ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Let's go skiing!

I was wondering when you would post a photo! Beautiful. I was very preoccupied this morning and on my way to work, glanced into my rear-view mirror and did a double take - what a site!

I sent your spectacular photo to my relatives in Holland so they could see that it really does snow in Ojai!

So, spk, you promised us predictions....

How is it all shaping up in your view, on the eve of New Hampshire? and looking ahead, is Hillary already toast?

and what about McCain vs. Huckabee vs. Romney vs. Giuliani? who's got the edge there in the long run?

I'm kind of amazed at the Obama freight train in NH to be honest. When Clinton loses there tomorrow, she's really in trouble. She'll stay in the race at least through Feb. 5th when we vote, but she's already making really really bad tactical decisions.

Today she essentially claimed that LBJ and not MLK was responsible for civil rights progress and desegregation. It was a botched attempt at best to flog the hack kneed premise she tried to make during Saturday's debate. Namely that the only way to change anything is through executive "action" and not through ideals and oration. I have a hard time believing anyone on her campaign actually knew she was going to say that. The idea that desegregation was a gift from the white man is usually racist position on that period in history. Really just an unbelievable misstep. But her campaign staff isn't blameless in Clinton's recent screw-ups. It was her campaign manager who probably engineered the "emotional" breakdown we had to witness today while Clinton was answering questions somewhere in NH. They misread the effects of Hillary's so called "vulnerable" moment during Saturday's debate. They are apparently operating under the notion that Clinton needs to project a softer, more feminine side to separate her from the two front runners(after Iowa), Obama and Edwards. Needless to say, the performance seemed forced. Just like in the debate, Edwards destroyed her by saying, "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve. And presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,". So enough Hillary bashing. I don't really hate her, I just don't want another corporatists in the White House. I think 28 years of that crap is quit enough thank you, and it's starting to look like the economy agrees. Also, It would just be embarrassing to go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Time for some CHANGE!

Anyway, you asked for predictions. Here you go:

Obama wins tomorrow in NH and I really hope Edwards comes in second. This isn't an especially prescient prediction considering Zogby is now claiming a 10 point lead for O! That's an amazing 13 point change for Obama in just the first 7 days of this new year. It would seem that NH's notorious indy voters have found their candidate. The Real prediction is that if Hillary comes in third in NH, her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, will suddenly find it necessary to spend more time with her family. Even if Clinton does come in third, don't look for her, or any of the other candidates with any following at all in either party, to declare defeat. No one is going anywhere until the morning of Feb. 6th. Unfortunately for us here in CA, the media echo chamber for Obama(now) is seriously eroding our PERCEIVED impact on who gets to run for President. The defining moment will come when he wins a week from tomorrow in Michigan(J 15th). Right after that he'll sweep in South Carolina(J 19th) and he'll have the serious upper hand in the big primary in Florida on Jan. 29th. Remember, the big primaries before CA and 21 other states get to vote on Feb. 5th are Michigan(J 15th) and Florida(J 29th) with 156 and 210 delegates respectively. Also remember that the erosion of CA's and the rest of the states impact is a media fiction. In the Republican party, the state primaries are winner-take-all, meaning whoever wins the most votes gets ALL the delegates for the nomination from that state. The Democratic party is-well--more democratic. We give out delegates on a proportional basis. If there's 100 delegates in a given state primary and Candidate A gets 50% of the vote, he/she gets 50 delegates, and if Kucinich gets 2% he gets 2 delegates. This is why I say only our PERCEIVED impact is being affected by the media drone. Our votes count in a major way. Especially if you are planning on voting for someone other than the front runner. This means that this primary process is going to go all the way into the convention hall before we have a candidate, and that's the way it should be. It means that Edwards or Kucinich, the two truly progressive candidates, could wind up in a position to pick the nominee by virtue of the fact that they can give their delegates to whomever they wish. Don't vote for the perceived front runner on Feb. 5th if you are voting in the Democratic primary. Vote for the person you want. It is most definitely not a thrown away or useless vote. That said, Obama looks awfully strong. I like him and he's the best orator in two generations, but his voting record and some things he's said worry me. He's pro-nuclear power(vote Obama Brian!). He's said that the Pentagon needs more money! He voted to give Bush money for his war. He didn't initially vote for the war because he wasn't a Senator yet, however he's claimed he wouldn't have voted for it if he were in the Senate then. Clinton and (sadly) Edwards did vote for it. I don't know about him and he's not attacking corporations the way Edwards and Kucinich are. Whatever. We could do A LOT worse, and have for the last 7 years, than Barack Obama. Perhaps Obama is hiding his radicle side. This article raised my spirits tremendously.

I'll give my Republican predictions later.

Hi all. Just back from Pine Mountain and it was winter wonderland up there. Roads are perfectly clear and the kids went serious sled riding. Skip Rose Valley and go the extra 15 miles. Wow!

Also my trusty rain gauge here in the East End measured 5.4 inches for the entire 3 day storm. Unlike the 12 inches I recorded back in the -what was it - 04-05 storm?

Hoping for more though.

