be voting his way.

If only all differences of opinion really WERE because your opponents were stupid, Glenn… then you’d—well, you’d be living in BushWorld!

By Glenn

March 6, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

They’re not stupid, Copyleft, only callow beyond belief. And though I know it breaks your heart, the wisest of them are in the military and will be voting, almost en bloc for McCain. The college crowds that swoons for Sen. Obama will turn out, come November, in underwhelming numbers. They always do.

Despite no-show after no-show in elections past, Latinos finally will turn out in good numbers if it’s Hillary for the general, but the students won’t. Tuesday may have been a wake-up call in e.g. Austin, but I doubt that the groupies are any the wiser for being sadder. On every Dem campaign I’ve worked on, it’s gone without saying that students are the sizzle, not the steak.

By the way, such is my “contempt” for students that I’ve devoted my adult life to them.

By Redneck Convert

March 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

Well, I can’t get too riled up about who runs against McCain. Either way the Mexicans get made legal and it will be OK to take our jobs. But I was awful happy to see McCain hugging My President on the news last night. I figure that will make him a shoo-in to be elected. Since us rednecks love My President and all he has done for us. Like keeping the terrists away from north Forsyth County and not going too hard on these civil rights laws and appointing godly conservative judges and cutting the taxes of the rich people so we could all get Trickle Down. If it wasn’t for him we would have a abortion clinic on every street corner and people would be killing the stem cells and doing all kind of sinful stuff.

I couldn’t hardly figure out what McCain was saying about getting My President to help with the election. He kept coming back to how busy My President is and how he would kind of understand if My President didn’t show up at any campaign stops. The way he kept saying it, a person that didn’t know better would think he didn’t want My President to show up. I know that’s not what he meant but it kind of sounded like it. Any person with any sense would want My President to be at his side all the time during the campaign stops.

Anyhow, me and Joe Bill talked last night about how awful it would be if this Obama got to run against McCain. We talked about how he is a towel-head that don’t salute the flag or say the pledge. This guy is about as much a trader as anybody in Iraq. I don’t hold with McCain’s librul ways, but he looks a thousand times better than this Obama. He’s not only one of Those People but a terrist to boot. There ought to be a law against people like him getting to run for president. Its about the same thing with this Clinton woman. Do you really want a woman leading you around? Shouldn’t she be home taking care of her husband? She don’t do that too good, judging by all the stuff he’s done.

Have a good day everybody.

By jbmlaw

March 6, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. John McCain would do well to not make assumptions about his prospective opponent, except to the extent he can put them into the same box. I thought his acceptance speech the other night had a couple of brilliant points, the NAFTA argument in particular. To the extent he can push both Hillary and Barack – excuse me, Hildebeest and Hussein – into embracing the same economic-loser position, he should do so. Of course, the way he does that is as he did Tuesday night – by defining himself. He has six months to create whatever persona he wishes to project, and he would be foolish to waste any effort attempting to define his opponents until the dust clears and the democrats select one.

There are strong intellectual and conservative arguments for almost all of McCain’s positions on the hot button issues (including, to the continuing aggravation of some of my less-libertarian conservative friends, immigration). Were I Mr. McCain’s political advisor, I would urge him to keep hands off immigration; as the democrats are as polarized, if less famously so, on the issue, he will get a total pass on the issue from the democrats. He would do well to lament the unsuccessful good intentions of McCain-Feingold, and cite the dozens of George Soros fronts as a conventional case of unforeseen consequences of activist big government.

McCain needs to run “renewal of the tax cuts” on a daily basis; this will force the democrats to run on either (1) “the economy is terrible and we need to avoid all tax increases” or (2) “the economy is strong and we can allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse without consequence.” For now they are getting away with the economically-irrational position of “tax increases will strengthen the private sector.”

McCain had a great line on Iraq in his Tuesday night speech, but my weak memory fails here. He should repeat that one daily, too.

As to our host’s closing questions, certainly I play political games on a daily basis, as that helps our associates define their own views, but I have never voted in the inferior party’s primary in an attempt to magnify a less-worthy candidate. Occasionally I have voted there to keep out a lunatic, but that fits my definition of good faith citizenship.

By ManPower

March 6, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

What everyone is ignoring is the strong homosexual support for the Hag - I lived thru 8 years of zipperboy’s administration in which homo’s were a protected species, aids was a holy disease, and people were punished if they objected. Under the Hag, the homo dominance of the government will be ten times worse: Look at the video and photo’s from her victory speach tuesday night, one row behind her were the most nasty, masculine looking women I have ever seen, just waiting to move into Federal Agencies where they can turn the power of Government loose on MEN, both white and black. America has far more important problems to deal with over the next decade than a gender war, but that will be the smoke screen the Hag will put up to cover her other crimes. Meanwhile, the dollar will become worthless, we will not be getting enough foreign oil for everyone in america to use as they please, inflation will be going thru the roof, and guess what? The Hag and her ilk will be blaming MEN for these problems. First there will be a windfall profits tax on the oil, gas and natural resource companies, then on oil futures trades, then on farm products, multinational corporations, and on all higher income people. The Hags homo’s will be free to prey upon your children as they enter the work force… Just Say No to Hillarity the Clown and her ILK

By jbmlaw

March 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

I respectfully reject the suggestion that turning out an incumbent is generally a good idea. Voting against the candidate most likely to advocate for Leviathan – whether incumbent or challenger - is a smarter strategy for one with an anti-government preference. Burning down the Reichstag and all that.

One other point that would serve McCain well, would be a timely commentary on every interesting Supreme Court ruling between now and July, for the indirect benefit. Democrats will not want to magnify any leftist rulings – like Kelo, they are always irrational and unpopular - although McCain should.

