Barack Obama's slogan might be "Yes We Can" but when it came to wrapping up the Democratic nomination yesterday, well, No He di-int.
If you've ever watched "Halloween", "Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday the 13th" or any of those good slasher films you've learned never turn your back on the monster after you think its dead. Because as soon as you sit down, sigh, and wipe your brow it's jumping up behind you and sticking a knife in your back.
Obama has been so busy lately acting presidential and sniping at John McCain that he forgot to give Clinton the coup de grace.
This race is not going to end any time soon. Take a look at the upcoming election dates. The Wyoming Caucus is on March 8 and the Mississippi Primary is March 11. These two states, although important, won't decide the issue no matter who wins. The next major contest is the Pennsylvania Primary on April 22. That's a month and a half away.
Then there are the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on May 6; the West Virginia Primary May 13, Kentucky and Oregon primaries May 20 and finally the Montana Primary June 3.
We're talking three more months of campaigning. Three months of Hillary attacking Obama and Obama repeating the same anecdote about being a community organizer. The heck of it is that when the convention comes around there's no guarantee either candidate will have reached 2025 delegates.
Democrats have been crowing about their prodigious fundraising. That's fine because both presidential campaigns can plan on dumping tens of millions dollars every week in this race into summer.
Nobody has bottomless pockets. Eventually Democratic contributors will run out of resources. Donor fatigue sets in. There is only so much you can dole out before it starts affecting state, congressional and local races.
As the stakes get higher and higher and higher things will get nasty, and mean, and bitter. You'll need a thesaurus to come up with the number of synonyms needed to describe the acrimonious depths this internecine feud is spiraling to.
We're talking brother versus brother. Father versus daughter. Overbearing mother versus son. Live-in male lover versus live-in male lover.
The Clinton's have already gone negative. Bubba tried to make race an issue in South Carolina. The campaign has given credence to the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim-chain-letter circulating on the Internet by making his middle name an issue. They leaked a photo to Matt Drudge, of all people, trying gin up xenophobia because Barack dressed in the garb of a Kenyan villager during a junket. Then there's the infamous "Phone Call at 3 a.m." television ad which raised hackles by playing to voters' fears.
Finally, in the past couple weeks, Hillary has been hitting below the belt by reminding America that the entire Obama phenomenon is based solely on a good speech he gave once upon a time. How low will this woman go?
Remember too that Michigan and Florida are sitting in a brown paper bag on Obama's front porch waiting to be lit on fire. Clinton won those two primaries but Howard Dean at the DNC is still officially refusing to seat their delegates. Can Obama talk with a straight face about Hope and Change while conducting a dirty, backroom deal to disenfranchise millions of Democrat supporters from these two states?
None of this even factors the role to be played by super delegates who have the unpleasant task of potentially voting contrary to the wishes of their constituents.
Civil wars never end pretty as Democrats learned before in the past.
This is a party which believes the 2000 election was stolen after Al Gore chose to cherry-pick recounts from four blue counties in Florida. This is the party which believes the Bush campaign stole over 100,000 votes in Ohio during 2004. This is a party where vocal and prominent members have publicly declared the September 11 terrorist attacks were an inside job and that emergency relief was purposely withheld from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
The paranoia has just begun.
How will starry-eyed Obama groupies react if their messiah loses? And the Clinton Machine is doing whatever it takes to destroy the man.
The race here on out kind of looks bleak for Obama. Other than Wyoming the rest of the states have primaries; open to the general public. Clinton has shown her greatest strength in primaries; Obama does best in caucuses.
Since McCain has wrapped up the nomination Republicans don't have anything better to do now. Even though it is a slimy, dirty, sneaky, bush league, Rovian trick which should be condemned and derided, there are going to be Republican voters becoming Democrats for a day in order to game the system. Certain conservative talk show hosts have already advocated the tactic. Idle hands; tsk tsk.
It's payback because Republicans have always held this belief that Democrats have used the primary process to torpedo their candidates. During this election cycle alone you had skullduggery, for instance, at DailyKos who tried to be so very, very clever by voting for Mitt Romney in Michigan and Rudy Giuliani in Florida in order to stave off a Republican nomination. Here locally in Washington state local Netroots activists joined the Huckaboom during the primary.