Thanks, spk, very helpful analysis and predictions, especially this:

"...This is why I say only our PERCEIVED impact is being affected by the media drone. Our votes count in a major way. Especially if you are planning on voting for someone other than the front runner. This means that this primary process is going to go all the way into the convention hall before we have a candidate, and that's the way it should be. It means that Edwards or Kucinich, the two truly progressive candidates, could wind up in a position to pick the nominee by virtue of the fact that they can give their delegates to whomever they wish. Don't vote for the perceived front runner on Feb. 5th if you are voting in the Democratic primary. Vote for the person you want. It is most definitely not a thrown away or useless vote. That said, Obama looks awfully strong. I like him and he's the best orator in two generations, but his voting record and some things he's said worry me..."

Above Anonymous was me. Up early writing a 600 word column on Kucinich, the only candidate whose voting record doesn't worry me.

Well, spk, just a couple of fine points to quibble with.....

I'm not persuaded that Hillary's emotional moment in that restaurant was scripted -- it looked to me like a genuine response to her seeing the writing on the wall.

Also, not sure if you are predicting a third place for her in New Hampshire today..... If so, that seems unlikely. What we are witnessing seems more pro-Obama than anti-Hillary.

Looking forward to your review of the Repubs.

Personally, I truly believe that two brilliant, driven, experienced policy wonks in the Oval Office are better than one. I'm still with Hillary (but getting extremely nervous!)

Just read the Rolling Stone Obama article mentioned at the end of spk's Comment #5. Well worth reading!

"... it also began to become clear what it might mean if Barack Obama were somehow to become president of the United States -- the resonance it might have not just within the United States but beyond."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama

One more point, spk:

Could you help us all understand the meaning of the Michigan primary on the 15th? Didn't Michigan get de-certified or something by the Democrats for moving their date up? Most of the news accounts will mention Michigan for the Repubs but not for the Dems......

David,

Thanks for the tip on the Michigan Primary. This article explains the situation there. Michigan moved up their primary earlier than Feb.5th after the Democratic party put a moratorium on doing so. That's partially why there's so many states on Feb. 5th. In moving to Jan. 15th, Michigan has reduced it's importance substantially. In fact, Edwards and Obama are not even on the ballot there. Only Clinton, Kucinich, and the others including an "uncommitted" vote choice. The Democratic Party has been claiming that they will not seat the delegates from Michigan based on the vote. The state party in Michigan says that's not the case, but we shall see. At any rate, Obama can't win there by being voted for, so my earlier prediction is wrong. Here's the thing though, I'm still standing by it. Here's how, Clinton will get less than 50% of the vote, and she's the only big candidate on the ballot, so the upshot will be the same. The "uncommitted" vote choice will become the de facto Obama/Edwards vote, though the turnout will be adversely affected.

After Michigan, Nevada is the next stop on Jan 19th, and like South Carolina it is exempted from the Feb. 5th rule, so it's votes count. If Hillary does poorly in Michigan, her "lead" in Nevada is over. Again it'll be Obama, though Edwards may come on strong there because of the heavy Service Employees International Union(SEIU) presence.

South Carolina goes off in Jan 26th and its' votes do count and Obama is very likely to win that contest. If Clinton gets less than 50% in Michigan, she'll be very weak in South Carolina, I'm thinking third again. The interesting thing is that Florida also broke the Democrats rules and none of their votes will count either, though all of the candidates are on the ballot. Florida's delegates will be selected by the state party some time later in a party caucus. The state party caucus is likely to closely mirror the vote in Florida, though the turnout on Jan 29th might be adversely affected. Nevertheless, the voters will vote and I see Obama as the likely winner if he wins in South Carolina.

So here's the bottom line before the big one on Feb. 5th.:

NH(today) - Obama by something like 40%! Huge hit for Clinton because that was supposed to be hers and Bill's state for sure. Since I like Edwards, I'm hoping he comes in 2nd again, but I'm not too sure on that. I'm thinking like 26% to Clinton's 28% with remainder going to others like Kucinich. WIth NH we start the delegate count as Iowa was non-binding and therefore we cant count those delegates. NH only has 30 delegates so Obama gets 12, Clinton gets 8, Edwards gets 7-8, and the remaining 3 go to Kucinich and others.

MI(J 15th) - Clinton gets only about 40% of the vote. Kucinich gets 6% and others get 5%. Uncommitted(Edwards/Obama) gets like 49%. Michigan's delegates don't count until the state party figures out how to distribute them. This is kind of sad because it would have been a strong Edwards state.

NV(J 19th) - getting hazy but if Clinton tanks in MI, Obama gets like 39%, Edwards gets 34%, Clinton gets like 25% and Kucinich and others 2%. Not sure how Nevada's 33 delegates are distributed because it's a caucus, but theoretically this would give Obama 24(12)(delegate count is a running total with state total in parentheses), Clinton 16(8), Edwards 19(11) and Kucinich and others would get 5(2).

SC(J26) - Along same lines as above, but really getting out there now, I'm thinking Obama again in South Carolina with about 45% followed by Edwards with 32%, Clinton with 22% and Kucinich and others with 1%. So now we have Obama with 48(24), Edwards with 36(17), Clinton with 28(12) and K and others with 6(1)

FL(J29) - Florida is non binding as far as delegates go, but it will have an impact on the popularity contest. Again, Obama at steady 40%, Edwards at 30%, Clinton at 28% and K and others at 2%.