By Ron

March 6, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Jim,At the moment ,Obama would be better off running against Hillary,but not much better.I see the Canadians this morning are vowing to crucify the leaker,if they can just find him.Lesson here for Obama in crossing the aisle and foreign affairs rolled into one.Up there now,Barak,they’re Tories,which is equivilent to our Conservatives.They don’t like liberals.Conservatives are noTORYous in not finding leaks.Especially this one that’s rumored to be very close to the Head Cheese himself.Better luck in your duplicity next time,son.

By OneForTheRoad

March 6, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

When we get a “good” person in office and that person can be identified as “good” by the voters, then that person should get re-elected as often as permissible. Regarding our Georgia politicians, the good ones appear to be too few and too difficult to recognize. So, the best strategy is too “throw the baby out with the bath water” and it’s a BIG stretch to even assume the baby’s in that bath water. It just plain stinks too bad for that to be the case. Vote against Georgia’s Incumbent Republicans.

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

“By the way, such is my “contempt” for students that I’ve devoted my adult life to them.”

I DO hope you make a point of telling them how they lack substance and don’t matter, right? Because otherwise you’d be, y’know, a hypocrite. Since that’s what you’re saying here.

By deegee

March 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

I wonder how many times republicans resort to choosing the opposition versus how many times democrats choose their opposition. I can think of at least two cases where republican voters in N Dekalb County voted in the democratic primary in order to influence the outcome of the election. I am suspicious that the support that Obama is reportedly receiving from white males is being skewed by republicans expressing support for Obama. I sense that conservative talk show addicts would jump off a cliff as soon as their anointed leaders gave the order.

I can’t think of any cases where democrats have voted in republican primaries in order to influence the outcome. However, given McCain’s unpopularity over the summer and fall, and his high negatives among conservatives, how did he become the overwhelming favorite of republican voters?

By Peter

March 6, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

JBMLAW writes…..

“McCain needs to run “renewal of the tax cuts” on a daily basis; this will force the democrats to run on either (1) “the economy is terrible and we need to avoid all tax increases” or (2) “the economy is strong and we can allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse without consequence.” For now they are getting away with the economically-irrational position of “tax increases will strengthen the private sector.”

Please tell me are you like Dusty thinking the economy, and the deficit is doing just fine?

By Ron

March 6, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

McCain would be better off running against Hillary.McCain,repeat after me Ron,McCain

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

DeeGee: McCain is the “darling” of the far right because even though they hate him, they have no choice but to vote for him.

Which McCain knew all along; he can take them for granted, because they have no will of their own.

By George

March 6, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

The beautiful thing about this election is we are for all intents and purposes free of the tyranical control of the right wing republican talibanistas. Now if we can just rid Georgia of the talibaptists.

By Dennis

March 6, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes; “To recap, it started going downhill Monday with jury selection in the Chicago corruption trial of Obama’s pal and former fund-raiser Tony Rezko. In a press conference, Obama suddenly appeared to be just another politician dodging questions about something messy.”

Here is a marvelous example of how the mainstream media (in this case a good Republican like Mr. Wooten) attempts to propagandize the public’s mind.

Why?

Because he is not about to write anything like, “Since the start of Mr George W. Bush’s career in politics, the largest donor to his electoral campaigns has been a man named Kenneth Lay. “Kenny Boy” is how Mr Bush often referred to his friend, indicating the warm and intimate relation between the two. Recently, though, Mr Bush does not return Kenny Boy’s phone calls. In fact, he would rather not acknowledge that he knows Mr Lay. The reason? The company of which Mr Lay was president, Enron, has just crashed in the largest and most spectacular bankruptcy in American history.” QUOTE is from Commondreams,Feb 6/02.

Maybe if we avoid the truth long enough it didn’t happen?

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Robert

March 6, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain trails Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in hypothetical matchups, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Wednesday.

By Cammi317

March 6, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

So you want to work for the Clinton’s?

Just a quick refresher course lest we forget what has happened to many ‘friends’ of the Clinton’s

1-James McDougal - Clinton ‘s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.

2 -Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

3- Vince Foster - Former White House counselor and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4- Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death
Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his will ingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the air Traffic controller committed suicide.

5- C. Victor Raiser II- Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992

6- Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992. Described by Clinton as a ‘dear friend and trusted advisor’.

7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8-Jerry Parks -Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park’s son said his father was building a dossie r on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9-James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a ‘Black Book’ of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

10-James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

11- Kathy Ferguson- Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

12-Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiance of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiance, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiance.

13-Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton ‘s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

14-Florence Martin - Accountant & subcontractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mean Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.

15- Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

16-Paula Grober - Clinton ‘s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

17- Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mean Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18- Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 ‘October Surprise’ was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington, DCapartment. H ad delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

19-Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

20-Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

21- Charles Meissner -Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

22- Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.

23- Barry Seal -Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas , death was no accident.

24-Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25-Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26- Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

27- Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as ‘The boys on the track’ case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

28-Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

29-Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988

30-Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31-Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.

33-James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to ‘natural causes’.

34-Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

35-Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:

36 -Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37-Captain Scott J . Reynolds 38-Sgt. Brian Hanley 39-Sgt. Tim Sabel 40-Major General William Robertson 41-Col. William Densberger
42-Col. Robert Kelly 43-Spec. Gary Rhodes 44-Steve Willis 45-Robert Williams 46-Conway LeBleu 47-Todd McKeehan

Quite an impressive list! Pass this on. Let the public become aware of what happens to friends of the Clinton’s

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT? SURELY YOU JEST!

By AmVet

March 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Copyleft at 10:31, well said.

I have contended for months that many of the more gullible of the right wing fringe/base/”faithful” will bite their tongues and vote for McCain.

Glenn has demonstrated beautifully that he is practically anti-Reagan and not closely aligned with this “new” “conservatism”.

