SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

POLITICS MAY 7, 2008

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

The Democratic primary is over. Hillary Clinton might still run in West Virginia and Kentucky, which she’ll win handily, but by failing to win Indiana decisively and by losing North Carolina decisively, she lost the argument for her own candidacy. She can’t surpass Barack Obama’s delegate or popular vote count. The question is no longer who will be the Democratic nominee, but whether Obama can defeat Republican John McCain in November. And the answer to that is still unclear.

During the last two months, Obama has faltered as a candidate. He has seen his political base narrow rather than widen, and some of his strengths turn into weaknesses. Of course, he has had to deal with the scandal surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but even so, he needs to remedy certain flaws in his political approach if he wants to defeat McCain in the fall. Here is a brief list:

The Base: As the primaries have proceeded, he has become more dependent on strong, almost unanimous, support from African American and young voters. For instance, he lost the California primary in February, but he still beat Clinton by a whopping 55 to 35 percent among white men. In North Carolina, where the white Democratic electorate is liberal and tolerant (only five percent of the primary electorate voted against Obama because of race, compared to over 11 percent in Pennsylvania and Ohio), Obama could still win only 36 percent of white voters. In the fall, when African Americans will only make up about 23 percent of North Carolina’s electorate, he would have to win 38 percent of all whites to carry the state.

Ideology: In the Iowa Caucus, Obama defeated Clinton among “moderate” voters by 33 to 31 percent and barely lost “conservatives” by 22 to 21 percent. He was perceived as a middle-of-the-road candidate or, even better, as standing above ideology. But he increasingly is seen as the “liberal” or even “very liberal” candidate. In Indiana, he bested Clinton among liberals 55 to 45 percent but lost moderates by 53 to 46 percent and conservatives by 65 to 35 percent. He can’t carry that political image into the fall and hope to defeat McCain. In most of the swing states that he would need to win, liberals occupy a much smaller niche than they in the Democratic primary. Moderates are the key. They make up 45 percent of the electorate in Virginia and 43 percent in Colorado--two states that the Obama campaign thinks it could win.

Forcefulness: In the 2004 election, voters repeatedly expressed their preference for a “strong leader,” but Obama has yet to establish himself in this respect. He is regularly judged more “honest and trustworthy” than Clinton, but those qualities have proved less important to choosing a president. In Indiana, voters thought Clinton more qualified to be commander in chief by 54 to 43 percent. Nine percent of Obama voters acknowledged that Clinton was “more qualified to be commander in chief.” In North Carolina, eleven percent of Obama voters preferred Clinton. Obama appears to be somewhat effete, which will, unless remedied, cause him difficulty against McCain in the fall, particularly among white males.

Policy priorities: Obama based his campaign against Clinton on his vote against the Iraq war and on a promise to change “Washington.” But the public’s priorities have changed. In New Hampshire, 31 percent thought the war the most important issue. In Indiana, only 18 percent of voters thought that. Still, Obama seems far more comfortable talking about the war and government reform. In his stirring speech tonight, which my colleague Jonathan Cohn discusses here, he stumbled when he started talking about jobs being shipped overseas. He has to be able to drive home his differences with McCain on the economy if he wants to broaden his political base.

Values and religiosity: Obama initially held his own among voters who attend church regularly. In New Hampshire, he bested Clinton by 37 to 32 percent among weekly churchgoers--and he didn’t have to include religious African Americans in the total. But Obama has increasingly lost this vote and gained adherents among the non-religious. In Indiana, he lost to Clinton among weekly and occasional churchgoers but defeated her among those who never attend church. That can hurt him in the fall in states Obama wants to win. In Virginia, for instance, weekly and occasional churchgoers made up 83 percent of the general electorate in 2004. The challenge for Obama will be to reach out to religious voters without reminding voters of his ties to Reverend Wright.

Can Obama turn it around? As he showed last fall and winter, when he suddenly regained his footing as the Iowa primary approached, Obama is capable of refocusing his energies. And now--with Clinton clearly out of contention--he will have a chance to do so.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 136 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

136 comments

Wow, someone over in the Talkback section totally called this: Judis actually wrote an anti-Obama piece. Read that "No We Can't" post, John--it'll do you wonders

- HAHA

May 7, 2008 at 1:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How is he doing with hispanics now? If he can't do better than break even with hispanics in the key southwestern states, then McCain will have a decent shot at beating Obama.

- teplukhin2you

May 7, 2008 at 2:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's with all the underlining? I'm not sure that the narrowing of Obama's support is because of his problems, but instead because Hillary changed her tactics (and was more effective, despite a few howlers like the gas tax holiday). She moved quite a bit to the right, so that because he DIDN'T move, he looks more liberal as a result. Back around Super Tuesday, Hillary was not tossing back shots or reminiscing about varmint huntin' with her grandfather. Obama does need to re-orient for the general election, but once Hillary finally drops out, he will no longer be facing an opponent who is attacking relentlessly, but whose supporters he needs to keep on board for November. He'll have to make nice with Hillary's supporters, and remind them of what is at stake if McCain wins, but except for a prejudiced few who won't vote for him because of race, he has at least a reasonable shot of picking up most of Hilary's supporters for the general. If he does that, he has a great chance of winning.

- JEFF FREY

May 7, 2008 at 2:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama: "Let me make one distinction between my views on the economy and McCain's: I know that the U.S. has an economy"

- anonevent

May 7, 2008 at 2:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What are you, an idiot? You really think the blue states won't go Obama, go check the polls, he wins all of them He also flips Iowa, Indiana after tonight's showing is defintely in play for him, polls show him in striking distance in Texas and Ohio and Florida if you morons in the MSM would start covering all the McSame flip flops and gaffes maybe you'd have an inkling of reality

- axt113

May 7, 2008 at 2:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article too easily conflates primary and general election outcomes. As Mark Murray puts it: " Clinton performs well among women, seniors, and low-income whites; Obama wins blacks, higher-income folks, young people, and independents. And pundits, campaign operatives, and superdelegates are now poring over these numbers as if they are a political crystal ball that will tell us the future about the general election. But has this analysis gotten a bit out of hand? Consider what the exit polls told us about McCain. In South Carolina, Huckabee beat him by wide margins among weekly church-goers and born-again Christians, and Huck even beat him among those without college degrees. In Virginia -- even after McCain became the presumptive GOP nominee -- the Arizona senator once again lost decisively among weekly church-goers, evangelicals, and those without college degrees, and he also lost among those making less than $100,000. What's more, in this week's Pennsylvania GOP contest, more than a quarter of the vote went to Huckabee and Paul, not McCain. While McCain is unlikely to do as well among evangelicals as Bush did, does anyone think that his performance with this group is a big general-election problem for him? Probably not. Is he doomed among voters without college degrees? Unlikely. Will he be unable to get a quarter of the GOP vote in November? Forget about it. No doubt that exit polls are useful at analyzing particular races. Without them, we wouldn't have known how well Clinton performed in Pennsylvania among white women and the suburbs, which were important keys to her win. But extrapolating their findings to tell us something about another election -- with different candidates and different voters -- is a dubious exercise."

- Dark Heart

May 7, 2008 at 2:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has Judis been right about anything this campaign? Seriously, I'm interested, has he? The fundamental error that Judis has made in this campaign has always been "Losing states to Hillary = Losing states to McCain." He's never seemed to understand the problem even though Talkback posters have called him on it! Please, TNR, hire roidubloi if you want good analysis

- muenster

May 7, 2008 at 2:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me get this straight. It's a surprise that Obama is weakest with white working class voters, and he has to try harder with them? Even though these same white working class voters think war is a mistake, even though they're scared witless about their jobs and the economy. They're sure to vote for McCain? I'm missing something.

- Billy Twohorses

May 7, 2008 at 3:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Underlines!

- M

May 7, 2008 at 3:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hilarious. I could have written this for you last night.

- ralphnelle

May 7, 2008 at 3:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Doesn't a lot of this depend on what Clinton does? If she keeps attacking Obama through August, he'll have a much harder time than if she grows some decency, quits the race and endorses him heartily.

-

May 7, 2008 at 4:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Money and Bush are the only reason's Obama will win in November. Hope he doesn't go duck hunting or ride around in a tank to shore up his manly bona fides.

- Dukakis' revenge

May 7, 2008 at 6:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Hussein Obama is shaping up to be the "black" nominee, even though he's half white, was abandoned by his black, radical Muslim "father/sperm donor" when he was 2 years old. With each passing primary he solidifies his black voter base while losing more and more non-black support. If the trend continues and he IS the Socialist Party nominee, he will get crushed in November...mark my words.

- mrunpc

May 7, 2008 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama: still born.