So as you can see by the following delegate totals that I project before the Big day on Feb. 5th when California gets to decide, there's no clear winner:

Obama - 48
Edwards - 36
Clinton - 28
Kucinich and Others - 6

Total: 118(committed if Nevada's are binding), 367(uncommitted from MI and FL)

Remember that 2,186 delegates are needed to clinch the nomination. It's likely that the state parties in FL and MI will hold their delegates until the convention to try and become kingmakers by putting someone over the top. As I've stated earlier, the same goes for delegates committed to Kucinich and others.

As far as Republicans go. I stated over a year ago that Huckabee would be their nominee. Combine this with a Rovian get out the evangelicals campaign that's already started (see H. Res 888), and there could be a fight if the nominee is Obama and especially if I'm way wrong and it's Clinton. In fact, we'd lose if Clinton gets the nom. McCain will win today, but I think he'll implode and the evangelicals will never allow him to win. Same goes for Romney and Rudy. If I'm wrong and McCain gets the nod, then we are in even worse trouble if Clinton gets the nom and I'm not sure Obama can win either.

too much of Jeff's coffee.

Here's some more info on that H. Res. 888 I alluded to above.

Thanks, spk.... great review.... very illuminating.

Looks like a big turnout today in NH. I kind of think you might be over-optimistic on Edwards' chances, but we'll be watching to see if "OBambi" hits 40%.

For the road ahead, seems like the drama will be not just in the numbers, but how far the Clinton team will be willing to go to stop Obama. Based on Bill's recent eruptions, it looks like we're going to be in for a scorched-earth policy!

Clinton's inevitability never was. There's no point in she and Bill going ballistic. They're over and they should realize that because any attacks will fail miserably and only make their beating worse.

Thanks spk! All VERY interesting!

This seems like a good time to play the "You Rock, Barack!" original Obama song video you posted awhile back, starring Ojai's Lanny Kaufer and family:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZInc-E1pSo4

About This Video
Original song in support of Barack Obama, written, produced, and filmed in one week, in a house full of family.

And, due to popular request, here are the lyrics:

You Rock, Barack!

Obama, we're tired of all the drama
Bush is a joke we're at the end of our rope
You're the one who dares to hope

Obama, your mama is just like my mama
'Cept my mama didn't name me Barack
End the war in Iraq
Bring our brothers and sisters back

I know you'll fight to unite
Left and right, black and white, feel alright, now

Obama, I love you so much
And Hillary is so out of touch
I wondered where the good leaders went
So come on Barack, be our next president

[Harmonica solo]

Obama, I'm so fired up
Show me where I can sign up
People, we're all in the same boat
I'm asking you to get out the vote

Obama, it rhymes with pajama
You're the one that can find Osama

Obama, I love you so much
And Hillary is so out of touch
I wondered where the good leaders went
So come on Barack, be our next president

Obama, I love you so much
And Rudy's usin' 9/11 as a crutch
I wondered where the good leaders went
So come on Barack be our next president

[Ramble...]

If you think this song ain't too pretty
That's cause we wrote it by committee

Obama, I love you so much
And Hillary is so out of touch
I wondered where the good leaders went
So come on Barack be our next president

Obama, I'm so fired up
Show me where I can sign up
I wonder where the good leaders went
So come on Barack, be our next president (less)

That song by Lanny and his family is great, and it is totally indicative of what is driving the momentum behind Obama. However, Obama is not my candidate yet. If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him, but I don't think he gets my vote on Feb. 5th. By way of explanation I'll defer to my favorite political writer Matt Tiabbi and this article he wrote for Rolling Stone on Dec. 13th:

"...underneath the veneer of fresh-faced optimism that Obama is pushing — note that the word "idealism" isn't appropriate here, because Obama isn't selling idealism so much as a kind of reinvigorated, feel-good pragmatism — there operates a massive, well-oiled political machine no less ruthless and ambitious than that of his establishment rival, Hillary Clinton. Obama has raised $80 million, and it would be a grievous mistake to describe his candidacy as a grass-roots affair, particularly when he counts among his bundlers many of the lobbyists and political-finance pros who buttress the Clinton run.

Even a cursory glance at Obama's money men is enough to confirm that fact. The list includes Wall Street hotshots from Lehman Brothers, Oppenheimer and Co., and Citigroup, a smattering of Hollywood players and Native American casino interests, representatives of big pharmaceuticals and the insurance sector — in short, all the major food groups of reviled corporate influence-hunters.

Worse still, Obama's financial backing is reflected in some of his Senate votes and campaign positions, including most notably his support for expanding NAFTA to Peru, limiting the ability of injured workers and consumers to sue for damages, and pouring federal funds into E85 corn-based ethanol, an alternative fuel for which the market is dominated by the Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Company. More than once I heard Obama give stirring speeches, only to mar them with plugs for ethanol."

Those are the facts about Obama folks. Sorry to burst the feel good bubble here, but I think it's important to be informed. As I've noted earlier, he voted twice to give Bush the money for the war Obama claims he wouldn't have voted against originally. That's why I'm leaning Edwards right now. To restore some of the feel good vibe I'll further quote the end of Tiabbi's piece and urge you all to read the full article:

"...At the outset of the campaign season, he was treated as a not-ready-for-prime-time sideshow, with media pundits all in one voice bitching about his "rookie mistakes" and "lack of aggressiveness." But now that he's got the numbers and the momentum, even the most hardened political cynic has to ask — why not this guy? Would it be such a terrible thing for America to show that it's big enough to elect a black president? Wouldn't that be something all by itself? The very fact that the public, mostly on its own, has lifted Obama past an arrogant establishment consensus adds to his appeal as a symbol of the idea that not everything in our politics is rigged, that not everything that they tell us is impossible really is.