And that is exactly why he has become the shining new standard bearer of the GOP.

He was the only Rep. candidate to realize that pandering to the Bush apologists and the lost cause of Reaganism is certain political suicide now. Look at how Brownback, Hunter, Thompson, Romney, et al almost inexplicably tried and died. Very unceremoniously at that.

He knows he doesn’t really need the lunatic fringe (like Bush did) to win this election.

He has the older crowd, the hawks (as opposed to the chickenhawks), the disenfranchised Democrats and most importantly the moderates and independents practically locked up.

His fatal mistake will be to select one of the “conservatives” even remotely associated with this administration as his running mate.

By Glenn

March 6, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, don’t you feel as I do that it’s our duty to point out to them when and how they’re being callow? And to remind them that if they feel strongly about something (e.g. Obama), they should do something about it (e.g. actually vote in the General)?

Also, the word hypocrisy means, at its roots, to lessen a crisis. That is the best we can do in justice and politics—-as jbm frequently points out.

By Lily Toad

March 6, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

The list of people “killed” by the Clintons is the very reason Sen. Clinton can’t win. The Republicans prefer her as the candidate so they can trot out this kind of nonsense. As for Rezko, I can’t see that big of an ethics problem for Obama. It’ll take something of more substance to drive off his ardent supporters.

By Reality Time

March 6, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Cammi317 plays a truly lame political game at 10:55. Unable to defend the abuse of power and atrocities of the current administration, and afraid that Americans will no longer follow the GOP like trembling, fearful sheep, this person trots out FEAR and LIES that have been discredited many times over. Yes, those people are dead. (Anyone personally acquainted with tens of thousands of people will have many aquaintances die in any given year. It’s called math, Sparky, and some of us are familiar with it.)

For the debunking of these half-truths and three-quarter lies, go to SNOPES.

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Reality, Lily: You don’t understand. They funded an ENTIRE ORGANIZATION that did nothing but dig around for dirt on the Clintons for the better part of a decade.

They don’t want all that time and effor to go to waste, so they have to keep recycling it—no matter how many times it’s been discredited.

By Glenn

March 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

Copyleft,

I’ve become really exasperated by the enforced political incompetence of young Americans. For years I worked for better civics education, for student rights and for active experience in democracy for children approaching voting age. After the dismal youth turnouts in 2000-2004, I co-founded yet another get-out-the-vote 501(c)(3) organization of and for young people. I now feel that my efforts since the mid-’70s have amounted to p!ssing in the Pacific.

The truth is that they’re being stupefied, and it really has got to stop. I don’t think the dumbing-down can be justified or rationalized. Here’s an idea, and I’m curious to learn what you and anyone else here thinks about it:

Permit any young American to declare, within 30 days of her 16th birthday, her intention to challenge the citizenship exam six months after her 16th birthday. If she passes, she gets to vote in the next general election. Her qualification for early voting would be based on that exam, unchanged, and on nothing else. The qualification would be certified by the County Registrar.

Would employers, for example, be inclined to take note of such a young person’s commitment and sense of responsibility to democracy?

By Peter

March 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

Right on remarks…….By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Reality, Lily: You don’t understand. They funded an ENTIRE ORGANIZATION that did nothing but dig around for dirt on the Clintons for the better part of a decade.

Yes what has the Republicans done for us in the last say 16 years…..?

By Apocalypse

March 6, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

Howard Dean on MI/FL: “We are not going to change the rules” Statement from Dean Howard today:

“As we’ve said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules, so today’s public overtures are good news.”

“First, either MI or FL can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates.”

“We will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.”

By Apocalypse

March 6, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Mar 5, 2008 10:46 PM March 4th delegate estimates - Obama won Texas

Here’s the latest estimate from the campaign:

• Texas: 100 Obama (62 primary/38 caucus), 93 Clinton (64 primary/29 caucus)

• Ohio primary: 66 Obama, 75 Clinton

• Rhode Island primary: 8 Obama, 13 Clinton

• Vermont primary: 9 Obama, 6 Clinton

A few smaller papers are reporting this, but the major outlets are still giving major exposure of a Texas win to Clinton based on the primary results only. Hope this helps clarify the last bulletin regarding Obama winning more delegates in Texas.

I think it’s safe to say that Obama won Texas!

Clinton did not pick up what she needed from Texas and Ohio, and is in worse position delegate-wise than before March 4th contests. See Hillary’s New Math Problem for more info.

By thorn in liberalism

March 6, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

March 6, 2008 — IF AL GORE can pull himself away from saving the planet long enough, he might want to consider rescuing the Democratic Party from the clutches of utter self-destruction.

No! Please let the king of the tin foil hat lib moonbats continue to fly around the globe spewing Jet-A carbon emissions scaremongering his junk science the idiots while telling the rest of us to live and eat like we did in the stone age to “save the planet.” I want to see this self destruction up close and personal, and I’m not talking about the planet.

By Brad

March 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

“Yes what has the Republicans done for us in the last say 16 years…..?”

Well I don’t know about you Peter, but I have more now than I did during Clinton’s era from 1993 to 2000 (bigger paycheck, bigger retirement and investment accounts, nicer cars, a bigger home, more toys, take more vacations, etc.). Don’t really know what that means, but all I know is that under a Republican administration myself and just about everyone (no make that everyone) I know from friends to family are better off too. Somehow, counter to what the media is trying to portray about how we are in another friggin’ Great Depression or something, I’ll wager that’s more rule than exception for most Americans - especially for those who didn’t lie on their mortgage application and bit off more than they could chew.

By Peter

March 6, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Brad, like you I am lucky……

First of all I have my own brokerage Business in the Computer world….. So getting cheap equipment with all the foreclosures, and business going under has been GREAT……So yes I am making MORE Money.

