Have you forgotten, or do you even know, that the last time we elected an inexperienced “uniter” who advocated “change”, to whom the press largely gave a free ride, we got George W. Bush? 'Yawl are rapidly losing credibility.

"Wisconsin doesn't count, either. We're not done handing out asterisks yet."--Mark Penn

"Wisconsin isn't representative of actual Democratic voters."--Pundit du Jour

"More people drank the Kool Aid."--Paul Krugman in the New York Times

Ten Bears, are you really suggesting Barack is similar to G.W.? Come on. Barack is the anti-Bush.

Have you forgotten, or do you even know, that the last time we elected an inexperienced “uniter” who advocated “change”, to whom the press largely gave a free ride, we got George W. Bush? 'Yawl are rapidly losing credibility.

It is possible to be more simplistic than that but not by much. For openers, Bush and Obama went to Ivy League colleges, but their academic records were the opposite of each other's. Lawrence Tribe, one of the nation's most distinguished law professors, referred to Obama as brilliant. I doubt that even the most sycophantic of professors at Yale ever said anything remotely similar about Bush. Anyone who wants to take the time can easily add other contrasting examples.

Unlike many of Obama's fans who are mesmerized by his oratory, I have listened to too many politicians who failed to live up to their promises, so I retain some degree of skepticism. However, I'm supporting Obama because he is inspirational at a time when this nation needs to be inspired to look up at the mountain top and the stars and not in the gutter or at some potential war zone. I'm also impressed by how Obama has inspired the youngest generation of voters. That has great potential for the future of this nation. The question is, "Will Obama live up to his potential?" I say give him a chance. If he wants to and the younger generation keeps the pressure on him and supports him to live up to his promises, Obama has the potential to be a great president.

Yeah, do you remember the last time we voted for a change agent that was declared inexperienced by his peers before George W Bush? We voted for Bill Clinton. See how flawed that logic is?

"Texas doesn't count, either, at least if I don't win."--Hillary Clinton

Blake: And before that, it was Reagan. Perhaps we just like inexperienced but charismatic figures promising change...

Joel H: Before that it was Jimmy Carter. All I'm saying is each candidate should be judged on a candidate to candidate basis. Analogies are fun, but often pointless.

So if Oregon is the fourth to last state to cast primary ballots on May 20...anyone have any bets on when/if Obama/Clinton will swing through our state (and how many times between now and then)? Perhaps the next punditology challenge, Kari?

This from Booman on the effect on the electability of other Democrats that will be sharing a ticket with them in November

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/2/18/162110/218

"6. Oregon (Gordon Smith) Challenger: Jeff Merkley

Primary winner: May 20th Margin: 2002 Margin: GOP +4%

Analysis: The Oregon primary will not be held for three months. Obama is considered the favorite to win, but we'll have to wait for the results to be sure. State Speaker of the House, Jeff Merkley, is favored to win the nomination over political activist Steve Novick. Oregon is a purplish/blue state where the Democrats should be strongly favored in November, regardless of the nominee."

I will support whichever Dem Presidential candidate is nominated but, I believe the make-up of Congress (in both houses) will actually be more important than whoever eventually is President.

JTT, there is push to have Barack here in April, possibly March.

Smart politicians see when they are defeated and move with the tides of change. Not so for the Clintons. Hubris seems to be a tragic flaw of both Bill and Hillary. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/20/proclinton_527_ramps_up_for_ohio_texas.html The next move with their flagging campaign seems to be organizing a 527 group with ten million to spend,calling in the chips with rich donors, to try to trash Obama. It won't work and will simply play into the meme of divisive politics and that nothing is beneath her to win. But it will help destroy the Clinton legacy and their place in the party. If she were to drop out now, she would be seen as gracious and not self-serving, and even worthy of a continuing place of leadership in the party and the country. If she does a scorched earth policy, she is toast. I would imagine some of the party elders are going to sit down with her and have a chat about reality.

For fun, let me quote a little bit from McCain,

Which McCain was that? There are so many of them. If he is elected president we will get more price-wise than the Clintons who gave us two for the price of one, and that was no bargain.

Juan Cole - www.juancole.com - has an excellent post today (Feb. 20) ripping up McCain on foreign policy and Pakistan in particular.

Hawaii doesn't count either. Too many Spam eaters.

Why on earth does Hillery believe that a Texan will vote for a New Yorker?

And who in their right mind at the DNC thought that anyone west of the Allegany would vote for a Senator from New York. Just shows you how strong Massachusetts liberals really are...

Earth to Billary; there is nobody in Ohio voting for Hillary--her husband basically sold the place out with his NAFTA machinations...

10 and counting; My pet piece of clarivoyance is that the Clintons join Junior in Dubai in early January 2009.

As someone who worked for Kennedy in 1960 and spent much of my life as an educator, labor and community organizer and campaigner, I marvel at what's happened here.

And I just signed up to travel to Texas to help with the Obama campaign. I've got room for two traveling by car. Any takers?

Smart politicians see when they are defeated and move with the tides of change. Not so for the Clintons. Hubris seems to be a tragic flaw of both Bill and Hillary.

I think the Clintons genuinely believe that Obama is too risky a proposition for the party to nominate. I keep reminding myself that Primary Colors was a work of fiction, but the parallels are stark. The Clinton camp is slowly rolling out more and more negatives against Obama, and I think we just have to hope that Obama hasn't spent time doing cocaine in Florida and sleeping with young Cuban men.

Conventional wisdom says that if Hillary loses Ohio and Texas, she'll gracefully leave the stage. But if the Clintons truly believe that Obama will lose in November, and lose big, they may be stubborn enough to stick around through the convention in the hopes of "saving the party." According to Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein's op-ed in Monday's paper, that's exactly the role that superdelegates are supposed to play: saving the party from an activist faction that threatens the party's election chances. Even our very own Steve Maurer and other commenters here agree with them.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

but there is absolutely nothing in his (McCain's) record to suggest he'll be less partisan in governance

When the pressure is on, McCain will do whatever he perceives is necessary for his own interest. He delighted in setting himself up as a maverick, but when it was necessary he steered the Straight Talk Express into several U-turns.

Obama outspent Clinton by a 4-to-1 margin in major Wisconsin markets. If he hadn't won, it would've been a disaster.

Once again, in politics, whoever has the most money wins. This is just more politic-as-usual, and it won't change until we break the stranglehold the two major parties have on the political system in this country. But of course the one thing the self-aggrandizing, money-grubbing and power-mad Democrats and Republicans agree on is that they won't let that happen.

I've finally figured out what is wrong with Hillary's stump-speech, compared to Obama's: all of her sentences have objects. You can't get a good chant or slogan out of a complete sentence. She is behind the times in the era of ever-shorter sound bites. You have to dumb everything down to succeed. Let's hope McCain has that problem too.

Once again, in politics, whoever has the most money wins.

Probably true in most cases, but this election year has come up with examples that are the opposite. Romney spent more than any other Republican and lost. Huckabee spent less than all others except, maybe, Ron Paul and managed to win a number of states.

Jeff, you're the one going off message on Merkley. Either he's a partisan fighter or he's a bridge builder to the other party. Can't be both. And you and i know the "long list of bills" passed with broad support would have passed with ANY Speaker, Dem or GOP. Most bills just aren't controversial at all. When the going got tough, the tough mostly punted. I get that you're for the guy who keeps trying to get traction for past efforts in a legislature Oregonians have a poor view of, but let's not rewrite history.

You have to dumb everything down to succeed.

Unfortunately this is often true, but Obama has raised the quality of the debate with some of his points - such as, being willing to talk with national leaders we disagree with. Hillary and McCain pandered to the lowest common denominators by accusing Obama of naivete while the better educated among the electorate lined up with Obama and agreed with him. As Winston Churchill said, "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." And, better than "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" even if it is sung to a Beach Boys' tune.

Teamsters and Boilermakers are jumping on the Obama express. Apparently they see the winner! Meantime Obama's campaign just reached a half million contributors since Jan. 1. Hillary is pleading with supporters and touting her website. Bill is out pulling in chips to fund the swift-boating campaign by the 527 they have cooked up. Sad....pathetic..

Bill is out pulling in chips to fund the swift-boating campaign by the 527 they have cooked up. Sad....pathetic..

This could prove to be the equivalent of being in a hole and digging deeper. That often happens to people who don't know the difference between right and wrong.

Please check out this Chris Mathews Hardball segment written about on Huffington Post last night.

Peace Out!

The Clinton 527- Using their big money backers to swift-boat Obama. From Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/111237/880/303/460416

The Clinton 527 Hotlist by Adam B Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:07:45 PM PST

Let's be clear: when a 527 forms for the express purpose of electing or defeating a particular federal candidate, and engages in public advocacy towards such ends -- as opposed to discussing issues -- it is breaking the law. Period. The Media Fund, Swift Boaters and other 527s have paid six-figure fines for acting like a political action committee -- i.e., engaging in express advocacy and soliciting its donors with the major purpose of helping identifiable federal candidates -- but without abiding by any of the individual contribution limits or disclosure requirements attaching to PACs.

But when you've lost 25 of 36 contests ...

Allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.

ABC News has more:

ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well.

Free from campaign finance rules, ALP will not be legally permitted to coordinate with the Clinton campaign, but it is clearly intended to help her.

...ALP has developed three ads aimed at tarnishing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as a talker and not a doer -- the ads are called "If speeches could solve problems" -- and they will contrast Obama and Clinton on issues of importance to middle class voters, such as the economy, health care, and the mortgage crisis.

The plan right now is for the TV ads to never actually mention Obama -- rather, the statements about rhetoric vs. reality will go after him through implication, the contrast between Clinton and Obama already being so well-known.

I want to highlight that last quote to make clear the lengths to which this 527 will have to go to even arguably have a case that it's discussing "issues" and not candidates. Maybe they've found a magic loophole, but in all likelihood, they haven't, though their first ad follows all the rules in terms of "don't mention the election! just tell people to make phone calls!"

Why? Because based on those FEC precedents, a group that forms on the eve of primary elections, advertises only in the immediate primary election states, and has no track record whatsoever of any kind of "issue advocacy" outside such context ... well, it's damn hard in those circumstances to claim you're not in it for the purpose of influencing the elections.

[The only piece of the puzzle we don't have yet is what's being told to potential supporters, but since the website listed in that ad produces a dead link, we have no idea.]

The 527's leadership might be counting on two things: first, without a functioning Federal Election Commission, any complaint filed against this 527 remains a nullity; and, second, any subsequent fine might just be seen as a necessary "tax" on their efforts, the cost of doing business to get Clinton elected. Two weeks ago, the WSJ quoted two of these Clinton bundlers:

"We're just trying to figure out things to do to help," Ms. Buell said. "We all feel very passionate about it, so the question is, what is the best thing we can do to get her across the finish line?"

Another Clinton fund-raiser, who didn't want to be named because he hasn't made a final decision, said he may pump as much as $500,000 into television, radio and newspaper ads for Mrs. Clinton.... This person says he feels he has done all he can for the campaign from the inside. He has donated the maximum $2,300 allowed by law for the primary to Mrs. Clinton, and he has tapped out his fund-raising network. He says Mrs. Clinton must win in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to secure the nomination, but he worries that her campaign will not be able to afford to fund the ads she will need.

Having major campaign bundlers involved in gutting the individual contribution limits cannot be the answer.

In December, both Barack Obama and John Edwards demanded that 527s purporting to support them cease their activities and denounced their efforts; will Clinton do the same?

Please check out this Chris Mathews Hardball segment written about on Huffington Post last night.