So maybe it's OK to let the grandiose things that an Obama presidency could represent overwhelm the less-stirring reality — i.e., Obama as more or less a typical middle-of-the-road Democrat with a lot of money and a well-run campaign. Maybe it's OK because it's not always about the candidates; sometimes it's about us, what we want and what we want to believe. And if Barack Obama can carry that burden for us, why not let him? Seriously, why not? The happy ending doesn't always have to ring false."

Uh..above anonymous 3:48pm is me, of course.

"However, Obama is not my candidate yet. If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him, but I don't think he gets my vote on Feb. 5th."

Just so it's clear, I feel the same way.

Here's how to follow this thing:

http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

Notice that some of the precincts that you can roll over on the map show only like 9 voters! Tiny. I's outrageous that the whole country watches this largely meaningless state. That said, Hillary seems to have done better than I thought. She and the Clinton machine know the state and seemed to garner more votes in the few populous areas. At least so far with only 19% reporting, she seems to have 40% to Obama's 36% and Edwards 17%. It 'aint over till it's over.

Wow! Clinton won by like 8,000 votes over Obama. Huge turnout and it appear to have all been for Hillary. Polling failed utterly and so did my earlier prediction. This helps Clinton immensely. She was in a bad way if she'd have lost. I have to bow to David and say I misread the tear in the eye scenario for Hillary. Apparently a lot of NH voters bought it. Also, apparently most female indys and democratic voters simply lied to pollsters. They said one thing and when they got in the booth they did another. Totally their prerogative, but kind of a strange thing. We'll learn more later.

Hey, thanks Suza for posting the Youtube link to our original Obama song and to spk for your thoughtful comments. It started as a lark but as we were holed up in the rain and snow in Seattle with too much time on our hands, there you have it. For the record, that's my son Aran singing and playing guitar. He wrote most of the song, too. Yours truly is now known on Youtube as "harmonica pop-up guy." Also, for the record, I'm supporting Obama because I think America needs inspiration, a leader who can represent us in an intelligent and compelling way, someone who can command our respect and make us feel proud of our democracy. And along those lines, yes, it's time for us to elect either a black or female president. It would go a long way toward making us whole as a nation. I don't agree with every one of his positions, nor do I agree with any candidate's every position. In a true constitutional democracy (unlike what we have now under Bush) the president is not all-powerful anyway. There are a lot of intangible qualities that make for a good (and electable) president. I believe Obama has many of those qualities.

So, the question now has gotta be: How come the polls got it right for the Repubs, but got it so wrong for the Dems?

Here's a few theories, based on reading some news accounts plus some reflections:

a) Hillary's tearful moment in the cafe brought her some last-minute waverers... (her explanation)

b) Bill's blast ("fairytale") also brought some undecideds "home" to the Clintons -- but too late for the polls to take account of

c) When it comes to a black candidate, what people tell a pollster and what they actually do in the voting booth are not quite the same...

d) My explanation -- the polls were not really all that far off with respect to the size of Obama's vote -- above 35 %. What happened was a bunch of Edwards voters peeled off at the last minute to vote for Hillary. (Edwards' percentage was less than expected, Hillary's was more.) Of course that leaves the question why Edwards' people would go more for Hill than for O.

This is interesting: http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/

Everyone is so committed to writing off Hillary. But in favor of what?

Consider:

1. Fox News and the Republican attack machine fawn over Barack. They want him. That cannot be a good thing.

2. If Barack Obama is the candidate, the Republicans are confident they could run Mickey Mouse and win. They are probably right. They will play race, they will play Muslim (even though he's not), they will play his middle name Hussein, they have the voting machines, they have purged the voter rolls ... Clinton has negatives, but she is a harder target for them in a general election and they know it.

3. Barack Obama IS totally untested, and what we have seen is not encouraging. In two years in the Senate, he has failed to rein in Bush. He talks a politics of "working together" - but at least Hillary, for all her faults, knows better. You cannot "work with" the present leading Republicans and their puppetmasters and make progress in this country. She knows how to deal with Republicans and actually get things done in a way that Obama can only dream of.

4. We all have our problems with Clinton policies and conservative leanings. But remember: the Clinton years were a world of difference from what we have now. We would be a better country with the Clintons. (Would we be even better with Kucinich? Yes, absolutely. But Obama? Not at all clear we are better with Obama than Hillary, AND with Obama, its more likely we have another Republican, which is disaster.)

5. Hillary as President would do a few things: abroad, she and Bill have real credibility. For all their faults, imperialism as practiced by Bush would be over, in favor of a more transparent and honest foreign policy. That is important right now. She might actually bring real universal health care, like she tried to do once before. She likely would follow a Clintonomics economic program, which for all of its faults, is far sounder than anything we have now. These are not small things.

hey people! what about edwards?
he is the ONLY candidate taking on the corporate machine, the only candidate with a credible and timely withdrawal from iraq plan, the only candidate talking about the working and not working poor in this country.
my theory is that he is being shut out by the media due to his anti-corporate rhetoric.
i'm votin for him.