That said…… the average American made LESS money in 2007 due to Inflation….. that was reported today…. GAS is at a all time high, due to the uncertainty in the market, which the WAR is a BIG part of!

Read what is being printed today about folks and their houses.

Foreclosures are at an all time high….so in general MORE Americans than ever are in BIG Trouble…..

Also instead of creating Jobs, this administration pulled a PURE Democratic move……giving away money at TAX time!

The economy and dollar both are in trouble, and the banking sector is a BIG issue.

If you watch any of the money shows, one BIG topic is what American large Bank is going to go DOWN..and what will be the over all effect of that ?

This administration has just WASTED our money, created bigger government, and drove the deficit through the roof with the WAR, and reduced Taxes.

The Rich ARE getting Richer, but watch out in the stock market as allot of folks retirements will be going down the tube, when the market tanks.

The stock market HISTORICALLY does better during a Democratic Presidents tenure.

Your thoughts…..????

By Ron

March 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

No one has mentioned the fact yet that John McCain left the President hanging out to dry at the commencement of the “congratulations to you John”ceremony.Everyone went back inside and had to reappear after McCain finally got there.Subtle message?

By deegee

March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Glenn, I would go along with your idea if the government would apply the same test to young people that want to enlist in the military.

By Anyone But Hillary

March 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

I crossed over a few times, most recently a few years ago to vote against Representative Cynthia McKinney and, because enough of us did it, it worked. I considered crossing over again this year in the presidential primary and voting for Obama because I despise Hillary so much, but, in the end, it was more important to me to make a statement in the Republican primary, since that’s how I’m going to vote in November anyway.

By jm

March 6, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

It is March, the elections are not until November. While many people have their minds already made up, many probably won’t know who they are voting for until they step into the voting booth.

If Senator McCain wants a chance to win, he better pray that the economy does not tank between now and then. If it does, he is toast.

While it is nice to be informed, it is way to early to worry about who will get the nomination now. A more pressing worry is the Braves pitching. Do Glavine and Smoltz have anything left? Will Hudson fade down the stretch like he did last year? Is this the year Hampton finally stays healthy? Will the bullpen hold up?

These are the questions people should be asking.

By George Crike

March 6, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

The AJC currently has stories on its Web page about two Georgia students killed at out-of-state colleges and an Atlanta power couple missing in South Carolina. The moral of this story: Stay in Georgia. The rest of the country has it out for us.

By Ron

March 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

The real question,JM,is who can hold up best at a Congressional grilling about steroid use.Clemens leads all comers at present.We’ll see how long he lasts.

By getalife

March 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

“THE CLINTON BLUEPRINT FOR VICTORY:

Told ya. She is strong and Obama is weak.

Not this cycle gop, you will lose in a landslide.

Your vote for Obama earned him VP.

Clinton/Obama.

By Glenn

March 6, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

deegee, I really like your idea, but am unclear on the logic. Did you mean to lower a volunteer’s minimum age below current levels contingent on the exam outcome?

What equivalency role would their oaths reasonably play? What about those persons commissioned directly from their appointments to the military academies? What if officer or NCO training already entails civics education? Should they then take the test anyway, implying that the services have not ensured that the serving personnel know their stuff? How could it be handled without insult to serving personnel who are, after all, undergoing an intensive civics practicum?

By Analyst Interrupted

March 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

We all fear that Obama may be a islamist radical. We simply dont know.

We all fear that Hillary may be a chickist fatical, we simply dont know.

But between the too, I’d take my chances on Obama, because if the fat chicks ever take over, dems or reps, we’re finished.

I can handle islamist radicals. It’s the fat chicks I loathe and fear.

Vote Obama: he’s no fat chick.

By Mister Orwell

March 6, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Perhaps Senator Clinton simply added two Texas delegate votes plus two more and got five.

I believe that her mind may have slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved using doublethink.

By ManPower

March 6, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Lock up your wives and daughters, McCain is in town!

By jbmlaw

March 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Dear Peter @ 10:25, short answer, the economy is showing signs of weakness. Of course, the great joke is that it is the democrats’s failure to renew the Bush tax cuts that is primarily causing the weakness. Anticipation of poorer earnings, due to the forthcoming greatest tax increase in the history of the world, is causing employers to scale back any thoughts of expansion. The democrats foolish talk of renegotiating NAFTA would similarly cause a collapse in international trade – an almost perfect corollary to the Smoot Hawley debacle of 80 years ago. But, if the democrats suddenly come to their senses, renew the Bush tax cuts and cease the stupid anti-trade talk, the economy will pick up instantly. As to the second part of your question, taxes have nothing to do with the “deficit;” excessive spending is the exclusive cause of the “deficit.” I agree that the deficit has significantly worsened since the democrats seized the House and Senate last year, and I agree that the American public would do well to reverse its 2006 error in judgment.

Dear Cammi @ 10:55, I worked for one of the first 25 guys on your list (he was my immediate supervisor, and a great guy.) The info on the list is not 100% accurate. While I assert that the Clintons are the most corrupt leaders in the history of our government, they were not responsible for the death of my boss. (I will acknowledge that we had one client who disagreed with me, asserting the specific argument you published; his argument was unpersuasive to me for reasons other than your argument.)

Dear AmVet @ 10:56, your analysis is flawed by your political prejudices. The 2008 republican primaries are a classic example of Nash equilibrium.

Dear Peter @ 1:00, “The stock market HISTORICALLY does better during a Democratic Presidents tenure.” Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

By ManPower

March 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

If Hillary has had three abortions, will christians still support her? If three of her top staff members have participated in performing abortions, will the christians still support her? I think NOT.