The senator from Texas came up short, not Obama, and in my opinion he wasn't as bad as several headlines would have us believe. As for Chris Matthews go to Media Matters and search for "Chris Matthews" to find many examples of Motormouth making an ass of himself.

Well if the Clinton campaign and supporters could get some clues from this Chris Mathews Hardball segment on Huffinton Post, I am sure her standing would be very different and her strategy would be quite different in running a better campaign than Obama. This TX legistlator embarrased himself on MSNBC by not being able to come up with one legislative accomplishment of Obama. We are all "riding" the Obama wave clueless because "he will win". Maybe they need to hire Christ Mathews. Its never too late. The Clinton campaign just raised $15 million this month already, so money is flowing in.

Peace Out!

As for Chris Matthews go to Media Matters and search for "Chris Matthews" to find many examples of Motormouth making an ass of himself

Oh no! I hope not another battle of words coming my way. Bill, please watch the yoga and meditation post on my blog. I am only human! :)

Peace Out!

Oh no! I hope not another battle of words coming my way.

Anytime you come up with crap, Opinionated, I'll comment on it so you don't get away with it. I'll take your word you are only human, in which case you might consider the old adage about it being human to err, but that doesn't mean to say you have to make a habit of it.

We are all "riding" the Obama wave clueless because "he will win".

"We" means you and who else? There are plenty of Obama supporters who are clued it.

Why does Chris Matthews keep harping on Barack Obama's lack of legislative accomplishments and never talks about Hillary Clinton's record.

Matthews was hammered for sophomoric remarks he made about Hillary. That may help explain why Motormouth is keeping his distance from her lately.

Bill, what I have to say is not crap and I am not alone in my support for Hillary. According to CNN there are 1250 delegates in the democratic party who support Hillary to be the democratic nominee for President. Obama only leads by an narrow margin.

I reported a story on Huffington Post where this interview with Chris Mathews was discussed (now more than ever I will spell his last name with just one "t") . You seem to just want to marginalize any opinions that oppose or question Obama, as crap.

Chris asked a very key question to this TX senator and he bombed because the truth of the matter is that most of the recent votes for Obama have been simply swayed by this wave of pundits, media and endorsers who have declared him "the winner" and many are oblivious about his legislative accomplishments.

I was at a business dinner of local entreprenuers this evening and did an informal survey of 5 folks at my table. 3 of the 5 supported Obama, but not one had any clue about what he had accomplished. One hesitated, and admitted he was uncertain and had recently switched to Obama. It was the same damn party line...change and he will win because Hillary is viewed more negatively!

You are taking this debate all to personally by nit-picking on inconsequential items like a "t" being missed in "Matthews" or "Hussein" being spelt as "Hussain". Who the fuck cares how its spelt? This is not a spelling bee contest.

Rise up buddy and lets debate on the candidates and what they represent positive or negative. Leave the spelling corrections to the nerds, spell checker in your word processor or the kids in the spelling bee contest. The party ain't over yet. Hillary hasn't given up the fight, why should her supporters?

Peace Out!

No legislative or foreign policy experience "my ICBM..."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/

"The Lugar-Obama initiative is modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) authored the program in 1991. It has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle its enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, related materials, and delivery systems. Among many accomplishments, the program has deactivated 7,000 nuclear warheads and reemployed 58,000 scientists in peaceful research. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. They otherwise would be the world's the third, fourth and eighth largest nuclear weapons powers, respectively."

Former Oregon State Senate candidate Ken Libbey wrote about the way Obama and McCain have risen to the top of their respective heaps: Curiouser and Curiouser

Gosh...I hope Obama looses...I'd rather vote for a Repiblican that him!!!!....GO HILARY!!!!

Gosh...I hope Obama looses...I'd rather vote for a Repiblican than him!!!!....GO HILARY!!!!

<h2>Gosh...I hope Obama looses...I'd rather vote for a Repiblican than him!!!!....GO HILARY!!!!</h2>