Well, after yesterday, for whatever polls are worth they all show Clinton losing against any of the potential Republican candidates. By contrast Obama beats all of the potential Republicans including McCain. Same goes for Edwards. So it would seem that your theory in item #2 is 180 degrees wrong. Hillary is likely to lose a general election, but much have been many rumors recently of her demise.

The reason Fox is crowing about Obama is because they assume they can pull the race card, but the polls don't bare that out at all. The Clinton years were simply a slightly more fiscally responsible version of the Reagan years. As I've always said, Bill Clinton was the second best Republican President we've ever had after T. Roosevelt.

Clinton isn't all bad, I just don't want to see her lose so we can see a McCain or Huckabee Presidency. Of course, there appears to be a huge stealth female vote for Clinton, so those polls showing she'll lose are likely wrong. We'll be able to better gauge that by the votes in Nevada and South Carolina. The fact that everyone had Clinton losing last night, including the Clinton campaign's own internal polls, is very strange indeed. Unprecedented except for the 2004 Presidential election that was probably stolen which accounts for the discrepancy.

The best way to battle Clinton's conservative leanings is to vote for Kucinich or Edwards or, to a lessor extent, Obama. The female stealth vote(if it's real) will give Hillary the lead, but she won't be able to clinch before the primary and her crowd will have to make serious concessions to the Progressive wing of the party if she want's the nomination.

It's a long way from over.
Delegate count: (Iowa is non-binding, so not counted here)

Clinton - 12
Obama - 11
Edwards - 5
Richardson - 1
Kucinich & others - 1

MO,

Yep, you're right. Edwards is making the kinds of noises that scare the crap out of the media conglomerates. They'd prefer he just goes away so they've been routinely ignoring him except when they want to scoff at his hair. You should definitely vote for him on Feb. 5 to strengthen his and the progressive wing of the party's position against the corporatist Clinton. It's not entirely impossible for a floor draft at the convention if there is no clear winner. If no one has 2,186 delegates and if they can't horse trade to get enough, then it goes to a draft. At that point even Al Gore could be drafted to be the nominee. Fanciful, but possible.

MO - I think you mean Kucinich. Kucinich is all those things, and sincerely so, with a long record of actions backing it up.

Edwards, on the other hand, is newly arrived to the rhetoric on all those things. Unfortunately, when he was in a position to make decisions, as a senator, his voting record did not match his more recent words. He voted in favor of "free trade" agreements; he voted in favor of the war; he, a lawyer, voted in favor of the Patriot Act; etc.

Deeds, not words! That's the best predictor of future behavior.

Since Kucinich is not the front runner, all this prognosticating doesn't add up to anything more than this: The Dem ticket should be Hillary/Barack. The country will be better off with those two than anything the Republicans will offer, and unfortunately, they are the best we are going to get this season. Hillary should be in the Pres position, she is more electable, the only reason polls and MSM don't say so is because they know its true and desperately don't want her.

Until those two are settled on, we should all unite on Kucinich, so he can have some influence and possibly peel off a decent platform plank for the tiny minority of responsible decent non-ignorant American voters who still are the only hope for an actual better future in this country (as opposed to the majority, who seem to be fighting over competing visions of deterioration at slower vs. faster rates).

spk says: "The Clinton years were simply a slightly more fiscally responsible version of the Reagan years. As I've always said, Bill Clinton was the second best Republican President we've ever had after T. Roosevelt."

That's probably right. Hillary could be counted on to be a competent old-school style Republican(i.e. business oriented, fiscally conservative, non-religious whacko), with some so-called "liberal" leanings in areas like health care, taxes, and judicial nominations.

In all honesty, at this point, after what we've been through: That would be wonderful.

And don't forget: The environment, abortion, the U.N., multilateral foreign policy, food and drug safety regulations, the Justice Department, wiretapping and spying, "extraordinary rendition"... Hillary would undoubtedly be better than what we have now on those issues.

I totally reject the notion that the polls are being purposely skewed because "they" are afraid of Clinton. Your statement that "Hillary should be in the Pres position, she is more electable, the only reason polls and MSM don't say so is because they know its true and desperately don't want her", is totally false. Despite whatever happened with regard to polling last night in NH, It's pretty clear that Hillary is the underdog to McCain or Huckabee or Rudy which puts us in a very tenuous position if she gets the nomination.

With regard to Iraq, it would be a seamless neo-con transition if Hillary were somehow to win. If she loses, the transition to any of the likely Repugs would be equally seamless. In other words, permanent bases in Iraq and the continuation of the war on into the future.

About those polls last night. Very very strange. I've already called it unprecedented, but now I'm wondering if it was even possible without some outside meddling. I'm not saying voter fraud on Clinton's part, but for all the polls to be wrong by more than 14 points is just freaky. In fact, the only poll out of 17 polls to get it right was FoxNews! Every poll got the Republican side correct to within one point. What happened there? Just to start the conspiracy theory going, most of the votes in NH were tabulated by the optiscan voting tabulator. Some of the towns were counted by hand. In the towns counted by hand, Obama won by at least 6 points. In the ones tabulated by the machine, Clinton won by 14 points. Hmmmmmmm.