By Anyone But Hillary

March 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

Lock up your wives and daughters, Hillary and her posse are in town!

By ManPower

March 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Dusty, it is safe for you to meet and greet McCain, even he has limits!

By ManPower

March 6, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

White working class men need to be aware that Hillary hates men, but she will say anything to get elected. Her promises in the primary are not legally enforceable..She will stab you in the back the minute she is in the whitish house…MEN MUST SAY NO TO THIS MAN HATER…

By Peter

March 6, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

By jbmlaw

March 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Dear Peter @ 10:25, short answer, the economy is showing signs of weakness. Of course, the great joke is that it is the democrats’s failure to renew the Bush tax cuts that is primarily causing the weakness.

HA HA HA HA HA HA ……. I guess the price of OIL going up has nothing to do with the WAR as well !

Wow I get it let’s OVER Spend government wise…… then cut Taxes so we take in less…… makes sense, I guess you spend more as you make less……. sound economic advice!

Also let’s loose jobs all over America, as the Greedy Corporate heads get huge Pay, and the workers nothing…… Republican Family Values at work.

Your logic doesn’t wash….. Also my statement is true…. the Stock market has Historically done better under a Democratic President.

Also the deficit has nothing to do with the Democrats being in office….Sorry Bush has run the country INTO the ground Fiscally with the WAR!

Of course inflation, and the housing crises, unemployment issues, and the housing crises,is all the Democrats fault……. Especially with King George and his thugs leading this country!

Boy that is some REAL LAME STUFF, but Hey you are a lawyer, thus a spin doctor!

By @@

March 6, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Size up the opposition. Is he better off running against Hillary or Obama?

Obama.

And, by the way, do you play games in the voting booth or elsewhere in politics?

Ummmmmm….Can I plead the 5th? Oh what the heck. YUP! Then I go home and shower.

I think it’s always a mistake for voters in one party to try to select the opposition.

Did you just spank me Jim? I didn’t even feel it. So there.

By @@

March 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

and just so everybody knows…

I crossed over in the Georgia primary before Rush Limbaugh even suggested it.

I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. I do what I want to do.

So there!

By NICK

March 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

McCain is far better off running against Obama, a phony, who keeps “dodging” political issues, is now caught up in political scandal and thinks that “hope” is going to run the country.

I “hope” I win the Mega Millions, but I’m not going to count on winning the jackpot to secure my retirement.

As much as I despise Hillary Rodham Clinton, also an phony, she at least has taken a stand on important issues.

Both democrats will raise everyone’s taxes and prey on the people who are uneducated, lazy and who believe the moon is made of cheese.

If Obama wins the democratic nomination there is no way in hell he will put Rodam Clinton on the ticket as his V.P. He won’t have to. He will have successfully brainwashed (as slick Willy did) all the idiots into thinking he is the next Ronald Reagan. (greatest president ever!)

If Clinton wins the democratic nomination, she will have to have Obama as her V.P. in order to win. Having a minority these days, no matter how “worthless” they are is the “P.C.” thing to do. Unless you are a Republican, then your minority is a “sell-out” or an “Uncle Tom”.

This country has gone to Sh*t.

We need to arrest and deport all illegals, exterminate all Muslims, build a wall securing our borders, stop pandering to the minority, drop this P.C. crap, keep our troops in Iraq, so that the Sandniggers do not attack us on our own soil again, stop giving “free handouts” to people who don’t want to work, have the police start racial profiling people who are known criminals and then lock them up and throw away the key!

By jbmlaw

March 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

Poor Peter @ 2:50, why do you assume government cannot spend less? Those who do not understand the “post hoc” fallacy will repeat it ad nauseum – that is the operating theory behind the “great lie.” If you possessed even a grain of understanding you would understand why Presidents are almost irrelevant to the economy (although Congresses and the Courts have a clear capacity to destroy.) Until you leftists learn that government creates nothing – and is incapable of creating anything other than chaos – you will not understand the role the government plays in the economy.

To reverse your mindless rant, perhaps you believe the rising government expenditures and deficit this year unrelated to the democrats’s seizing control of the house and senate? Perhaps you believe private businessmen are so stupid they will not plan ahead based on the actions (as in the case of NAFTA fears) or the inactions (as in the case of the lapsing Bush tax cuts) of Congress. Quite contrary to leftist religious belief, the private economy regards government regulations and legislations and taxes as a drag on their capacity to provide goods and services to individuals. But that is why leftists study political science instead of economics.

By Peter

March 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Poor JBMLAW…….. allot of nothing to say !

The Republicans blew the Surplus they had when Bush took over very FAST, and then created the largest deficit ever……

All while Bush was President, and they controlled both the House and Congress…..

Now the whole country is in economic crises, and TRYING HARD to blame the Democrats…..

Spin Doctor…….Poor JBMLAW!

Yes and KING George is “almost irrelevant to the economy” as you say…..

I guess he never signs the Budget ?

By Fred

March 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

quote from JBM: “Quite contrary to leftist religious belief, the private economy regards government regulations and legislations and taxes as a drag on their capacity to provide goods and services to individuals.”

Yes, they do… and they’re quite, quite wrong. So what?

Speaking of living in fantasy-land… how’s that Libertarian Free Market World working out for ya?

By deegee

March 6, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Glenn, you expressed your frustration with the overall ignorance of high school students and their inability to cast an informed vote. You propose to make them pass a citizenship test before allowing them to vote. Considering that the legal voting age is 18, not 16 then most of the kids would have graduated or dropped out by the time they would be ready to vote. A 17 year-old can volunteer for the military but can’t yet vote. Using your logical foundation, only teenagers joining the military would be subject to taking the test.