Now the Birkenstock is on the other foot.
Like it or not, cry foul and run to mommy; there will be significant numbers of Republicans in upcoming primaries doing something very naughty when it comes their turn to vote.
This does not auger well for the junior senator from Illinois. Barack Obama can talk all day to fawning crowds about "Obamacans" whispering softly, "Yes We Can". Just a hunch here, Hillary is getting the "Repubclinton" vote.
Again this is dirty pool and maybe in the future political parties will come up with a system to discourage this brand of sabotage. In the meantime America will be treated to many more moons of moderated debates, media buys and news stories about Chicago political figures in trouble with the law.
For the good of the Democratic Party it might be best for Barack Obama to drop out of this race right now.
As a Republican, I can hardly wait for the convention brawl that is almost certain to take place over the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations, as the Clintonistas cry "disenfranchisement!" while the Obama camp argues against "changing the rules." Whoo, hoo!
Posted by: Patrick on March 5, 2008 06:17 AMYeah Duffman, I want to belong to the party of death for babies. No thanks!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2008 06:36 AMI doubt the "dreamticket" will happen. After speaking to many of my wife's realtives (who are avid Hillary supporters) they have all said that they would never vote for Obama due to all the "dirty tricks" that his campaign has played on her (their words not mine). I think the longer this primary goes on the dirtier it will get on both sides and cause many a supporter on either side to not want to have anything to do with the other candidate at all.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 5, 2008 06:37 AMHave you seen that Obama wants cut the living heck out of the Armed services. Gezzz not like were undermanded already.
This won't help him either.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2008 06:42 AMDon, you said yesterday you would have more thoughts after you saw the results. Man, did you ever have ideas on this outcome? Since you had such good comments with HRC winning both states, I was wondering what you would have said if it were a split vote or an Obama victory in both states.
Soldier, are you back in the states? Missed your comments.
Posted by: swatter on March 5, 2008 07:08 AMUGH!!!!
Posted by: LCRW on March 5, 2008 07:28 AMTo Army Medic/Vet: One correction, Obama does not want to cut the living heck out of the Armed services. In fact, he wants to do a lot more for the armed services than the current President has ever done. Obama wants them to have the best equipment and training, and also cares for the Veterans once they return home. He wants to expand VA funding, instead of cut it even more, like the current President. At least this is one area where both McCain and Obama do have decent plans. They may differ on what to do in Iraq, but both are for properly equiping and training our troops and caring for them when they come home.
Posted by: tc on March 5, 2008 07:29 AMSwatter I am back in Iraq after being home for a few weeks with the wife and kids. I am on my way up North in a few days to help set up a new operation with my company. Basically it is a lateral promotion with more responsibilities and better opportunities for the future.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 5, 2008 07:29 AMExit polls show him winning among all voters under 65 in most states, and Clinton doesn't have a chance against McCain. If he stays in this thing until the end and somehow manages to wrest the nomination away from Clinton (over the mangled corpse of the Democrat party in a 1968-style battle royale), he'll be so damaged in the general that he won't have a chance either.
It seems to be Clinton's strategy to elect McCain this year if Obama's the nominee, in the hopes of running again in 2012.
The smart move may now be giving Clinton the rope she needs to hang her political ambitions with a Mondalesque landslide defeat at the hands of Big Mac this year. That will clear the field for him in 2012, or at worst make him wait until 2016 when he'll only be 54 - still younger than Clinton or McCain are today.
Posted by: 2012 on March 5, 2008 08:14 AMHere is Obama own video about cutting the armed services.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2008 08:14 AMOpen primaries, baby... did you send Rush a thank you note?...
Isn't it delicious that Whorrabullary in the quiet of of her soul ..well assuming she actually has one... has to wonder if it was that evil vast right wing conspiracy that brought her back from the dead... the most delicious part is that she'll never really know!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 5, 2008 08:53 AMRah! Rah! Rah! Spend that money, expose those underbellies! Huuurah!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 5, 2008 08:56 AMBuddy I sure did. Even sent Rush a big cigar. LOL
Now we can listen to Duffie huff & puff again.
This is so sweet. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2008 08:56 AMLet's say Billary did make it to the WH.
Can you even begin to think how many SS agents Hillary would need just to keep Bill out of the news. Now that would be a riot to see.
_______________________________________
Is that all you have since you joined the Dem party.
I'm so sorry buddy, no really I am. (-:
I hear there is a cure for that though. 24/7 RUSH.
I crack myself up!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2008 09:36 AMI will look at the You Tube video when I get home tonight.
Posted by: tc on March 5, 2008 09:42 AMHere are HRC's links on the same two issues:
Veterans: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/
Foreign Policy/National Security: HRC does not have a policy decision
When I get a chance, I may write up a comparison piece on these. For right now, its HRC that doesn't have the beef, not Obama.
Posted by: tc on March 5, 2008 09:56 AMPlease tell me and others, WHEN was the last time a Lib Dem ever took care of our armed service?
Plus Obama is the most lib of all. So I see even a lesser chance of him doing zip for them.
Leaving Iraq will be one of the biggest smack in the face for the services. And a good chance it will wreck the Dem party. It's 1975 all over again.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2008 10:08 AMI don't think there will be a dream ticket because too many people have had their hopes raised on this one. There are in communities of color a real excitement that a candidate of color has a real chance for the top job. If there is a feeling that dirty tricks and intervention of party bosses denied him the chance, there will be hell to pay. Further, look at what is happening in the districts where Black superdelegates are still supporting Hillary. People of a younger generation are beginning to challenge the old guard for office. Obama is younger and could have another chance. Hillary's negatives are sky high. Former veep candidates have not been successful recently in running for the top job after a loss. I think the Clintons are willing to destroy the dem party in their quest for power and will do whatever it takes to get the nomination. Excellent.
For too many years Blacks have been solely giving their votes to dems and as Tavis Smiley coined the phrase "The State of the Black Union" has not advanced. Blacks, in my opinion, need to support candidates of either party who have different solutions and this delinking of Blacks from the dem party can only come about if the Clintons are allowed to destroy it. You go girl. The Kennedy's realize what the stakes are which is why the major Kennedys are supporting Obama, not Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and her brothers who are looking for high profile government appointments, who are for Hillary.
In my opinion, Black people will never make strides or get the kind of education system needed unless there is a change from the total mass loyalty to the dem party. I hope Hillary is successful in destroying everything around her in her quest for power. For Blacks, including Obama, they can rise from the ashes.
Posted by: WVH on March 5, 2008 10:13 AMThe race card was played by Obama when he started saying race card, race card, race card. They are the ones that put out the four page memo the day after and pointed out to everyone that the race card was played.
Too bad the media and just about everyone else took the Obama bait hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by: mark on March 5, 2008 10:28 AMBye!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 5, 2008 10:31 AMWith regards to the so-called "liberal" ratings, they are total bunk, just like the so called Sierra Club ratings have become. For example, one of the votes that Barack voted yes for and Hillary no that made him receive a higher "liberal" rating was on a bill regarding transparency and openness in goverment, which was co-sponsored by Colburn (Republican). How is having the government more open and transparent a liberal/conservative defining issue and especially a "yes" vote being a more liberal standard. I am not disagreeing that Obama has many liberal stands, but he also has a very well documented history on items such as ethics reform, his death penalty reform in Illinios, and others of reaching across party lines and working with all sides to reach a bill that is signed into law. McCain also has this same history. HRC does not.
With regards to Iraq, I for one do want to see us out and also believe we should never have attacked in the first place. The question isn't should we leave, but how and when should we leave. If you are arguing, like the current administration, that we need to establish permanent bases and "occupy" Iraq, then I would disagree. Iraq needs to step up to the plate and take control of their own destiny. We can't force them to bow to our will. We also need more NATO forces to step up to the plate, like they are doing in Afghanistan and also take over training of Iraq troops. We have other commitments and needs for our military. We as taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for a foriegn country. It is plain and simple. Iraq did not attack us. Al Quaida attacked us. Al Quaida was not in Iraq, Sadaam wouldn't allow them to operate for fear they may gain a foothold and over take him. The Sunni's now see that Al Quaida is not there to help them. Therefore, there time is number. By staying, we lengthen the time for Al Quaida to make their case to the Sunni's that the US is worse than them. The Sunni minority has its hands full with the majority Shites and the Kurds. The Sunni's however, also have the most experience. You are buying the false neocon vision of establishment of a US styled democracy that then the rest of the Middle East countries will become so enamored with and fall head over heals to also implement.
Posted by: tc on March 5, 2008 10:34 AMOf course he does, as should anyone with the sense of a board fence.
Billary has among the highest negatives in presidential politics since Andrew Johnson. McCain, as much as I dislike the man, will be able to capitalize on her 51% negatives, her even only marginally more experience then the nonexistent experience of Barry Hussein Emptysuit, her cackle, her flip flopping, her positions on the Surge (which about anyone to the left of Liebermann was SURE would fail.... WANTED it to fail... NEEDED it to fail... so they could gain a campaign advantage off the blood of our treasure...)
Leftist arrogance of the brand exhibited here... arrogance that causes them to confuse promises with experience, hucksterism with quality and vision... the proven ability of the left to be easily manipulated because they lack the ability to think critically (Man... you leftists crack me up. How's that "vote for democrats, we'll end the war!" thing going for you? Talk about getting kicked to the curb!)is precisely what makes them believe that any democrat they run for president will win.
Of course... they thought that in 2004, as well. And how well did THAT work out?
Posted by: Hinton on March 5, 2008 10:41 AMI only speak for myself but here are my opinions.
It is not so much playing the "race card" as it is generation change and the expectations of a certain generation about how Black people are supposed to act. Sharpton/Jackson sold their souls and the legitimate aspirations of Black people for the few coins of silver of being "allowed" to ride on AirForce One with Bill Clinton. Black people were supposed to defer and be subsevient to the Clintons and the Clintons would "take care" of them. Obama represents a new generation of Blacks of both parties, different philosophies between the parties, but same attitude that we should be able to take care of ourselves. Kudos to the pubbie party for bringing Michael Steele to town. Here is an interesting article:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Race Card And Subservient Black Leaders
Robert Paul Reyes
February 22, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53103
So, it is not so much the race card as it is the generational card and the expectations of the Clintons. All I can say is how very Strom Thurmond of them.
Posted by: WVH on March 5, 2008 10:44 AMDo you adhere to a "Black Values system" as espoused by your pastor/mentor Jeremiah Wright and your Trinity Unity Church of Christ?
Or do you adhere to a "Christian Values System"?
When the lapdogs in the press finally get around to asking the candidate some questions, perhaps we can get a definitive answer. Give it a few months.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 5, 2008 11:32 AMLib Dem.... O-please, don't play stupid. Typical lib answer. Your own party has said he is the most lib of all. Even more than Hillary and that's saying a lot.
Show me one bill where Obama was ever in support on the armed services.. Good luck I tried with zero results and I don't mean VA.
Far as NATO, it has been and will always be another UN joke. They always want us to do the dead, then complain about it. Can you say KOSOVO that they should have taken care of, but didn't.
Nice try TC, but it's not working.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2008 11:38 AMFor comparisons, Here is Hillary's record. For the same time frame as Obama, her record was 11 Yes votes, 6 No votes, and 2 Non-votes.
For McCain, here is his comparative record. For the same time frame as Obama, McCain's record was 3 Yes Votes, 10 No Votes, and 6 Non-Votes.
The three links detail the problem with basing decisions of liberal versus conservative soley on the basis of how the Senators voted on bills. For example, was McCain voting no on military bills, such as Time between Troop deployments a liberal or conservative based issue. My guess is Republican party's position was no based on the fact that the President wanted to continue to shorten rotations because of lack of manpower. In this case, however, it was the Republican's who where putting Bush's folly over the morale and welfare of the troops. It makes no sense to continually to stretch the troops so thin and fight wars on two different fronts without adequately supplying the resources. Time and again, this administration has abused the troops and made the National Guard into its own supplemental Army Reserve. You wonder why there may be recruiting problems (there aren't retention problems because they won't let people go at the end of their duty -- I know of a specific case of this happening to an Air Force officer that was set to retire). So, who is supporting the troops? Sure not Bush, and by the example of this one vote, McCain isn't either.
Posted by: tc on March 5, 2008 12:14 PMGood question.
Posted by: Misty on March 5, 2008 03:16 PMWell, duh, it was the Democratic primary, not the Republican primary. It's like crashing a bar mitvah party and complaining that about no ham being served.
Republicans, stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. He's a drug-addled phony.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 5, 2008 03:44 PMThe Democrats have a Woman who has believed she was God reappearing since she was born, and an Empty "Change" "Change" repeater that I might add in all due respect, is one hell of a communicator, much like Reagan in that respect, but at the far opposite end of the liberal agenda that he is bound to lose.
This is better than any Prime time TV show!
Posted by: GS on March 5, 2008 08:39 PMYeah, 33 years later and we still haven't defeated the Communists, in fact China is one of our biggest trading partners and will soon be the first Asian country to host the Olympic Games. Vietnam is also the origin of many of our cheap imports. Damn you Democrats and your ending of the war!!
Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2008 09:21 PMMaybe when the Iraqi's realize that we're not going to be around to save thier asses they will get their Govt. together and start pulling their own weight. Maybe they can reach out to their buddies to the East to help them out. Of course that would piss thier neighbors off to the South and West.
Since the rest of the middle east is pretty much sitting around laughing at us while selling us great overpriced oil. Maybe they could use a little chaos in their own backyard. =)
Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2008 09:34 PMThe original cause of the Michigan and Florida mess can be found only in Michigan and Florida, where party officials went ahead with contests outside the national party rules.
To twist that situation into a slam of Obama should make every reader question the writer's motivation and commitment to honesty.
Posted by: Paul in Michigan on March 6, 2008 08:43 AMThat may be the case in Michigan, but Florida was all politics. The GOP legislature with the GOP Governor felt it would be fun to play with the Democrat electoral process, so they passed legislation moving up the Democrat's primary. Seems to have worked better than they imagined.
The bottom line is the argument you are making is nation building and permanent occupation. This is not what the majority of the American people desire. If George Bush say mission is accomplished, then why do we need to stay?
Posted by: tc on March 6, 2008 11:24 AMMcCain and the GOP will say that pulling out is the equivalent of giving up on Iraq. Why give up when we've come so far? You don't change tactics mid-war, Al Quaeda will have a stronghold, etc. etc.
Clearly the Iraqi's are too busy arguing over who's particular religious sect is better than the other ones to give a damn. Telling them the American's are pulling out might give em something to agree on and actually start making real progress. I'm sure we can sit comfortably in Turkey and Saudi and watch what happens from afar.
Believe it or not, there are experts advising President Bush on the correct course of action with regard to the Geopolitical world and how the U.S. should play out than hand. You're concentrating on only a small snapshot of a larger picture which neither you nor I could even begin to comprehend. This "bring the troops home now" mantra is linear thinking that doesn't address the contingencies of such an action in the region in general and Iraq in particular. The same lemmings decrying the Iraq war would then label the ensuing genocide upon withdrawal as Bush's fault. i.e. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I suggest reading the book "The art of war". It's a good read. It also helps your cause to at least spell the country of Israel correctly when positing your thesis. Thanks
Posted by: Rick D. on March 6, 2008 12:42 PMhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/im-promilitary-so-i-sup_b_90282.html
For those who don't know him, Frank Schaeffer is not some liberal idealogue. Here is his bio.
Posted by: tc on March 6, 2008 12:48 PMHe states that (1) He will end the Iraq war and the enormous cost associated with it ($9B/mo @17 sec mark), (2) He will cut needless and unproven missle defense systems and not weaponize space (@24 sec mark), and (3) Set a goal of a world w/o nuclear weapons (@50 sec mark).
Therefore, your argument that he wants to cut troops is not accurate.
Posted by: tc on March 6, 2008 02:36 PMMisty: oh no you di-int!
1) the Kenyan garb Obama dressed up in was unrelated to any religion.
2) When Bush and Putin dressed up in SE Asian religious garb a couple months ago, neither adopted an obscure religion for that moment.
2.1) When Laura Bush wore an Islamic veil during her visit to the middle east, she did not become a Muslim.
3) Obama is a Christian.
4) There are patriotic, conservative, Republican elected officials who do not wear flag pins. Your focus on symbolic jewelry over actual values and beliefs is puzzling, but not surprising.
5) Race, religion and patriotism-baiting is disgusting.