If most of the votes were tabulated by optiscan, and Hillary won those by 14 %, how come she won overall by only 3%?

I'm not sure what percentage were counted by optiscan exactly, but the examples I heard today showed the 12-14% versus 6-8% spread in machine versus hand counts. I think the more populated areas used the optiscan machine, but I'd have to check it. I'm sure more data will be coming out about the whole thing because the pollsters are not happy they look so incompetent. I'm thinking voter fraud is fairly unlikely as an explanation for the Clinton surprise win, but I found the above statistic very interesting.

Anonymous in comment #32 and 31,

The democratic primaries are not the time or place to begin voting for the "lesser of two evils", that time is during the General election if Clinton gets the nomination. The primaries are a way for we in the Democratic party to tell the party what we want the platform to look like. If you want a DLC Democrat--vote Clinton. If you want more Republican-lite, vote Clinton. But if you want change-real change, or if you want to telegraph your displeasure with the DLC of the Clinton's, vote Kucinich, Edwards or even Obama.

And as far as how wonderful Bill Clinton was for us, here's a walk down memory lane provided to us by Robert Scheer on his blog Truthdig:

"What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can’t be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton’s “unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House” without referencing the Clinton White House’s giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton’s key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation.

I am not trying to play the class card here by claiming that because Obama grew up black and middle-class he will therefore inevitably be that rare politician who remembers where he or she came from. Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family, disproved the notion about remembering. To his everlasting shame as president, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited. He faithfully served big corporate interests by signing off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which, as a gift to the banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, reversed consumer protection legislation from the New Deal era. Thanks to Bill Clinton, those pirates were allowed to merge into the largest conglomerates the world has ever witnessed and, adding insult to injury, to “data-mine,” thus sharing your most intimate financial and health information. Bill Clinton’s next biggest concession to the fat cats was the Telecommunications Act, which ended what was left of public control of the airwaves and permits mega-media corporations to grow even bigger. No wonder Rupert Murdock and Hillary Clinton now get on so famously."

Robert Scheer is a great guy and no dummy. Are you saying he believes Hillary is worse than Bush, Giuliani, Romney or Huckleberry?

Or that he believes Obama or Edwards are materially better than Hillary?

Get your big picture common sense back on track here. What we wouldn't give for Clinton's stand on welfare reform, telecommunications, and bank deregulation, if we could have that instead of the Patriot Act, the Iraq Invasion and Occupation, tax cuts for the wealthy, trillion dollar deficits, collapsing dollar, the mortgage fiasco, gutting the EPA and FDA, No Child Left Behind, the Kyoto failure, a bombed out U.N., becoming the enemy of the free and not-free world (i.e. the whole world), incompetence, warmongering, profiteering, Gitmo, "extraordinary rendition," the suspension of habeas corpus, Alito, Roberts, the Bush-appointed lower federal court judges, Cheney, Scooter, Karl Rove, drilling in the Arctic, suspension of the roadless rule, the gutting of the Endangered Species Act, the wholesale giveaway of federal lands for mining, timber, grazing, the Gonzales Justice Department, the Ashcroft Justice Department, Condoleeza Rice, the veto of SCHIP, the gutting of Social Security, post-Katrina, illegal wiretapping, Blackwater, Halliburton, paid political hacks blocking and rewriting scientific research, private industry political hacks in charge of key federal administrations, the Department of Homeland Security, torture, Abu Ghraib, "stop-loss", the "War On Terror"... and on and on.

The primaries are the process by which a front runner is anointed. The front runner will be Hillary, with Obama as VP. And that will be a winning ticket. The caveat is, primary voters can muck it all up to the point where Obama and Clinton refuse to appear on the same ticket, or do each other enough damage to let a Republican seem responsible to the idiot voters in this country who gave us Bush a second time. If the Dem base pushes them into that (or, more accurately, if the Dem base continues to be led by Republican and Fox News spinsters down that road), the whole country will pay the price.

If progressive voters can deliver a substantial vote for Kucinich in the primaries, we may be able to influence the Clinton/Obama platform in the general election. The more progressive the planks, the more compelling will be the overall ticket. American voters want a progressive platform - voters who think at all about substance want a chance to vote in their own interests. The rest of the dumbasses who gave us Bush the second time need to be convinced to stay away from the polls, or given some feelgood stories to ride on the ticket's coattails.

Conclusion: Our primary votes should go to Kucinich, with the recognition that the ticket is Clinton/Obama 2008. We don't have to be happy about that ticket, but let's make sure it wins, hopefully with a couple of solid progressive platform planks.

"The primaries are a way for we in the Democratic party to tell the party what we want the platform to look like."

spk, thanks for reiterating this!

I am still planning to vote for Dennis Kucinich because his values are most closely aligned with my own. He practices yoga, follows a vegan diet and has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq since its inception. He infuses spiritual philosophy into his rhetoric, truly sees that everything is connected, and believes that peace begins within.

Kucinich has a 100% voting record against funding the war and his 12 point plan to bring our troops home and stabilize Iraq is outlined on his web site, www.Dennis4president.com. Kucinich also got funding for the war veterans at a time when Congress was neglecting them.

Kucinich is still the only candidate who comes right out and says that the president and vice president should be impeached for war crimes.

Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act. When asked why he voted against it, he responded, "Because I read it!" He has also stated that groups like Green Peace and animal activists should not be dubbed terrorists. Using a loose definition of “Terrorism” to include activists of all kinds in its definition, The Patriot Act is evidently designed to silence war resisters and many others with different viewpoints.

Kucinich has warned people on the 2007/2008 campaign trail that the rights to due process of law are at stake under the current Administration.

Kucinich recently appeared on Bill Moyer's Journal in a segment about the Media and the Presidential Election. Having been rejected from the Des Moines Register debate before the Iowa caucuses and also the ABC News debate before New Hampshire, Kucinich told Moyer: "How can you have a debate if you don't have a voice that challenges all the others? "

Kucinich pointed out that " Right now every other Democrat on that stage will be for keeping our troops in Iraq through at least 2013. (I'm not sure if this date is correct.)

He also said, "Every other Democrat on the stage will be there to keep a for-profit healthcare system going with all of these Americans who don’t have coverage. Everyone else on the stage will be there for the continuation of NAFTA and the WTO."

Kucinich states that his position on the American political scene is to show people there’s a whole different direction that America can take here at home and in the world. He also points out that "The Democratic Party in narrowing the choices and the media in trying to block the point of view that I represent is really doing a disservice to the American people.”

We all have a responsibility to do our own research, think for ourselves, and vote for who we REALLY want!

And Kudos to anonymous #38 for this:

"Conclusion: Our primary votes should go to Kucinich, with the recognition that the ticket is Clinton/Obama 2008. We don't have to be happy about that ticket, but let's make sure it wins, hopefully with a couple of solid progressive platform planks."

Doesn't anybody care that we are still at war!

Dear Anonymous #41,
Yes, we care deeply.
That's also why we care about the election.

Suza, thanks for the great analysis of Kucinich...

Anon 41, if you're concerned about the war, Kucinich is your man.... that is clear, right?

spk,

Yesterday on Keith Olbermann there was an analysis of the pre-vote polling in NH and it confirmed what I said that the numbers predicted for Obama were correct........

what the pollsters missed was evidently the number of undecideds who went for Hillary at the last minute....

Do you agree that everyone deserves the same healthcare security
our leaders enjoy?

Then you might be interested in this California Nurses
Association e-activism campaign for REAL healthcare. If you go
to the web site below you can check out what is at stake and send
your own message directly to the relevant decision makers.

http://ga1.org/campaign/cheneycare?rk=4pekK3S1MAMaW

In all the hoopla about Obama and Clinton as the first frontrunner African-American and female Presidential candidates, respectively, on the Democratic side, people are ignoring a robust debate going on in the Republican camp over a potential first of their own:

Is America ready for the Devil himself to come out of the closet and run openly for President?

For years, Hell's servants have been content to be in the background, acting as high level advisors to Republican administrations.

But all that changed in 2000, when the devil's minion himself became the VP candidate, and then again, in 2004, when Hell's platform - war, occupation, torture, fear, division and hate - carried a majority (ironically, largely with the help of evangelical Christians who professed to abhor the Devil).

The big debate in Hell today is akin to the movement for gay pride in the '70s: If the American people are not only tolerant of the platform, but embrace it, why must the Devil and his minions stay in the closet, hidden in the background?

The debate has seeped into the Presidential primaries. Front-runners Huckabee and Romney argue strongly against an open candidacy by the Devil. "We would lose the evangelical vote, and then where would we be?" fretted a high-level advisor to the Romney camp. "Isn't it enough that we have pledged our allegiance to the Devil and promised a prominent role in any administration? Isn't enough that we have embraced the platform?"

Candidate Rudy Giuliani has taken a different tack. While no final decision has been made, according to high-level campaign officials, if his message of fear, war and hate is embraced on Super Tuesday, he is leaning strongly toward coming out as the Devil himself. "I think the voters have demonstrated over the past eight years that they are ready for the Devil as President," said Giuliani privately. "They already embrace Hell's platform. And frankly, I think the evangelicals will stick with us. What are they going to do - vote for Hillary?"

Stay tuned.

Why isn't Obama talking about the Iraq war? Meanwhile our troops are killing innocent women and children over there !

Exorcist,

The devil gets prostate cancer?

Why not spk? I would imagine the Devil is riddled with all sorts of loathsome diseases.

Meanwhile, the Republicans really are debating this question in earnest. When Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani, the evangelical base began debating whether Robertson was the devil, or just his henchman:

http://soldierservant.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/pat-robertson-proves-his-apostasy-by-endorsing-rudy-giuliani/

Jerry Falwell has argued that Republicans would prefer the Devil himself over Hillary:

""... I hope she [Hillary] is the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton... If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003272973_jerry24.html

Rolling Stone: Giuliani Worse Than Bush
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/020607Stone.htm

o.k., kids.... let's get back to reality here.... what does the future hold?? is it going to be Hillary or Barack? now is the time to place your bets......

Hold up a minute Solomon. There's not going to be a clear nominee until the Convention in Denver in August. Either there will be a lot of horse trading and Clinton or Obama will slide in, or there will be a floor draft. But that will not be decided until the convention, so giving delegates to the progressives Edwards or Kucinich strengthens the progressive side of the party and keeps those two honest.

look, who i vote for and who i predict are two different things....... forget about who i vote for, o,k.??....... who i predict is ........ je ne sais quois.............