By Dusty

March 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Oh..it is nice out today and hard to stay inside. But one does what one has to do. Yes!!

jbmlaw, I see you hard at one of life’s great adventure..trying to reason with Peter of the poor Democrats who lived in paradise until we got a Republican president. Unless you know a cure for C & R (cut & running) you won’t have much sucess with Peter aka BabiRabbit. Courage!!

deegee, courage to you too. I see you noticed that Glenn has the same respect for young people as he does for McCain. Next he will tell you how mistaken you are and he did not say that. Oh well, what we have here is the pseudo conservative, a man of all parties.

Ah but back to spring and blue skies. I have a big patch of yellow daffodils blooming like butter fingers. Isn’t it nice!! Who can argue on a day like this?

By Peter

March 6, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

Dusty…… cut and Run ?

Heck Lie and invade !

Come on now let’s get this RIGHT !

By Glenn

March 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

deegee,

I believe you meant to say that using your logic “only teenagers joining the military would be subject to taking the test”. Do you mean that among military personnel, the only ones under my proposal who would be taking the test would be those who chose to do so as a means of qualifying for voting at a younger age than the current 18-year-old minimum?

Because under the proposal, anyone wishing not to wait until they turn 18 would be able to qualify to vote at 16 yrs. 6 mo. So were they inclined also to join the military, they could do so six months after they became voters.

In any event, I think that the answer to the under-preparation and related under-participation of millions of 18-22 year-old voters is not to move the voting cohort higher in age, but lower—-provided that it is done in a sensible and neutral (not controlling) manner.

Dusty,

I don’t give a damn what you think, as you can’t make sense of anything I write, no matter how I write it or how I restate it. Hell, you can’t even make sense of Jim half the time. Should you again choice me as the subject of one of your posts, I hope that it will be to show one instance—-just one—-in which I embraced liberalism.

By deegee

March 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

A weak dollar and a weak president caused OPEC to thumb its nose at the U.S. again. Our energy policy is “just say no” to consumption. Commodities are the only bright spot in the market now. Their prices keep going up. At least Wal-Mart had a good month.

By Apocalypse

March 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Clintons got money from Rezko co-defendants by margieburns on Sat 02 Feb 2008 01:26 PM EST |

Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago’s “Operation Board Games.”

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

Rezko’s trial is scheduled to begin March 3. The legal cases comprise several indictments of Chicago political and business figures on multiple counts of fraud, extortion and kickbacks. Rezko’s co-defendants include Chicago businessman Stuart Levine; construction executive and Chicago Medical School trustee Jacob Kiferbaum, who is cooperating with the investigation, and Bear Stearns executive P. Nicholas Hurtgen; and attorneys Joseph Cari and Steven Loren, doing business for the Teachers’ Retirement System. Mr. Loren has not been a significant donor.

All the major donors were obviously cruising for receptive politicians, whom they found. Setting aside any presumption of guilt, there was clearly more than enough money as well as blame to go around. Neither party has a monopoly on the big donations in Chicago in spite of its dominant Democratic machine. A quick search on Mitt Romney, for example, in Illinois turns up a result list that cuts off at 1000 donors—and that’s IF you limit the search to individual contributions over $2300.

Only public financing of elections, backed up by laws that have teeth in them, will ameliorate this condition.

Meanwhile—

That Rezko donated over the years like a political junkie, and may have been one, has already been written about by Buzzflash. Rezko himself gave mostly to Dems, with the largest amts going to central committees, other donations to national figures incl GWBush ($4000), and frequent contributions over the years to IL politicians incl Rod Blagojevich, Luis Gutierrez, and former senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Peter Fitzgerald as well as the donations to Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton pointed out.

Predictably, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that the national co-chair of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigo, also got Rezko donations.

Here is the rundown on his fellow defendants, from FEC data via www. opensecrets. org, in descending order by amounts donated:

• Stuart Levine: 210 donations for federal candidates, totaling $255,350, mostly to Republicans. Biggest contributions to Illinois Republican Party and to National PAC. One $5000 donation to the Illinois Democratic Party. Most individual donations to GOP candidates from GWBush on down, except for a few $2000 donations to Joe Lieberman, Mark Green of NY, who now appears frequently on MSNBC as a Clinton supporter, and Illinois State Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes, whose father, Thomas C. Hynes, was formerly a Cook County Assessor. Dan Hynes was among Barack Obama’s primary opponents in the Illinois U.S. Senate race in 2003. Levine donated $1000 to Bill Clinton in 1995. Levine has not donated to Obama.

• Joseph Cari, Jr: pulled out his checkbook 137 times from 1993 on, giving $193,836 under Joseph and $8958 under Joe to candidates for federal office, mostly to Dems. Further donations from family members incl $1000 to Bill Clinton in 1995. Biggest Cari donations went to the DNC and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Individual donations, usually $1000 apiece, to Dem candidates across the country incl the natl figures—Gore, Kerry, Kennedys—and others incl Robert Torricelli in NJ, Chuck Robb in VA, and even the late Paul Wellstone in MN ($250). Cari donated $2000 to Bill Clinton in 1995, another $1000 to Clinton campaign manager David Wilhelm, $500 and $1000 to Hillary Clinton in 2000 and 2003, and donated twice to HILLPAC in 2002. The Hillary Clinton campaign has apparently returned the $1000 but not the other donations. Cari also donated several times to Southern Wine & Spirits, a PAC donating to both major parties which has also donated to both Clintons. Cari has also donated to several Illinois Democratic candidates including Gov. Blagojevich and former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski. No contribution to Obama individually is listed, but the Obama campaign has returned $1439 from apportioned committee contributions.

• P. Nicholas Hurtgen, former Bear Stearns manager in Chicago: 48 federal contributions from Hurtgen and his wife in recent years, totaling $47,787, almost entirely to GOP candidates—$5000+ to the Republican National Committee, $4000 to GWBush, most of the rest to other Republicans. However, the Hurtgens have also donated $2000 to Rahm Emanuel and $7000 to Mark Green of NY, a Clinton supporter.

• Jacob Kiferbaum: Kiferbaum and close relatives have donated $27,000 since 2001, mostly to Republicans. Kiferbaum’s largest individual donation was $10,000 to Maria Pappas, another Democratic primary contender for the Senate seat won by Obama. Kiferbaum has also given $4000 to GWBush, $4000 to Joe Lieberman, $2000 to Jack Ryan—Obama’s GOP opponent for Senate, until he had to withdraw—and $3000 to Republican Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois 10th District. Kirk has returned $2000 of the Kiferbaum donation.

• Steven Loren: 3 small—by these standards—federal donations, $1000 to Mark Kirk and $250 apiece to Harold Ford of TN and Charles Schumer of NY.

Illinois has donated more than $22 million to all presidential candidates combined, Republican and Democratic, in the 2008 cycle, 5th in state totals for donations, probably because it is the 5th largest state in the U.S. by population. Illinois also has the 5th biggest health insurance market.

Going from Illinois to the national picture, just in general, it might be a good practice for newspapers to start routinely cross-checking the names in federal indictments with the names in Federal Election Commission data.

By deegee

March 6, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

Glenn, here is what you said. “I’ve become really exasperated by the enforced political incompetence of young Americans.” What difference does it make if you are referring to a young person of age 16, 16 1/2, 17 or 18? Do you think that they get exponentially brighter with every month they age?

By Sharon Royston

March 6, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Why haven’t the Texas caucas results been reported? The election was 3 days ago…..Why does the media continue to discuss Hillary’s comeback when in fact Hillary won RI and OH, Barack won VT and TX was a draw……Go Barack

By Apocalypse

March 6, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

As you know, we’ve won 27 of 41 contests and have maintained our commanding lead among pledged delegates.

But today I want to share another staggering number: supporters like you donated more than $55 million to this campaign in the month of February.

That’s a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support.

No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it — more than 90% of donations were $100 or less, and more than 385,000 new donors in February pushed us past our goal of more than 1,000,000 people owning a piece of this campaign.

From the beginning, this campaign has always been funded by a movement of grassroots supporters giving whatever they can afford. And unlike Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, we have never taken money from lobbyists or PACs.

Senator Clinton has decided to use her resources to wage a negative, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink campaign. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination and is attacking us daily. But I will continue to vigorously defend my record and make the case for change that will improve the lives of all Americans.

Despite your generosity in February, I need your help to continue this battle on two separate fronts.

Please make a donation of $25 today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/math

Thank you for your support,

Barack

By Apocalypse

March 6, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

Jonathan Alter Hillary’s New Math Problem Tuesday’s big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.

Mar 5, 2008 | Updated: 6:48 p.m. ET

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she’s now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It’s relentless. To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday—an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won’t help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama’s lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren’t complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That’s 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I’ve asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there’s any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party. Clinton’s only hope lies in the popular vote—a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee (wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there’s no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn’t count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn’t give her the necessary popular-vote margins.

Read full article at Newsweek.

By Dusty

March 6, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this

Peter and Glenn,5:06 & 5:07

Repeat after me (and Jim Wooten):

JOHN McCAIN IS IT!!

Thank you..

By Analyst Interrupted

March 6, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

McCain: The Accidental Candidate

Risk Assessment wouldn’t let an insurance company touch that guy with a ten foot pole.

By jbmlaw

March 6, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Dear Fred @ 3:59, far better than the “managed” economies. How do you like the Marxist paradise?

Dear Dusty @ 4:24, I fear you are correct. Arguing with a donkey and all that…

Dear Deegee @ 5:11, while we have our differences on many issues, you have been consistent in your opposition to the Fed’s weak dollar policy, and you are right to hold that position. Seemingly it is just you and me and the Wall Street Journal.

By Glenn

March 6, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

deegee, I wasn’t quarreling with you, just asking for clarification of your wishes, so I appreciate yours of 5:27. I don’t really think much about “the overall ignorance” of high school students, partly because my sense is that the ones who remain are jammed full of testable factoids. My mind’s mostly on the ones to whom you alluded: the “dropouts” or (if you can believe this) the “school leavers”.

Presumably you know why the voting age was lowered to 18. Is it time to lower it again, under certain individual circumstances, for certain individuals?

By Analyst Interrupted

March 6, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

Democrats are outdrawing voters in the primaries by nearly 8 to 1.

It’s not so much, “the times, they are a changin’”, as it is GFY, Repudlickan warmongerers and embezzlers.

Vote Obama. For the times. For the change. For the better.

By Peter

March 6, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty…

Go ahead and vote for a Liberal Republican……

Heck I might as well !

Well I see JBMLAW has zero to say thus the name calling….. One would think he would pull out some big words or something.

The poor guy doesn’t know what he is talking about, saying the President has almost nothing to do with the budget.

Then tries to blame the Democrats for all the mistakes of this presidency…… seems like the buck is suppose to stop at the top……of course that is not the case in say the WAR, the deficit, the cutting of education spending…..and of course nothing to do with the price of OIL !

Too bad you both have your heads stuck so deep in the sand it is hard to see……the TRUTH !

By Analyst Interrupted

March 6, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Hey, kudos to me for my “the campaign of buyer’s remorse” line that I coined about the finicky democrats, and which just happens to have flooded the media ever since.

I blog. America changes.

oh, and Yes, it feels great.

By Crysis

March 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

I couldn’t pass this up from Peter to jbmlaw:

“I guess the price of OIL going up has nothing to do with the WAR as well”

Tsk tsk. More mindless psycho dribble drabble from Peter, who appears to get even more angry as the day progresses. Another idiot lib stuck on stupid about Iraq and oil prices – go figure. Note how he doesn’t mention the shenanigans of the hero of the liberal left and oil threatening, Hugo Chavez.

In any event, considering it’s traded on the international market, with American dollars - which always falls when interest rates are dropped and which causes investors to flock to oil futures for investment causing the value to rise, AND considering that the price we pay at the pumps is at least as pertinent to state/local gas taxes as well as refinery output as it is to OPEC production, AND considering that pre-war 2002 Iraq’s share of oil we imported comprised a whopping FIVE PERCET of the major importers we used during that year (both OPEC and non-OPEC), AND considering that Iraq is ramping up more and more output with each passing year, I’d say the situation in Iraq has about as much to do with the current INTERNATIONAL price of oil as Santa Claus.

By the way “Peter,” US oil inventories are UP:

At the onset of the peak driving season (March 31), total gasoline stocks are projected to be 218 million barrels, 16.3 million barrels above last year and 12.5 million barrels above the 5-year average.

I would like for you to research why this is the first time in history inventories have gone up AS WELL AS PRICES. Historically, they are inversely proportional. Please let us all know what you have learned about globally traded oil prices, the international market, investment in futures, and what is pertinent to what we pay at the pump WITHOUT bringing up Iraq. Can you at least TRY to do that for us sporto instead of just foaming at the mouth and ranting liberal run-of-the-mill gobblygook? I also want you to throw in why YOUR DEMOCRATS led by Nancy Pelosi have NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THEIR PROMISE OF LOWER GAS PRICES DURING THE ELECTION OF 2006.

Then, you can put your tin foil helmet back on and return to your moonbat base and continue to get those weird signals you idiots on the left get your “thinking” from.

By Crysis

March 6, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

“It’s not so much, “the times, they are a changin’”, as it is GFY, Repudlickan warmongerers and embezzlers.”

We’ll see in November, you disgusting liberal fascist communist phukstick.

By Analyst Interrupted

March 6, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

Crysis, you are very passionate, but you do not persuade. At least make it believable. The price of oil is 106/barrel because of sudden, increased demand from India and China, and oil is going to go to 1000/barrel as the entire world goes suv.

maybe if you spent more time trusting your own instincts, instead of hacking rushannity, you wouldn’t come across as such a total fingerboy.

I love it.

By Crysis

March 6, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this

“increased demand from India and China,”

Another moonbat. Go figure. Well, that’s a part of it over the period of the last two years of course, but NOT the main reason of the current escalation. But don’t take my word for it, stickboy:

NEW YORK - Crude oil futures rose to another record close Thursday, boosted once more by the dollar’s continuing slide to new lows against the euro…Helping push oil prices higher Thursday was an overnight rebel attack on a Colombian oil pipeline that transports 60,000 barrels of oil a day for export markets.

There was a REASON I also mentioned your hero on the left Chevez, stickboy.

“maybe if you spent more time trusting your own instincts, instead of hacking rushannity,”

I read the news and follow the markets, stickboy, not listen to rant radio that you libs apparently do. Please provide a link for where everything I said was said by “rushannity” (how cute).

By Crysis

March 6, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this

I almost forgot Anal Interruption - would you like to be the first liberal dummycrat here to actually have the ovaries to step up to the plate and EXPLAIN TO US why Nancy Pelosi LIED to the American people and didn’t DO ANYTHING for gas pump prices? You pathetic libs sure are quiet every time that’s brought up.

By Crysis

March 6, 2008 6:22 PM | Link to this

Disclaimer for the ever-repeating liberal “rushannity” (how cute) infatuated and obsessed here: if the below was stated on AM talk radio, I accept no responsibility. Sue me.

Since it is Women’s History month, I though I’d chime in with a little bit of said history: Both a pacifist and a Republican, Jeannette Rankin was the only member of Congress to vote against American involvement in World War I and II. As a representative of Montana, Rankin voted against entering World War I when she was still new to the House. The press criticized her mercilessly for this vote, but she was unapologetic. As she put it, “The first time the first woman had a chance to say no against war she would say it. In 1940, Rankin was elected to another term in Congress. After winning her seat on an isolationist platform, Rankin cast the lone “no” vote to go to war after Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. “As a woman I can’t go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else,” she said. Leave it to a bunch of women at PMSN.com’s Lifestyle section to glorify a pacifist whose idea would have cost the freedom and eventually lives of hundreds of millions.

You know, I sometimes can actually understand why our Founding Fathers didn’t want women in power voting: they vote more often than not solely with their emotions, which is extremely misleading if not outright dangerous (not all of course, especially Republican women - they use their brains). This early 20th century moonbat didn’t want to fight for a free world (and a free America), and had the US followed her Utopian example, most likely not a single person who reads this blog would be alive today, as well as most of those in Europe and Asia today.

I can only imagine the thought that would have gone through her mind after leading the US to pacifism as she was taken prisoner by the Germans and raped all because she didn’t want to fight because “peace was the answer.” In any event we were actually late entering the European Theatre and it cost a lot of lives for the first two years we were in it due to debating whether or not we should be in it. And we didn’t really start becoming effective in the Pacific Theatre until two years into the war as well due to internal bickering over whether we should or not. I surmise the only real mystery here is why this unrealistic moonbat was ever a Republican.

By Peter

March 6, 2008 7:23 PM | Link to this

Folks oil prices fluctuate with the fact that there is UN Certainty in the Market…..

War bring uncertainty….. duhhhhhhh.

More name calling because one cannot think for themselves!

Wake up !