- jim carmine

May 7, 2008 at 7:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Despite having a huge financial advantage, Senator Obama has made little headway toward changing the demographics of his support. This may change as the Democrats attempt to unite behind him; however, his minimal record as political inexperience are big negatives. The only way for Senator Obama to beat McCain is for McCain to defeat himself, and that's a strong likelihood. I wonder who the NY Times will endorse?

- MBAMichael

May 7, 2008 at 8:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One training wheel has fallen off the young senators bike and the other is wobbling. The young senator will have extreme difficulty explaining his voting record in Illinois "present" will not and has not gotten the job done. His lack of leadership in the US senate, and his only claim to fame is his speaking out against the war is not much to go on. His oratory is sometimes excellent, however get him off script and his eloquence heads south. The young senator will have a very difficult time in convincing the American voter, those who do not have their hands out, nor expecting favors due to their perceived grievances against the "man" that he is going to be the savior who will bring America to her greatness again. The only way this can happen is for the voters to rise up in mass and vote out every perfumed prince and princess in both the house and senate. Look at what all of their collective experience has brought us to date, soaring gas prices, regulations that strangle small business, corruption and greed, earmarks that are almost the same as some small developing nations GDP. You want change find a astute business person, run them in a third party, vote out all incumbents with more than one term in office, bring in some fresh faces. Let them work for the people not like our present gaggle of politicians who think we work for them. God bless America, the first generation of a legal imigrant.

- Chuck Henry

May 7, 2008 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The general election is a completely different animal. Obama won't just be appealing to affluent libs or blacks...now he has to appeal to the population as a whole and with his inexperience, his extreme liberalism, his poor judgement he has a uphill climb no matter how much $$ he has. In the end the American public will go with the safe bet - John McCain.

- michael

May 7, 2008 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hate to break it to Mr. Judis, but what we have been through, is the primaries for selecting a Democratic nominee for the General Elections. The process involves votes and caucuses spread over six months, with some primaries open only to Democrats and the others open to independents and Republicans. Of course, this is not how the General Election works. OF COURSE he will have to change the messaging and the message, within bounds of consistency! Is it possible to be more stupid than this post? Oh, sorry, yeah, Lanny Davis managed it, but just. By the way, Mr. Judis, it is also true that Obama's support has dangerously narrowed (53%-47% of all people under 65 voted for Obama in Indiana, it was the 70% break for Hillary that saved her precious butt; some narrowing). But, not to put too fine a point on it, the marvel of it is that there is any support left, after a former President and the most formidable attack machine in the Democratic Party has been going at him with everything and the kitchen sink for months. Mrs. Clinton has done everything she can to make Obama unelectable; it is rich, very rich, for one of her shills now to complain about the narrowing of his support ...

- icarusr

May 7, 2008 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As you point out, winning a nomination is an entirely different matter than winning the presidency. The big states, the swing states, the youth and the AA vote are all very shaky in a general election for the Democrats. Obama and the Party need all the help they can get to win the White House. With almost 1/2 of the Democratic party supporting Hillary, it is very, very clear that the path to the White House still must go through Hillary. Obama and the Party need to place Hillaryt on the ticket as the VP.

- dcrolg

May 7, 2008 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The answer is "No". But a question that lingers with many is how many people are now sorry they voted for Obama in previous primaries?? I, personally know many. Barack Obama will lose to John McCain in a November election.

- Phoenix Comment

May 7, 2008 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"he lost the California primary in February, but he still beat Clinton by a whopping 55 to 35 percent among white men" "Obama could still win only 36 percent of white voters" Either you do not know the difference between "white men" and "white voters". Or you think EVERY conservative is just plain stupid.

-

May 7, 2008 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With no accomplishments and no experience, Obama is, quite literally, all talk. Thanks to Clinton's disastrous Mark Penn strategy, Axelrod's hardball racial politcs in South Carolina, 100% fawning media coverage (at least in the crucial month of February), and some world-class organizing in caucus states, this incredibly weak candidate wii be able to steamroll his way to victory. As the nominee, however, without the monster Clinton in the role of his foil, he'll have to rely on what he himself brings to the table against McCain. It's not much. The cupboard is still bare, but the closet is now full of skeletons. Why should voters take a chance on Obama when the "maverick" McCain is willing to give them one term? As Obama himself said, anybody is better than Bush.

-

May 7, 2008 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is toast in November. The affirmative action racist will not beat McCain and neither should he. America will send him back to his racist, anti-American church of hate.

- RA

May 7, 2008 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been a lifelong Republican, but never have I been so inclined to vote a straight Democratic ticket. As much as Republicans like myself consider Jimmy Carter's presidency an absolute failure, let there be no doubt that this last 8-year term of a Republican President and Republican Congress has been an absolute **disgrace** to our party and our Nation. This party, nationally, has ignored the basic fundamentals of securing our future and self-reliance. Not only do we have a national debt to service, we have a more personal debt to China and Saudi Arabia for the monetary appropriations for the Iraq War, and on top of that a bloated trade deficit that is held hostage by China's investment in our National Debt, and our financial institutions have given larger stakes to Middle Eastern countries to keep them afloat. Whatever the sins of past Presidents and Congresses, this last 8 years has been a complete abdication of responsible national and foreign policy. Where ever Obama leads all the people of the NATION will be far better than any prospect that John McCain has to offer. I am sorry to offend some of my fellow Republicans this way, but after watching John McCain campaign this time around, it has just re-inforced what I have been feeling the last few years.

- ROBERT J. WEISENBURN

May 7, 2008 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He didn't vote against the Iraq War because he wasn't even a member of the U.S. Senate when the vote was taken.

- Lance

May 7, 2008 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I notice you don't frame the argument into "Can McCain Beat Obama?" Obama has record turnout and fundraising on his side. McCain has the sound of crickets from his supporter(s). As his own salty mom put it, conservatives are going to have to "hold their nose" to support her son. In the meantime, McCain has had several signficant gaffes, but answered the old zen question: If a candidate flubs a statement big time in a forest and no one reports it, what does it say about the state of his campaign?

- Walter

May 7, 2008 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He'll need to make critical changes to beat McCain." Uh, yeah, if by "critical changes" you mean that Obama will have to stop campaigning against Hillary Clinton and start campaigning against John McCain. This article represents the worst sort of empty bloviation and is designed more to elevate the author's apparent importance than to say anything significant about politics. It follows a tried and untrue formula: The candidate may look strong, but he's in danger, DANGER, I tell you! And the only way for him to get out of danger is to heed MY advice. Blah, blah, blah...

- aeromonas

May 7, 2008 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I personally know A LOT of people who regret voting for Barack Obama in previous primaries. Barack Obama will lose to John McCain in a November election.

- Phoenix Comment

May 7, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that Obama has to pound on economic populist issues. I also think he should choose Jim Webb as VP who is a white male with the ability to squash McCain on foreign policy and military matters. He is also an economic populist, wounded Viet war vet with son in Iraq and militantly against the war. I hope Powell endoeses Obama too. I have no respect for Powell, a Bush enabler, but most Americans respect him a great deal.

- Milton Mankoff

May 7, 2008 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Will Obama beat McCain? Who knows. I wonder how war fatigue is playing. Anti-war North Carolina GOP congressman Walter Jones beat a pro-war candidate for renomination. More importantly, Obama routed (66% to 32%) Hillary in Cumberland County, home to the Airborne Corps, 82nd Airborne, Army Spec Ops Command @ Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. Hillary also lost in nearby Hoke (65%-32%), and Sampson counties (55%-43%). (Hmm.) Obama also beat Hillary in Onslow County, home of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station(H)New River(albeit by only a few percentage points)and Craven county, home to MCAS Cherry Point (54%-42%).

- tec619

May 7, 2008 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LIKE IT OR NOT, BARACK OBAMA IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT--AND, AND IT IS THE RESULT OF THIS COUNTRY'S WORST PRESIDENT EVER-EVER-EVER AS WELL AS HIS LOYAL CRONIES IN HIS CABINET DOWN THRU THE RUBBER STAMPING CONGRESS!

- MCKENNEY

May 7, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Answer My Friends May be Blowing in the Wind Obama has proved himself a most resilient candidate. He will be difficult for McCain to beat. The Republican brand is seemingly out of fashion and domestic and world conditions engender a sense of peril that should favor a fresh approach. Personal qualities can transcend such vectors and this may be such a year. Both Obama and McCain have winning personalities and compelling personal histories, although their appeal may be limited to distinct segments of the electorate. Obama will rally African-Americans as we have never seen before. He has seemingly captivated the under 30 - 35 vote and has strong appeal to liberals and perhaps even to affluent white liberal-leaning suburbanites. McCain has his own unique brand in American politics and the war hero and maverick labels will help and may even trump the "Bush Third Term Rhetoric". Given Obama's race McCain is likely to put together the old Reagan coalition of blue collar democrats that have not been in real play for the last two presidential elections. Ideological perceptions will perhaps be the deciding factor. This remains a right of center country and one that is not unmoved by naked appeals to patriotism. Obama has more and more been branded as the liberal candidate in the race and this will cause him trouble with unaffiliated moderates who remain an important swing vote. Pastor Wright will remain an issue and his sermons coupled with Obama's twenty-year long association with him and other notable anti-American types will create a concern in the minds of some voters as to whether the sort of "change" that Obama is pushing is really the kind that the people want. The jury is still out on whom Obama and McCain will be perceived as. As it is on how the economy and the War will be perceived. Still more than McCain, I have to give the edge to Obama; he seems to have the magic and just enough personal charm and magnetism along with being the representative of a new direction that the country seems to be longing for to crib together an electoral majority in the fall. I am reminded of a 1980 election day image of Jimmy Carter on the tarmac of some airport waving in the air an old 33 LP claiming that on it was a speech in which Ronald Reagan denounced social security. By then it was too late and no one was listening. The once much-maligned, light weight former Hollywood actor with the kooky right wing views had simply captured the imagination of the people at a time when they were compelled to make a break from failure. RR cruised to victory with a ten point margin. If gas prices go to $4.50 and, unemployment rises to 7% and foreclosure signs litter the landscape like so many lawn signs for Obama and the body bags keep coming in from Iraq without any sign that there is an end game there, it likely will be all over for McCain. Too late might be the spectacle of a wizened and tired John McCain waving in the air at some photo op Michelle Obama's Princeton University senior thesis, shouting into a wind that has already blown for Obama. We will see my friends, we will see!

- Pete Kent

May 7, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now that the primary is over the real challenge begins to win in November. As pointed out in this article Obama wins the black vote, students and the liberals the sum of which are not enough to take back the Presidency. Unfortunately, Obama is not as strong of a candidate as he initially appeared to be early in the primary season. He is not the slam dunk choice to replace Bush that many of his supporters think him to be. Fighting off the inexperienced, liberal weenie or effete image is going to be a serious challenge. It is going to take a strong choice of V-P to add confidence to the Democratic ticket. There are those who did not vote for him who are not going to be suddenly enlightened once he is the nominee. My understanding is that the people in the Obama organization are not concerned about Joe six-pack or the blue-collar vote but I think they are kidding themselves. If they blow off Joe or do not find a way through a V-P choice to attract the older white vote McCain will win. A one term Senator who started running for President about 5-minutes before he took office does not inspire great confidence as leader of the free world.

- rbrown207

May 7, 2008 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Again and again, neither of them should be the candidate. Democrats just have to hope that McCain's vulnerabilities will allow a Dem win in the general election despite the politically-correct nonsense that's led all the politically-correct fan club types to just love having a politically-correct choice between a woman and a black guy. Hope you all enjoyed McCain's statement yesterday on the courts.

- LISAH

May 7, 2008 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither of you are accounting for the Rush Limbaugh factor. Since Texas, a big portion of Clinton's support has come from Operation Chaos perpetrators; exit polls show it was 1 in 10 votes in Texas, 1 in 8 in Indiana, and 1 in 6 in North Carolina. These people voted for Clinton and in exit polls said they were voting for McCain in the fall--it could not be clearer. By contrast, about 1 in 20 or 25 voters for Obama said they were likely to vote for McCain in the fall. Any discussion of Obama's "problem" with white working-class voters should take this phenomenon into consideration. And also, please recognize the obvious fact that many of the states Obama has won by large margins were almost all-white heavily working-class states. It would be more accurate to say that Obama has a problem with older poor uneducated racist voters. Those people will vote for McCain, but will be more than offset by new young voters and independents.

- Rowena

May 7, 2008 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Will Obama get the pledged delegates needed to win prior to the convention? No. You cant trust superdelegates at this point. The election is far from over. Too many of Obamas supporters are afraid of this going to the convention. Why? Politicians will be politicians. Both are good politicians, but it will take the best one to really get the super delegates on their side. Obama will not win, because a large percentage of Hillarys base, will not vote for him if he is the candidate, and that is a fact. This is why he can not win and should step aside for the one person who can beat McCain. Hillary.

- Daniel Cardenas

May 7, 2008 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

only five percent of the primary electorate voted against Obama because of race, compared to over 11 percent in Pennsylvania and Ohio John, you are the racist!

- McCain not Hussein

May 7, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

only five percent of the primary electorate voted against Obama because of race, compared to over 11 percent in Pennsylvania and Ohio You sir are a racist!

- Jeff Gold

May 7, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think Obama will get much if any of the military vote (no military experience, questionable patriotism, and lack of real foresight in military/foreign affairs). I think he has some appeal for those that are young and want the Gov't to do the work for them.

- In Afghanistan

May 7, 2008 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is every word underlined? It is very difficult to read and tiring even to look at. I assume it's a glitch but I'd suggest the web editor (is there one??) correct it.

- tomeg

May 7, 2008 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh, good luck with that. Obama's legislative record speaks for itself. There's no good way Obama can try to pass himself off as a centrist. Voters would have to be awfully dumb to buy into that.

- Scott

May 7, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

u are one biased son of a bitch

- jared

May 7, 2008 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John, You're delusional. The Clinton Modus Operandi Deny, Delay, Destroy We have left Phase II. Hillary! has successfully denied Obama the nomination outright. He does not nor will he acquire enough delegates to lock Hillary! out. Phase III begins on June 4. She will destroy him by character assassination. It will being slowly, escalate to fever pitch around July 4th and slowly quieting about down a couple weeks (7/27 or so) later. Heading into the convention Obama will be so damaged and the supers will have been bribed and prodded and shamed that Hillary will be the nominee. Obama will go back to the Seante with nothing. As sure as the sun comes up, you can count on the Clinton machine. THEY DO NOT LOSE !!!

- Eric E

May 7, 2008 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

just count or revote Florida and Michigan or there will be a non national nomination. Splitting the rest of the votes doesn't give Obama the prize either.

- jfisher

May 7, 2008 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Today America needs leader who can take actions and not talk and roll shelves. I am democrat but vote for John Mcain if Obama is nominated by Dean and Party

- american

May 7, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's very interesting that, as far as the press is concerned, candidates are allowed to reinvent themselves repeatedly over the course of weeks, or even days. Rather than listening to Obama says, why aren't voters evaluating his actions. Obama has never been part of any bipartisanship in the Senate, Obama frequently ran negative ads against Clinton, and, his favorite move during the campaign has been to get outraged at any criticism and play the race card. He first tried to lie about whether he was aware of Jeremiah Wright's hate speech, then refused to disown him. Then, when Wright suggested Obama was motivated politically, Obama said Wright was someone he didn't know. Obama defended Wright when Wright's hate speech suggested that America was founded on genocide, that the government introduced AIDs into black neighborhoods and that America deserved to be attacked on September 11th. That was OK. But, when Wright suggested Obama was acting as a politician, Obama turned on his mentor of twenty years. Obama is good at getting folks to listen to what he says, distracting folks from who he is. We'll see if he can talk his way to the White House.

- PaulKirk

May 7, 2008 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will consider leaving the country and working outside of the US for the duration of his term. We don't know enough about him, and the Rev Wright issue is not settled in my mind anyway. No matter what successes Hillary has had the media downplays it, reports it reluctantly and I'm so sick of it. I have not seen one fair media coverage on Hillary, Hannity & Colms, Bill O'Reillly, Chris Matthews, Tom Hanks (who cares who he endorses) and the previous Hillary supporters who have defected to Obama's side, the media is dividing the country and defectors are dividing the country. I'm not a democrat, but you know what I should have voted for Hillary. She's giving the fight of her life, IN A MAN'S WORLD. Women out there, help a "sister" out!

- ROCK

May 7, 2008 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, Judis (or is it Judas), I don't recall Obama has the delegates yet to win. What you and the media flacks want desperately is this 50-state loser to go up against John McCain. Clinton MUST stay in the race to prevent this disaster, even if this means the convention delegates pick somebody else as the party's nominee.

- Susan Nunes

May 7, 2008 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's good to see that the whole of journalism hasn't lost it's mind . Hillary has surely lost all vestiges of a comeback victory with the Indianna victory being almost a lost . Now , when will you purveyors of paper push the pen to point Ms. Prissy towards the door ??

- CLIFF

May 7, 2008 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I so agree!

- ROCK

May 7, 2008 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why the hell should she? Let him earn something on his own merits, finally. Geez, stop the coddling already.

- MaiJaden

May 7, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you very much, which is my it makes sense (Rush Limbaugh) to encourage everyone to vote for Hillary to keep him off the nomination ticket. I am a Republican but I don't want McCain running this country, I'd rather have someone who is not afraid to put up a good fight for us. I do believe it's Hillary.

- ROCK

May 7, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You wish--the democratic primary is over. Who died and elected you the official on this. Shut up and do some real news coverage.

- Rock

May 7, 2008 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nope, don't like the sound of it one bit. Nope, I don't think he's ready, and he has no military experience, plus he is a black supremist, I seriously will consider working overseas if he's elected president. The country will be further divided when he and Wright become buds again and run the white house together.

- ROCK

May 7, 2008 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where is it?

- Rock

May 7, 2008 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The party needs to bite the bullet, admit that Obama has locked up the nomination, and move on towards November. Yes, there are likely some Hillary voters who will either vote for McCain or stay home, but the flip side is the millions of newly-registered voters that Obama has brought in, who might stay away from the polls in disillusionment, should Hillary somehow manage to finagle the nomination. Either way, it's essentially a wash. Just wondering, by the way, where we'd be today if the party had played it safe in '60 by denying the nomination to JFK in fear of anti-Catholic backlash. As someone more eloquent than I once put it, your old road is rapidly aging. Get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand.

- Django

May 7, 2008 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George McGovern just told Eleanor: "honey, I've just had one of those re-experienced things, how do you call them, when you've previously deja vued something before, gee, I can't remember..."

- LordHighExecutioner

May 7, 2008 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And we thought Racism was dead in America.....thank you my white brother for confirming the righteousness of our heritage. FYI - meetings Thursday night after dusk and wear the Percale not the muslin sheets. Crosses optional.

- Whatmeworry

May 7, 2008 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I voted for Hillary and will not vote for Obama, unless Hillary runs as his Vice Presidency. Then I'll vote for Hillary for Vice President and ignore the top of the ticket. Short of that, there's no way I'll be pulling the same lever as jackals like Rachel Maddow and Olbermann. I won't vote for McCain, but I'd sooner vote for McCain than Obama.

- juliet

May 7, 2008 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How can anyone think John McClinton has a chance against anyone?

- Dave

May 7, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michael-"In the end the American public will go with the safe bet - John McCain." The safe bet is Hillary Light???" John McClinton is merely a democrat dressed in republican clothing...and dressed poorly at that. Learn his history. Learn what he really stands for. It will be a vote between two democrats this November. A shame.

- Dave

May 7, 2008 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In order to win, the candidates need to try and appeal most to those most likely to vote for them. Thus, they have shifted where they could. Clinton became blue collar and McCain became conservative. Obama began by appealing to centrists, but couldn't hold them. So now he is of course being carried by blacks, the young, and upscale liberals. But with Clinton out of the way (and his known constituency in the bag) his game will - and must - shift. One positive approach would be for him to join a "mixed" church with a good reputation. This would help to put Wright behind him, and it would bring on board more of the churchgoing vote (who readily embraces rebirth - political and otherwise). The general election will be won by true Independents and new voters, and not by renegade party switchers one way or the other.

- Larry K

May 7, 2008 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At this point what is Mrs. Clinton hoping to gain? As I know she plans to keep going because she gave her, herself more money to fight a "lost" battle. Keeping our party divided for a few more months is what is hurt Obama in the polls against Mccain. And for you jackasses that would rather vote for Mccain then Obama, because he is black I have one word "Bush". But if you want gas prices to hit the sky even more and more people to get laid off, then yeah vote Mccain. Or let’s not pay off the national debt for another four years... oh how about this one lets not pay for the war and continue to borrow money to cover it, until the US dollar is only good for toilet tissue.

- aries

May 7, 2008 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By whom? Dear Old Santa McCain? Hahaha! Don't be silly, that old pork-chopper could die from a bad fart in his bed, or choke on his hair while singing 'Bomb Iran', he is truly old and fragile, unlike FDR, who was also fragile, but had some authenticity with him. Dear Old Santa McCain is a great hypocrite and a whinny peasant, W made him cry like a little girl when running for the Rep Nomination. Yes, we'll mark your words, if only to laugh after...

- Caramelus

May 7, 2008 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

True, and then you'll have Grandpa McCain die from a bad case of farting in bed, just a couple weeks after he is sworn in as your President.

- Caramelus

May 7, 2008 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why, because you like older guys alone? That sounds a bit silly, if you ask anyone.

- Bombarderus

May 7, 2008 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think what a good leader must has to be polite and well behave,good exmple. But that does not means weakness or not strong enuogh to be a president.Before elected President Zapatero of Spain was considered loose, weak not coraigeous e.t.c by many people, geting to power he has proved this type of thinking or judgement to be wrong and old fashion.

- maria ( from spain)

May 7, 2008 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a Republican. I hate to say this, but I am voting for Obama in November.

- Romeo

May 7, 2008 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a conservative/libertarian supporter of Ron Paul, I hope Obama wins against the wishy-washy Republican McCain. Let the Democrats have 4 years of control of all 3 branches, and then watch the absolute mess they will make of things. Oh I know you will say Bush did, and he did to a certain point on certain issues, but the Democrats will not be able to deal with immigration, the war, the energy crisis, and the economy effectively (all they know is raise taxes). Then after the mess they make, America may wake up to the realities of fiscal, social, and political common sense and get a Congress and a President that will deal effectively with the problems at hand.

- William Krebs

May 7, 2008 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I sometimes think that those who fear a fight on the convention floor may not have been around when such struggles among candidates were routine -- for both political parties. Maybe we need to hear more from pundits who are long in the tooth.

- Jack

May 7, 2008 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All of you who say you won't vote for Obama need to make the case on why not. She was not in the military, her senate record is not full of changing policies (naming libraries are not considered political feats), and her message is not that far off from Obama. The only difference is on the way they would solve these problems. For those who say they would move out of the country just need to grow up. First, you wont be able to sell your houses, and most importantly where will you work oversees, in a factory? Lets be real, most republicans are not happy that McCain is the nominee, but they plan to rally around him because its what you do as a party member. The democrats need to do the same thing, if Hillary or Barack becone the nominee lets rally around them democrats becuase they are not the enemy.

- Concerned

May 7, 2008 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YES HE CAN BEAT MCCAIN. Anyone can beat McCain if the media was actually DOING their job. John McCain is the weakest candidate out there. He is embracing the policies of a President with a 29% rating. One ad from the DNC and he dropped 10% Among Indepdents but you dont the media asking Is McCain in trouble with indepdents. Carol

- Carol

May 7, 2008 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JUliet, if you vote for mccain, you are voting for an unstable war monger who is even vicious to his wife....RA, it is you who is the racist....those comments belong to night riders in white sheets.

- Ron

May 7, 2008 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rubbish.what makes you think race or colour is more important in elections than policies?

- politicalthinker

May 7, 2008 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton became the Democrat champion a long time ago when she gained an overwhelming lead in swing states. There aren't enough swing states left with a lot of electoral votes for a contender to beat her. The candidate with the most swing state support always wins the general election. Clinton is the de facto winner.

- Nancy Kallitechnis

May 7, 2008 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Those of you repeating the Clinton/Fox News talking points about Obama being "all talk" have obviously never done a bit of research or self-education about his life, his record, or anything else relevant. Start by going to the Library of Congress "Thomas" site and comparing the senate records of Clinton and Obama. What you see there will surprise you. Then go to Obama's website and look at his platforms--you will see plans there as detailed as anything of Clinton's and much better than anything of McCains. Then read Obama's bio on Wiki or anywhere else you like and compare his adult life and work with Clinton's claims of "35 years of experience." When you come back here we'll talk.

- Rowena

May 7, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama has never been part of any bipartisanship in the Senate." You mean, he didn't co-author and sponsor bipartisan legislation on nuclear non-proliferation and ethics reform? Both of which became law? Wow, I thought he did. I guess the Library of Congress must be wrong and you must be right. "was abandoned by his black radical-Muslim sperm-donor father" This is the level of intelligence that decides our next president, folks. Meathead, Obama's parents were married and then later divorced. Obama visited his father in Africa, and has continued to have a loving relationship with his father's family after his father's death in an automobile accident. Obama's father was an atheist. Get a life. Learn to read.

- Rowena

May 7, 2008 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why do so many Obama supporters - I am one who's thrilled at the thought of his being the nominee, but... - think he is the likely winner in November? They're crazy if they imagine McCain will be a walkover. The guy (McCain) is immensely likable, has a real sense of humor that Obama almost entirely lacks, he comes across as straightforward and honest even when he's bs-ing, he isn't stuck with a single theme such as change (a more vague, meaningless term can't be found; finally, he'll have the full backing of the RNC and its 527s to counter Obama's fundraising innovation. Tried and true: isn't that what works best in an economy that is now sagging but will pick up in the coming months. Obama's sophistication may charm Democrats but it turns off nearly everybody else. God help him if he ad libs again as he has twice already. No, Obama has made it to base camp, a hard climb but the summit is still miles ahead and a world apart. I give him good odds of making it, but disaster looms at every turn.

- tomeg

May 7, 2008 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear John B. Judis, I starting reading your article but I got so turned off by the fact that you can't even ADD !! If N.C. has 23% african-americans Obama needs 38% of white voters????!!!!!! My dear friend, 23+38=61. Last time I checked you need 51% to win..

- Leandro

May 7, 2008 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just noticed that some of my comments are listed under comments I do not support. So please disregard. I am not supporting Obama not until he has more experience. I am sick of Hillary getting a raw deal in the media. I forgot to mention Rachel Maddow and Olberman, Rachel is clearly a Hillary hater, and Olberman a closet drama queen, what was that foolish defector-guilt speech he gave? I don't watch either of these two anymore. Whatever happened to the guy with the bow-tie, he was cool. I liked the tie, oh right, he succumbed to pressure about the tie. Yet, Rachel wears a tie and no one cares. Yo Hillary, "YOU GO GIRL!"

- ROCK

May 7, 2008 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear John B. Judis, I starting reading your article but I got so turned off by the fact that you can't even ADD !! If N.C. has 23% african-americans Obama needs 38% of white voters????!!!!!! My dear friend, 23+38=61. Last time I checked you need 51% to win..

- Leandro

May 7, 2008 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone asked how Obama is doing with Hispanic voters.. I will tell you right now as I'm one of them, POOR! Hillary received the majority of Hispanic voters in every State. As I listen to the Spanish News and blogs, voters will never vote for Obama. Hispanics are independants! They tilt in 2000 & 2004 for Bush. We will once again become the key voters in this election. If it's Hillary vs McCain, they vote for Hillary, and if it's Obama vs McCain, they vote for McCain. Older Hispanics will not vote for a Black candidate & are very religious in which they expressed that Obama's relationship with his pastor is very scary to them.

- Mary

May 7, 2008 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

all that's missing from your post is you ranting, "DO YOUR RESEARCH" good grief..we're in big trouble if these idiots are calling the shots on who leads our country.

- man4hillary

May 7, 2008 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Racism is coupled and canceled out race pride. Obama got about 97% of the black male vote in North Carolina, more than cancelling out any racist vote. I am sure most of them are not voting for Obama because they like him more on the issues. The fact is if Obama was jewish he would not get 97% of the jewish vote or italian or chinese with those respective cutlural groups. Obama counts on black pride to win the Democratic primary as well as appealing to intellectuals and the young. If Obama would have denounced his pastor earlier or distanced himself from racial issues earlier he may not have had a racist backlash, but also might not have gotten to 97% either. Race is fire in American politics. Obama used it somewhat successfully to get him where he is now, but fire is dangerous. Now that he has the nomination locked up as well as 95% of an increased black vote in the election, he will run from the race issue like a burning building. But lets be honest, this entire primary season was about identity and Obama will have to stand on it in the general election.

- Racism goes both ways

May 7, 2008 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

juliet , you have a anger problem sounds like. or a prejudice problem you dont want to admit. i am black but i would have voted for Hillary but the fact is that i could not trust a lier and some one that has done the same old things in the white house as usuall. when will you see we need to try something else not focus on lies and political games!!! Obama is president!! deal with it!

- tonn

May 7, 2008 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your premise is flawed. You examine Obama under a microscope, but leave out the comparative analysis of John McCain on these same points. McCain will not get a free ride by the American voters, he also will have to answer these same concerns with regards to can he win. And when both men stand side by side on a stage and introduce their vision for America and solutions to the problems of the day, then one can begin to piece together who is better speaking to the challenges we face. A common tactic of the right is to indulge in 'the lesser of 2 evils' in evaluating Obama, as they do not make a case why McCain would be a good, solid choice for the President of the United States. We, the readers aren't all dumb sheep, lapping up hit pieces as if they ever were intended as a serious discourse on an important subject. Both men will have a legitimate shot and both will have to prove that they should be hired to lead us, but we do our great nation dis-service when we see articles that operate under the guise of 'double standards.' As a voter, I'm hardly likely to see 'attack' stories on Obama as a reason to favor McCain. Lastly, Obama hasn't even picked a VP yet, much less being close to select a cabinet in which to frame his policy initiatives; he has plenty of time to change and change back to issues as the situation dictates. All he needs to do is continuing to do what has gotten him this far, he is about to run against McCain who supports the very policies that most Americans feel has put this country on the wrong course---and while this article presumes to ignore this fact, there are millions of voters who will not and who will think that the critical issue is reversing George Bush's policies, not seeing Obama stop to re-tune his campaign in the middle of a winning campaign.

- VinceinATL

May 7, 2008 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best way for Obama to move to the center is in his choice for VP. I suggest Henry Paulson for Vice President. He's intelligent, articulate, solid on economic matters, apolitical, and respected by the financial establishment. It would prove Obama is willing to make bold choices, think outside the box, work with competent people without regards to ideology, and it would prove he is serious about rebuilding our national economy. Choosing Henry Paulson For Vice President would allay fears of Obamas "liberal" agenda, and allow him to focus on foreign policy, Health Care, and Iraq. There would be plenty of cabinet positions for Bill Richardson (Al Gore for Secretary of the Interior? Energy?) And Paulson is unlikely to have other political ambitions, political baggage, or any any negatives. Being handsome, articulate, and white doesn't hurt either. What do you think?

- Mr. Tama

May 7, 2008 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The math is not there for Clinton, and it is unlikely that Obama would on the one hand speak about turning the page and change, and then on the other hand choose the Clintons with their 20 years+ of baggage on his wagon. There are some wonderful men and women who could help Obama in his race for the Presidency, who do not have the polarizing politics associated with the lies, scandals, deaths of associates, secret service agents and friends. Btw, Juliet you're free to vote for whomever you choose, but since you mentioned it first; the fact that you would choose to vote for McCain over Obama because of your irrations with Maddow and Olbermann is a telling sign of your loyalty to Clinton. McCain is such a hugh space between the nation that Clinton herself says must change if we are to reverse our path. You might contact your practioner for a stronger dose of reality.

- VinceinATL

May 7, 2008 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The math is not there for Clinton, and it is unlikely that Obama would on the one hand speak about turning the page and change, and then on the other hand choose the Clintons with their 20 years+ of baggage on his wagon. There are some wonderful men and women who could help Obama in his race for the Presidency, who do not have the polarizing politics associated with the lies, scandals, deaths of associates, secret service agents and friends. Btw, Juliet you're free to vote for whomever you choose, but since you mentioned it first; the fact that you would choose to vote for McCain over Obama because of your irrations with Maddow and Olbermann is a telling sign of your loyalty to Clinton. McCain is such a hugh space between the nation that Clinton herself says must change if we are to reverse our path. You might contact your practioner for a stronger dose of reality.

- VinceinATL

May 7, 2008 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain is damaged goods and I don't trust him or his temper with the red button. Clinton is an elitist who thinks that she is entitled to the nomination because of her name. The Clintons also seem to be able to continuously dodge the legal bullet when it comes to their money and money raising issues. Those of you who say that you would vote for McCain when Obama wins the nomination are being childish, grow up and look around you! We are reviled among a large portion of the rest of the world and have NO leg to stand on when it comes to championing human rights, and don't EVEN get me started on the economy both domestic and international. I see this quickly becoming a fascist country, and it's not just the Republican's faults. The blame is to all old school Washington. I think that Obama is the direction that we need to go, if you want to leave the country because of that... please do! It'll just make the job of retooling things so that they work again just that much easier.

- Russ

May 7, 2008 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games - Part I / by Evelyn Pringle / Previously:/ Barack Obama - Operation Board Games For Slumlords Barack Obama - The Wizard of Oz The investigation dubbed Operation Board Games, into the influence peddling within the cesspool of corruption that encompasses Illinois politicians from both major parties, has developed into multiple subplots, many of which feature Barack Obama. This two-part article is the last article in a 3-part series. The first two, Barack Obama - The Wizard of Oz and Barack Obama - Operation Board Games For Slumlords , cover Obama's rise to fame in the political mafia of Illinois, bankrolled by the now infamous Syrian-born influence peddler, Antoin Tony Rezko. They also give the details of Obama's involvement in a slumlord business largely operating out of the Chicago-based Davis, Miner & Barnhill law firm, which hired Obama in 1993, with his boss, Allison Davis, reaping in the profits with Rezko's development company, Rezmar. The Board Games For Slumlord article gives in-depth details of the federal investigation along with the names of people who are listed as Co-Schemers and Individuals in the indictments issued thus far. Therefore for the most part, this article will refer to all the scams collectively as what prosecutors refer to as pay-to-play schemes... Campaign finance laws in Illinois have aided and abetted influence peddling schemes for years because they allow donors to give as much as they like to candidates running for state office, so the sky's the limit.... A trial exhibit produced by an FBI agent, identifies major contributors who donated $1.43 million to Blagojevich between 2001 and 2004. The Chicago Sun-Times compared the exhibit to government campaign records on Obama and found he received more than $220,000 from many of the same donors between 2001 and 2004. John Roger, the head of Ariel Capital, an investment firm that ended up with major money from the pension funds, is on the FBI's summary of Blagojevich's top contributors. He also gave Obama $25,000. Rogers is a member of the finance committee for Obama's presidential campaign. Rogers also served on the campaign finance committee for Obama's US Senate run with Tony and Rita Rezko, Allison Davis, and Myron Mike Cherry.... On April 22, 2007, the Tribune noted that City Hall records show Michelle Obama began work as a $60,000-a-year mayoral assistant to Richard Daley in September of 1991. At City Hall, Michelle formed close friendships with Valerie Jarrett, and many other top Daley aides, including former Corporation Counsel Susan Sher and David Mosena, who was the mayor's chief of staff when Michelle first joined his administration. All have long since left the city payroll, the Tribune wrote, but are loyal to the mayor and now the Obamas. On June 13, 2006, Michelle's employer, the University of Chicago announced that, "Valerie Jarrett has been appointed as the new Chair of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board and also Chair of a newly created Executive Committee of that board. She has also been named Vice-Chair of the University's Board of Trustees." According to the announcement, Jarrett "served for eight years in City of Chicago government posts, first as Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development, then as Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley in 1991," and, "as Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development from 1992 through 1995." Jarrett served on Obama's US Senate campaign finance committee and serves on Obama's presidential campaign finance committee along with Alex Giannoulias and Mayor Daley's brother Bill. The political mafia of Illinois now plans to move the Chicago brand of corruption to Washington in a U-Haul hooked up to their second choice candidate. Americans will never allow it to happen. They will either vote for McCain or not at all. If Obama becomes the nominee, the Republicans will unleash a non-stop expose of Obama in the mainstream media that will make the swift boat attacks against John Kerry seem trivial. Only this time, they won't have to make lies because the truth will be on their side. The tracking of the subplots that developed as a result of the Board Games investigation, has revealed a spider-web of corruption that spread from the Chicago Loop to O'Hare Airport to the Illinois Tollway, all the way to bid-rigging in Iraq, with Iraqi-born billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, owner of General Mediterranean Holdings, a Luxemburg-based conglomerate with investments all over the world in everything from defense contractors to pharmaceuticals, at the center of many schemes.

- Illinois Voter

May 7, 2008 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This Hillary supporter, among many others, will vote McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee. We don't need the Democratic version of GWB anywhere near the White House. He'll squander any gains the Democratic party has made in the last two years.

- WJP

May 7, 2008 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is This Legal? Obama Activity in Polling Place http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiM-6ZnW2LI www.ElectionJournal.org

- Illinois Voter

May 7, 2008 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a Democrat - and wont for Obama because up until now, the bar for the nomination has been the same for everyone. Not this time, the DNC has LOWERED the bar for African American candidates from 50 states to 48. Gee, I didnt know affirmative action was applied to races for the presidency! The nomination of Barak Obama DOOMS the Democrat's chances to win back the White House. His nomination will revive the Republicans and we will lose again.

- Leah

May 7, 2008 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama is the delegate on the GE then make way for me on the other side. I have no desire to vote for McCain but have less fears of him than I do Obama. Of course it would be nice if Hillary would run as an Independent, if she does not get the nod that would be a salvation for many.

- Marian

May 7, 2008 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As pointed out in this article Obama wins the black vote, students and the liberals the sum of which are not enough to take back the Presidency" Ha I say -- you have no idea how many young people of all shades and colors are going to turn out and vote for Obama. It will be a record turn out by young people unlike anything that America has ever seen. Their are a many reasons why McCain will lose but the main ones are: People are hungry for change in this country. Change in our stance on foreign policy, Change in the way our government operates and conducts itself as a organization that SERVES and truly represents the will of the American people. Change in terms of 'free trade' agreements that have -in effect sold the American people's financial interest down the drain. John McCain won't do anything to change the standard that has become 'The American Government'. In my opinion we need more regulation by our government that protects the American workers interest. People are finally really getting that the Republican party only helps and represents the mega rich and big business. The republican party and John McCain won't help us out in this matter. They could give two sh1tz about the American people. Lastly John McCain supports the War -- he not only supports the Iraq war he supports more War(s) in the future. This is not the type of person our country needs in charge for a myriad of reasons. A large majority of the people get that and will stand behind the Democratic nominee regardless (Obama or Clinton) and thus - John McCain will lose badly. It won't even be close.

- gabe

May 7, 2008 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rock: ". . . [C]onsider leaving the country. What is with you people? How immature. Jeesh. I HATE Dubya, but why in the hell should I move? (Although, if I was offered an opportunity to live in Japan for eight years, I would have gladly taken it.) My list of grievances is long. First, look how look at how Dubya "won" the election. Prince Misunderestimated-Incompetence Squared, blew up the debt and deficit, took advantage of 9/11 to gull the country attacking the wrong country for WMD that have never been discovered and enmeshed our country in a 5-year cluster fuck. (Thanks for the memories. Iraq was the bomb. No--it really was.) All so he could work out his oedipal complex. Then, to prop up his faux macho insecurities, supported every dumb , tough guy posture that came his way (e.g., torture, warrantless wiretapping, ignoring treaties, etc). And that's some "military experience" Bush has. Cynical use of the system for combat avoidance. (H wanted to fly. Wasn't the air force accepting pilot trainees? Wasn't LBJ personally mapping suicidal bombing runs--thus feeding the desperate need for pilots.) Why else would some seek entry into a National Guard unit that is 150 percent oversubscribed? (And that begs the question of how Bush wangled that a slot.) Mr. Cowboy/Commie-hater refused to submit to a flight physical (one wonders how he escaped sanctions, particularly because he hadn't any active service),and was an unsat driller. (Thanks for the commitment.) I guess you'd prefer Cheney. With his tough "talk," creation of the contractor war-profiteering system in DD and five DRAFT DEFERMENTS, Cheney's contributed more than anyone who actually served. (Such as: Tom Daschle, Jim Webb, John Kerry,Al Gore,Sandy Berger, Mike Dukakis and even Ralph NADER(!!).)

- tec619

May 7, 2008 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

it is so sad that after everything that we have gone through as a nation we are still governed by race. that is really what this comes down to.

- trs3

May 7, 2008 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

gabe is right on the money. Just wait. McCain is spouting all over the place, essentially unchallenged, because he wrapped up the nomination so early. He's "mending his fences" - so to speak - with the nutjob wing of the party, shamelessly prostituting himself, taking back virtually every decent position he's espoused during the last 7 1/2 years. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent? Sure, why not? Deficit? What do I know about economics? Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Stay in Iraq for 100 years. Forget his moderate position on judges with the Gang of 14 - give us more Roberts and Alitos on the federal bench. Educational aid for veterans? Naah. too expensive. Better to use that money for more tax cuts for the top 1%. Bottom line, it hardly matters whom the Democrats nominate. They have the majority of the electorate on all of the major issues. And this will be an issues election.

- Django

May 7, 2008 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it amusing that Obama would put the young adults on the parents insurance plan, considering 1. many of these parents do not have insurance 2. many 18 year olds are pushed out of the nest at 18 even if they have not finished their schooling. Also it sounds like you do not feel that the older women and men are needed unless they happen to be AA I find your winning ideas strange. But then what can one expect from middle to older adults? Old age is reserved for those special people and they gather something called experience. Native Americans look up to those individuals, would you have them break traditions?

- Marian

May 7, 2008 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Iraq War, the economy, the energy policy, the flip flops, bottom fifth of the graduating class. 80% thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. How can it be McCain?

- AAA

May 7, 2008 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes i want a used to be crack smoker in the white house. Some might find this statement harse. But if you know anything from AA they say. Once a crack head always a crack head.

- obama whatever

May 7, 2008 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For Ole gabe and others, I guess history isn't their long suit...or maybe they just enjoy living in la la land. These are the same absurd assertions that were made by the liberals when promoting McGovern, Dukakis, and Mondale. Well, good luck with that. This won't even be close!

- ncarrizo

May 7, 2008 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton further cements her legacy as a megalomaniac with each passing week. In spite of the kitchen sink, Obama's stupid "bittergate" stumble, and a fellow megalomaniac named Wright, her only "path" to the nomination will fracture the democratic party. There is still a strong stench that Hill, Bill, and Chel are thinking 2012, after sinking Obama's chances in November. Why Obama's people don't rehash the less appetizing parts of the 1st Clinton Co-presidency is a mystery! If the short memories of the public were prodded, the Billary 2008 election tactics would remind democrats how little the Clinton's cared about the party in their halcyon days running the country from 1992-2000. I can understand the desire of women (especially older women who have waited so long) to finally see a woman elected president, but for anyone not bound by that agenda, the prospect of a Clinton dynasty turns one's stomach!

- Ed

May 7, 2008 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All this doom and gloom about Obama's electability is unwarranted. Firstly, he performed better among whites and Catholics in IN and NC than he did in OH and PA. So his base is broadening post PA rather than narrowing. This is still a two person race, so Dems are still splitting the vote. Once the Dems have their nominee, the vote will no longer be split. While there may be some deserters, the majority of Dems will vote for the party nominee. Assuming that McCain can rally the Repub base in November, with whom, btw, he still struggles, for although he is the presumptive nominee, he still only received 75% of the vote in the Repub primary. Anyway, with the Dems unifying around their nominee, and assuming the Repubs unify around their nom, then it would be down to who draws better among Indies, and who has the least deserters. It is almost a 'gimme' that the Repubs will have more deserters, everyone has Bush fatigue and McCain is promising more of the same, so the Dem nominee will most likely see a net gain of deserters (i.e. more Repubs will vote Dem than vice versa). Also, ther was a Limbaugh effect due to 'Operation Chaos' of Repubs voting for Hillary because they believe she is the weaker candidate to face off against McCain in the fall. Exit polls show that 17% of Hillary voters in the IN primary said they WON'T vote for her in the fall. I think this statistic captures some of the effect of operation chaos. So, Obama's electability is a red herring issue. He is one wonders on bringing in new voters, people who not only vote, but volunteer by phone banking, canvassing, and donating. His candidacy has empowered ordinary people to believe that "YES WE CAN!" Obama '08

- Elle in MI

May 7, 2008 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To debunk Judis, let's take a look at the big picture. Here is the vote among white voters with at least a college degree White college grad or more %Total Clinton Obama Clin.-Ob. New Hampshire 51 35 37 -2 South Carolina 21 33 32 1 Florida 32 51 33 18 Arizona 35 46 45 1 California 29 42 51 -9 Georgia 27 48 48 0 Illinois 29 32 67 -35 Massachusetts 53 52 46 6 Missouri 27 35 61 -26 New Jersey 35 60 38 22 New York 48 57 40 17 Tennessee 23 51 42 9 Maryland 37 48 47 1 Virginia 39 40 58 -18 Ohio 7 Pennsylvania 6 North Carolina 7 Indiana -2 These figures do indicate some slippage, however they don't support the idea of Obama's base "dangerously narrowing." He underperformed in PA, NC, and Ohio, but these figures weren't way out of whack for the most part. And the Indiana performance is entirely in line with how he typically does. Also, Judis' comparison of white men in CA to *all whites* in NC isn't particularly reasonable when considering the fact that white women are the heart of Clinton's coalition. There is drop-off among white men comparing CA and NC. But the California figure is not necessarily representative. Consider, Obama won white men with college degrees by 14 points nationally on Super Tuesday. The cumulative figure might be around ~17 points. The CA margin exceeded that. So, it's not really representative.

- Dark Heart

May 7, 2008 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The bar wasn't lowered. MI and FL chose to go against party rules by holding primaries that did not comply to the DNC calendar. The consequence of that was the loss of their delegates. Remember, the nomination process is party controlled, the party makes the rules about how the nominee is chosen. The rules for this election year was clearly stated. The sanction for breaking the rules was 100% loss of the MI and FL delegates. Obama played by the rules, if he hadn't I suppose your would be complaining that he didn't follow the rules. The states broke the rules knowing that the sanction would be the loss of their delegates. I live in MI, and I know that many people didn't even vote because they were told it wouldn't affect the nomination process since the delegates wouldn't be awarded based on the results of the non-sanctioned primary. Some Dems crossed over and voted in the Repub primary because they knew their vote would count in the Dem primary. Many Dems voted for "Uncommitted" (45%) because neither Edwards nor Obama's name was on the ballot for this non-sanctioned primary. Richardson dropped out of the race the weekend before the primary because, according to the rules, the primary wouldn't have any effect on the nomination process. People made decisions, both voters and candidates, based on the rules that were in place at the time. To change the rules in the middle of the game is unfair and a slap in the face to those who played by the rules. The non DNC sanctioned primaries in MI and FL cannot be used to apportion the delegates because that was the sanction handed down by the DNC when those states broke the rules. While the delegates may be seated, it cannot be based on those primary results. You sound like you are a Hillary supporter and I understand that you are disappointed with the way things are turning out, but think about it: if the shoe was on the other foot, would you want your candidate to be disadvantaged because she followed the rules? Would you say that the bar was lowered so that a woman can win? I don't think it's necessary to bring either race into this discussion, but you have, then it's only fair to bring up gender using the same argument. Fortunately, the DNC rules have nothing to do with affirmative action based on either race or gender and everything to do with following the rules. And everything to do with establishing a process to chooses the party's presidential nominee.

- Elle in MI

May 7, 2008 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you'll check factcheck.org, you'll find that in Texas, Republicans actually voted more for Obama than Clinton. She would have actually won by a larger margin without Republicans voting in the primary. Factcheck.org also states there is no sound basis to conclude that Republicans have been instrumental in Hillary's victories. Also, I have listened to some Republicans calling into C-Span who actually voted for Hillary because they want her to win, not to be a part of any R. L. plan.

- kmb08

May 7, 2008 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's mother was an athiest. If you'll check factcheck.org, you'll find that Obama's legislative claims are exaggerated. Hillary's are more substantial according to the facts on this site. In addition, if you'll do your research, you'll find that while in the IL. Senate, Obama was allowed to put his name on bills as a co-sponsor to pad his resume'. He did very little leg work on the actual bill. He earned the reputation as "gutless" and "absent", because he happened to be "gone" when time to make the tough votes. My sister, a staunch Republican, hopes Obama wins the nomination because she thinks Hillary would be more difficult to defeat.

- kmb08

May 7, 2008 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Rowena and Concerned" and whoever else commented on my desire to leave the country if Obama is elected president. I served this country for over 24 years and I'm very proud of have been a part of that. I am not a democrat, but I don't appreciate the unfair press that Hillary gets, I think because she's female. She is a successful woman, she's human, so why do people expect her to be perfect. I understand she may have a temper, "SO WHAT?" I know too well, being a woman and serving in the military, that no matter how much success a woman has, there are some men, notice I said some, that will not acknowledge a woman's contributions on any level. So, if I choose to leave for a spell, yes, that's my prerogotive--whether I am in the US or outside of it "I like to serve others who need help" so I don't have to do it here. I am certain Obama is not the "savior" that you all think he is.He will disappoint you. He has spinned and spinned and many of you are buying into his empty rhetoric. Good Luck to you all. Remember, I told you so.

- ROCK

May 7, 2008 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

say Gabe: yes youngsters are voting for Obama, they don't care, they're just rebelling against mom and dad (Clintons) as all teenagers do. They are caught up in the hype, and they haven't stopped to critically question his motives. If he were to bring hair products, they'd probably buy them on the spot. They are only following the masses. To all the sensible people out there, (Non-sensible need not respond) Surely you can see that stability lies with Hillary. She has proven she can hold her own.

- ROCK

May 7, 2008 at 6:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You just don't get it Mr. Judis. How the votes have voted in the primaries can not be extrapolated to the general election, and neither can what occurred in 2004. You'll excuse me if I put more faith in the judgments of Axelrod, Obama, and Plouffe in how to win the general election than I do in you, who has already demonstrated just how wrong a pundit can be.

- Chris Brown

May 7, 2008 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The people commenting on here is actually funny. So, he lost Indiana by .2 percentage points and won North Carolina by 14 points. And you are saying that he hasn't gained support? They basically split the white vote in Indiana because there is no way he could have gotten that close without that much. He has more legislative experience than Hillary and an example of that is the gas tax holiday. He knows it won't work because it didn't work in Illinois. These arguments against Obama are weak as hell. This is the primary, not the general. Get your crap straight.

- Rainy

May 7, 2008 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I apologize, y'all, the SH and I left the gate open and all our critters escaped and broke into the mushrooms and crank and Anchor Steam stashes again and dang if they didn't clamber over to the keyboard and start commenting on this thread. It will take some doing but within the next couple hours we should be able to get 'em all rounded up and back snug in their habitats to sleep it off. Sorry--won't happen again, I promise.

- williamyard

May 7, 2008 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

gabe-- you are a shining, perfect example of why kids ultimately do NOT pick Presidents. You are clueless, and way too naive. You and your fearless leader desperately need to grow up. I know he's the Black dude friend you are living vicariously through, but sooner or later, you're going to have to grow up. So does Barry. Poor guy, he's tired, he's bored, he's all pooped out, he's effete. He is a loser, and so, so UNELECTABLE.

- ginamc

May 7, 2008 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama cannot win in November. In fact, I know Hillary is going to get the nomination when Obama goes out in shame. Hillary knows more really bad stuff on him and she is counting on someone bringing it out before it is too late. She won't because she is too good of a Democrat to do so. However, it will come out and Mr. Teflon himself will not be able to lie his way out of this next one. Hide and watch!!! Stay, Hillary,stay America needs you not this more than questionable empty suit.

- Moblou

May 7, 2008 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Last Summer I would have bet large sums that the Democrats couldn't possibly lose the presidential race this time. The Republican brand is at a low ebb, and Bush as unpopular as any president in US history. What a difference a year makes. The Republicans have nominated the GOP candidate nearest the mainstream, while the Dems have picked the candidate farthest from it. Obama is a member of TWO minorities: he's both black and liberal. Biased voters seeking a reason (or excuse, if you will) to vote against him need look no farther than his slender resume. McCain's prospects have gone from "declared dead" to a likely chance of winning, and the Obama faces a steep climb. The Democrats may yet win the White House, but given their doofus choices so far, I wouldn't bet on it.

- Maxbert

May 7, 2008 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is time to ask the question, with Sen Obama as the Dem contender, will he hold the votes of the following demographics: white women in low-mid income households (the people who dont have time to view Oprah); working class Jewish voters; veterans (esp black and hispanic from the Gulf Wars onwards); older trade unionists (say 55+); moderate/hawk Dems (those who havent voted Dem easily since 1980) who are patriotic to a fault; and liberal Republicans in the North East and California (who havent had a candidate since Bush the Father).

- Noel Hadjimichael

May 7, 2008 at 10:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You who count out Hillary Clinton do so at your own peril. There are skeletons galore banging on Obama's closest door. You haven't seen anything yet. If Obama is the nominee, he'll win 16 states and lose in the electoral college by more than 90. McCain wins bellweather states Arizona, New Mexico, North and South Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Penn., Missouri, Colorado, Florida (again) and perhaps Michigan, though the latter is a long shot. Among bell cow states, Obama will carry New York, California, Illinois, Oregon, Washington and a few other states where there is a mix of African American voters, elite rich liberals and politically active campuses. McCain wins healthy margins among, church-goers, gun owners, whites, Latinos, Jewish voters and those who believe American security matters more than some nebulous concept of "change" that Obama is selling. Obama wins spectacularly among blacks and college students. Liberals go for Obama, but he loses independents to McCain.

- PoliticalPuck

May 7, 2008 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

intelligent.

- charles stubbart

May 7, 2008 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ten bucks says that anyone stating that they are a Republican who will vote for Obama, or a Democrat who will vote for McCain is lying. This has been a favorite trick of political commenters before blogging was invented. By the way, I am a Jewish person who would like to vote for Hitler.

- JC

May 7, 2008 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only way this has a chance being valid is if all of Hillary's supporters in the categories cited vote for McCain.

- Calvincito

May 7, 2008 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the usual, eloquent piece, Mr. Judis. To icarusr: agreed that Barack Obama can easily reposition himself in the general. Just ask former presidents McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry for tactical advice. The Hispanic vote will be very interesting to watch.

- liberal reformer

May 7, 2008 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@axt113 - put down the kool-aid as now you you just sound like an idiot. Texas hasn't been or will be in play for any Dem in the fall....mark my words.

- Dan

May 8, 2008 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The contnet of this article makes the gleeful headline look somewhat stupid. For all of the reasons mentioned here and a few more, the Dem superdelegates need to develop some "testicular fortitude" and, in spite of the ridiculous numbers game, select the the more electable candidate -- the one who won all of the states that the Dems need to win in November AND more -- Hillary Clinton.

- Ruth Hanley

May 8, 2008 at 5:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Obama will win the GE, since he will pull 100% black turnout and all the draft-fearing youth will swarm to the polls to vote for him. This kind of black and student turnout should be enough to flip many southern states democrat.

- Andrew P

May 8, 2008 at 5:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a life long Democrat, I look forward to voting for the Republican or Independent candidate. Ms. Clinton is trash just like her no good husband and Obama speaks in generalities and does not concern himself with specifics. When President Harry Truman was asked why he never gave speeches (for money) or joined corporate boards after leaving the White House his response was "An elected official that uses his service to the public to enrich himself is both UNETHICAL and IMMORAL. That says it all about the Clintons and why this country is headed down a deep spiral of governmental corruption. When the population thinks it acceptable behavior to feather one's nest from serving the country the game is over and the country is lost.

- Herman Mann

May 8, 2008 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Senator Obama turns his full attention and recources to Senator McCain the disparity in voter registration, party identification and fundraising will prove that most of the comments in this thread come from the heart and not the head. Honestly folks are some of you unable to absorb basic information and see trends? Peace

- Willy T Patriot

May 8, 2008 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Personally, I'm looking forward to 4 things happening: 1. Hillary and Obama continue to fight til the convention and damage each other politically beyond repair. 2. Obama wins the Dem. nomination and Left-Wing nuts continue to get themselves all in a lather over him even though there's no there....there. 3. McCain wins by a landslide in Nov. 4. Hard core Leftists get so upset they all move to Canada, thereby making the US a far better place.

- Mike

May 9, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem the Obama campaign faces is a dirty little secret - his campaign has so vilified women that we will never vote for him. You get just enough misogyny and you start to understand that this campaign has not been about the 'i can' bs - it's been about putting women in their place and crushing them. Just looking on this blog you will find countless, unfounded insults that McCain can use. Here's a good one: 'Clinton further cements her legacy as a megalomaniac with each passing week.'- what does that even mean? Obama's minions can't do that against McCain - especially since the venom spewed is easily accessed. The lunatic fringe he courted will do him in. I'm a life-long Democrat and no one can ever convince me to vote for this con man.

- Susan

May 10, 2008 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sexual Discrimination is alive and well in this campaign. Obama has not yet won, and maybe things will change tonight, however, women, don't you notice when John McCain and Obama are now only directing comments at each other? They are pretending she's not even in the race anymore. That is sexism at its best. I lived this many times on active duty. Well, Hillary is still an individual and they are blatantly being rude. If they (Obama and McCain) are bold enough to do this now, you can guarantee they'll continue this while in office, "sweetie" wasn't that what Obama said to a reporter? All that was missing was the slap on the rump. If Obama and McCain are on the ticket, hell no I won't go, I'll stay home. That's what 25 years of active duty have gained for me. Two sexists on the ticket?

- ROCK

May 19, 2008 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was watching the news, Wolf somebody was hosting the panel of individuals and getting their perspectives and the issue of HRC claim that the fact that she is a woman is hurting her campaign, the comment came up about some women being called "A B**** and that rightfully some women are, and that Hillary is aggressive and abrasive at times, and a man on the end said yeah, well some women are called that rightfully so. One of the women on the panel flinched at that, but didn't say anything! Most of the men felt that sexism is not being played out in this campaign, one gentleman said it is and I agree. We live in a world where its acceptable for men to be aggressive, headstrong, abrasive and callous, however when a woman has those attributes, she is a "B****. Huh? Why? Being in business or politics is no cake walk, and I can only imagine the games that go on. On active duty, I supervised many men who didn't like taking orders from a woman. It is sexism when men continually bash a woman because she's not soft spoken enough, she's not beautiful enough, she's not "feminine enough"! That is a bunch of bull, look at Michelle Obama, she's abrasive, and she's outspoken, that's exactly what we need in the whitehouse someone who will lash out at the country, and a husband who will give the media fodder, "Quit talking about my wife!". Whatever, Hillary is the strong opponent, face it people, we all have different talents and strengths, give her her due. She's no push over that's for sure.

- Rock

May 21, 2008 at 8:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Response to Herman Mann you state that Hillary Clinton is trash, what do you mean by using the word trash? Can you elaborate on that term please? Or do you simply mean that an educated woman intimidates you? And Mr. Mann while you're at it can you also list all of "your" perfect accomplishments...Thank you and God Bless you.

- ROCK

May 21, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone please explain how financial support means a candidate should win key demographics that have blindly voted Republican for decades. The notion that Obama's campaign money can buy enough common sense for working middle America is ludicrous.

- 415ks

May 25, 2008 at 10:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

God, was I wrong!!!!

- jdcarmine

November 1, 2008 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, great site here :) I am looking for fans of our beloved celebs. If you have any bikini pictures with someone, i will appreciate your help :)

In exchange I can upload some top hottest stuff from my collection here.
Regards! Waiting for links with good stuff, and free of course :)

- Mariella

April 3, 2009 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close