Exorcist:

I thought the Anti-Christ was ALREADY IN the White House...

O.K., I am going to stick my neck out and weigh in with predictions. Not my preferences -- just what I think is going to happen.

1. We have only seen the beginning of the Obama phenomenon. The surge of support for him is going to grow into a tidal wave.

2. We have only seen the beginning of the anti-Obama attacks from the Clinton camp. They will adopt a no-holds-barred, scorched earth policy that will astonish their friends and enemies alike. They will not be able to stop Obama, but they will leave behind a legacy of deep bitterness and division within the party.

3. The Republicans, whoever they nominate, will only have to piggyback upon the Clinton attacks against Obama -- replay and amplify those attacks in various ways -- and for that reason -- and only for that reason -- will squeak into the White House yet again.

I agree with you David about the Republicans getting the white house again IF they run McCain and the Dems run Obama.
We WILL have McCain as president if the Democrats run Obama. SCARY but true.
Hillary will give Obama a run for his money and may very well be the candidate but her chances with the "heartland" are not much better than his. The Clintons are political animals but don't underestimate Obama's anti-union, corporate, back room dealing and political manuevering. You call it a tidal wave of support, I see it as having one of two might-as-well-be Republican choices forced down our throats.
Edwards is the only candidate who will appeal to the swing voters AND is a social progressive. He is being shut out by the media because of his anti-corporate, pro union rhetoric. They barely mention his name and he is not that far behind in the polls. Kucinich is a good man but is not a realistic option.

Yikes MO and David,

You guys are pretty pessimistic sounding. The conventional wisdom holds that a big fight in the primary stage might weaken the eventual nominee. As usual, I think the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. A prolonged Democratic nomination process that doesn't end until August at the convention in Denver is the best of all possible worlds for us.

As I've said above the Republicans don't have proportional representation, and as a result they are likely to have a nominee by late March. It will probably be Huckabee, not McCain. So in March the Republicans will switch from their primary mode to general election mode. The only trouble for them is, we'll still be in the full swing of primary mode. So when the Republican candidate for president starts using all that Republican money to attack, he'll have to attack three people.

Media time is finite. Huckabee/McCain will open his mouth and make some outrageous statement and the media will have to go ask three different Democrats what they thought of the insane statement made by the Republican. Each Democrat has a staff that will all be trying to outdo each other in their response to the lone Republican. We'll have a three to one advantage on all campaign issues in media time. Which of the Democrats are the Republicans going to try and "swift-boat"? They won't be able to do all three because their credibility sustain hold that much simultaneous lying. If they choose only one, the other Democrats will denounce the story and the Republican as false. Think about it, the first Swift Boats for Truth ad against Kerry went out in early May. This is because Kerry had already clinched the nomination and had become vulnerable to attack as the Democratic candidate for president. This time, there will not be a clear candidate on our side until Aug. 28th, just over two months before the election.

Another reason this is good is the media itself. Being owned by giant corporate conglomerates, they have a vested interest as we saw in 200 and 2004 to bash Democrats who might uphold the Sherman Antitrust Act or seek to curtail their corporate power in other ways. The media will be so busy covering the horse race aspect of the Democratic nominating process, and controversy at the convention, they won't have time to focus on any one Democrat and his/her hair. The bounce from the convention will be huge and will carry us right into the general election as a united front. Under this scenario, it might even be possible for Clinton to win.

So don't be afraid of the Democrats much more democratic nominating process. It's going to help us this time.

I like your reasoning spk. I was venting my fears. This Is a very different race this time.
But do you really think that the Republicans will run "Huckleby"? I suppose if they cowtow to the Christian right again they will. I see McCain as much more electable for them because of his appeal to the so called independents.
Both conventions will be fascinating.

I am so impressed by the calibre of these political posts! I'm consulting them for my editorials. Thank you!

I think we are watching the final demise of the democratic party. All of the candidates on the democratic side don't have a dimes worth of difference between them. They all are afraid to say "Islamic terrorist" I've never heard a one of them utter the phrase. When it comes down to the actual election the American people are not going to go for a "Chamberlin" appeasment type candidate. I think it will come down to Rommney, Guiliani, or Fred Thompson on the republican side. My first pick, I think, would be Rommney, mainly because he has actually run a number of businesses where as the rest of them haven't really done anything in the real world besides being politicians. Rommney has also run a state, and we tend to pick governers as our presidents. He is also one of the closest to being a Reagan conservative. However, the other two are good also. Republicans will not choose McCain, he's not really a conservative, he's wrong on immigration and some other social issues. The only thing he is right on is Iraq. About the only thing I can say positive about Oboma and Clinton is that they both support the increase building of nuclear power plants.

Nice to get a perspective from the "other side of the aisle."

The liberal blogger Markos Koulitsas (The Daily Kos) is encouraging liberals in Michigan to vote for Romney just to keep his sinking campaign afloat a while longer and keep the Repubs fighting one another that much longer.

Fred Thompson got one percent of the vote in New Hampshire.

Rudy Giuliani can't pay his staff people this month.

So your preference for one of these three, Brian, seems like an exercise in finding the least weak among a bunch of weak candidates.

Just vote Obama Brian, he's pro-nuclear(fission) power.

HILLARY??????????////[[--

OBAMA, YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS