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

14% of precincts reporting

Barack Obama - 39,377 - 53%
Hillary Clinton - 20,899 - 28%
John Edwards - 14,321 - 19%
Dennis Kucinich - 79 - 0%
Mike Gravel - 27 - 0%

That's a large lead in a southern state. I think it's clear that Obama is our strongest candidate for the south. He may win with 60-70%. In contrast, Clinton won in Michigan with only 55% where she was the only of the three main candidates on the ballot.

74% of precincts reporting

Barack Obama - 203,077 - 54%
Hillary Clinton - 101,790 - 27%
John Edwards - 69,826 - 19%
Dennis Kucinich - 407 - 0%

YIPPEE!!!!

Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy, has written an op-ed appearing in tomorrow's NYT. Check it out. A few paragraphs:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Barack rocks....

I was afraid the Clintons would destroy him before he could get fully airborne, but it looks like their efforts only made him stronger.

It will be interesting to see what ammunition they unleash in the next ten days, when California and 21 other states weigh in....

South Carolina Victory Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ

Now about Dennis the Menace............

proof positive that you can run for president for the sole purpose of getting laid. if you can get people to contribute then you can get chicks with other people's money. get your money for nothing and your chicks for free

poetryman:

not a poet

not a man

and his views

as false as his name

I am obviously in the minority here but I feel compelled to chime in. What concerns me about Obama (as I’ve said before) is the obvious lack of seasoning and experience. Many don’t feel those political characteristics to be as important as his obvious oratory prowess, incredible charm and wonderful ability to get people to unite in a feel-good, optimistic manner rarely seen in contemporary politics. It’s understandable and at times I was so enamored while listening to him that I was almost swayed to jump on board. (And if he doesn’t win the Presidency this time around for whatever reason, I hope he is around in another 8 or so years so that I CAN vote for him) But, these traits alone don’t an effective President make. History may certainly prove me wrong, and he could win and get some quick and intense on-the-job training and all will be well. I don’t like those chances. I would much rather entrust my vote and confidence to someone who has proven time and again her ability to get things done, to fight for what is right (children’s issues, health-care reform, etc.) and who possesses the strength, brilliance and political wherewithal necessary.

This sums up why many of us are sticking with Hilary. From the Desmoines Register’s Editorial Board:

“Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.

The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From working for children’s rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.

That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.

Unfortunately, for many Americans, perceptions of Clinton, now 60, remain stuck in a 1990s time warp. She’s regarded as the one who fumbled health-care reform as a key policy adviser to her husband, President Bill Clinton, or as a driving force in the bitter standoff between the Clinton machine and the vast right-wing conspiracy. Her record in the Senate belies those images. Today, she’s widely praised for working across the aisle with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans.

Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clintons life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation’s first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)
Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.

The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country."

What LTOR just shared is one of the reasons I can't support Hillary Clinton. What we need in the White House is something radically different and not the status quo. Hillary Clinton is the status quo. Granted, she has five years more national political experience than Obama, which is important but not a decider for me.

Dear Kenly- thank you so much for posting Obama's victory speech. I really didn't know anything about him. I've given up on politics, tired and corrupt, an uphill battle all the way. However I was moved to joyful tears listening to Obama. Beautiful, vigorous and so Fresh. Is it really possible?? How lovely - to offer hope again to Americans and people all over the world. So Inspiring - I'm voting again and passing on the video.

That was a hell of a speech.

Kenley-

the "status quo"?
uh, Hillary is a woman! (not like Ann Coulter, a woman with an Adam's Apple).

That is radical for America, where women couldn't vote till...

Obama will lose steam... and not because the Clinton's undermined him, but because America ain't ready for a Black Prez, even if he has the gift of gab and has beautiful skin.

The Dems ain't that dumb...or are they??

Hillary will much more easily inspire women than Obama will inspire the oppressed.

Are you a woman? Hilary doesn't inspire women. How many women do you know with an adams apple? She's tired and bought. An unfaithful husband and a Washington that hates her. Yes, it is a marvel to see a woman running for the highest office - but Hilary? I don't think so. Obama doesn't only inspire and represent the oppressed - he inspires the free, intelligent, the visionaries, the hopeful of this country. Let's all pray the "Dems are that dumb!" and take a visionary step, instead of business as usual.

"Hilary doesn't inspire women."

Uh...sorry?

Perhaps you meant to say that Hilary doesn't inspire you or your particular set of female friends. Surely you're not trying to speak for all of us out here...

Obama will lose against Romney once the battle of ideas is joined.

Obama has an 18 point lead over Romney in a head-to-head matchup, trending towards Obama, before South Carolina.

And "double Guantanamo" has the "ideas" that are going to reverse that? The GOP loses on every issue, because when you have a platform of "government=bad", then you get what you elect, a bad government. What people want now is everything that Bushco. and the GOP doesn't provide: a nation of hope and opportunity that prioritizes healthcare, education, our economy, American jobs and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and not relying on war and fear to try and cram another one-trick candidate down our throats.

Tell you what, Brian, you put $1,000 on your dream matchup in the Iowa Electronic Market and let us know how it goes.

No Way ! I ain't betting on this horse race ! By the time August - September rolls around we might be looking at two candidates not even in the running right now.

We are in total agreement, Brian!

That's got to be a first.

Well, actually, I would be shocked if it wasn't Hillary or Obama on the left, but suffice it to say that I wouldn't bet Romney over Obama. :)

Some interesting observations over at Calitics, a progressive online community for California.

Kenley - Here's one for you on Obama building the Winning Democratic Coalition from one of my favorite bloggers, Kid Oakland.

(It's moments like these that I gain a certain amount of respect for the courage of Brian to post here. It's HARD holding fast to contrarian points of view here on the OP. :)

Taken from the comments section of a BBC News report on Obama. It sums up my views pretty succintly (and reflects the position on many of my friends and acquaitances in other parts of the world - note that the commenter is not an American) especially my thoughts on those who would so easily endorse a candidate after hearing one, single speech.

"Hery Mulyana wrote:
I believe that the future president of USA has a tough job, i emphasize again,a tough job. In only four years...if he or she is elected again, then it would be maximum 8 years. In that short time, he or she must solve US economic problem that begin into recession since Bush administration. Although i am not an American citizen,i wrote this not because i care for your country,honestly, but because your economy affects the rest of the world. So, American people, choose the candidate WHO HAS CLEAR ABILITY AND CAPACITY to lead, not ability or capacity just speaking in front of the crowd. Believe in me...doing is much more harder than just talking! Don't be blind again like you did when you all chose Bush."

I like Obama's positive attitude, but he still has the same basic democrat play book. Socialized medicine, raise taxes, more government regulation, and the inability to have an energy policy where we rely on our own resources, like drilling for oil in Anwar. His main pronouncment of what he would do is change. But he never really says what the "change" is. I know the democrats are praying for the economy to fall into a recession but I don't think that is going to happen. The past six years we have seen incredible growth and a very strong economy, and this was from a start of a recession after 9/11. Many of the ecomonic indicators show a strong economy except the housing market which is throwing things off. I think our biggest problem is that we are losing our manufacturing capability, everything is going to China and India. We are losing high tech manufacturing to these countries partly because of the high cost of doing business here in the US, government regulation, the high cost of energy and if you add on a health care system that employer will be forced to pay that will add to the problem. We need a better environment for companies to stay in the US insead of sending everything off shore and I don't mean losening any environmental protections. Mainly our energy infustructure needs to be changed. We can't be buying all of our oil from the middle east, we have to be able to drill here at home so we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The democrats, like Barbara Boxer have block this time and time again, just like they have blocked nuclear power. We were forced to secure the middle east to prevent a world wide economic collapse due to the disruption of the oil supply. Our country and all the western countries run on oil, without it everything comes to a grinding halt, food production, manufacturing, transportation, everything. Energy is the key, we need to become energy independant to some degree. If alternative energies can compete then then they will become an addition to the total energy picture but we will need reliable abundant power if we desire to be a prosperous country. And we need to get illegal imigration under control, it is taxing our health care system and our schools. And if you add in a stupid global warming tax on businesses and people, that is just going to send more jobs and manufacturing overseas to countries who are not concerned (rightly so) about global warming.

"We were forced to secure the middle east to prevent a world wide economic collapse due to the disruption of the oil supply".

Hey Brian, maybe I'm incorrectly attributing this to you because you are the OP's most vocal Republican, but what happened to WMD and the Al Qaeda connection? I thought that's what it was all about for many in your party.

LTOR,
WMD's and Al Qaeda are both means by which our energy dependance are threatened, do you see the connection?

So it was all about oil! Thank you. Finally. What I'm saying, Brian, is that when all of us were saying just that, many in your party (I don't know if you were one of them) were trying to deflect that criticism with fear-based tactics (WMD and Saddam's supposed connection to Bin Laden - which we of course know is totally inaccurate).

Subject: MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD ALL OVER, DOESN'T IT?

This is disgusting! This is really disgusting...be sure to read it all...

If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate seat and either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas .

About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Security check....but I wouldn't bet on it....

I understand ole Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years. What a guy!

AND THE REST OF THE STORY...

Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,' which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies.

(Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?)

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies.

If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies.

Guess who pays for that?

It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, N Y.

Makes sense!

They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life .

Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence 'had' to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is about equal to their mortgage payment.

This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff -- and, this is all perfectly legal!

As she runs for President, will YOU vote for her?

DONT FORGET WHEN THEY WERE CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS THEY COULDNT REMEMBER ANYTHING BUT NOW EACH OF THEM HAS WRITTEN A BOOK ABOUT THEIR LIVES AND BETWEEN THEM GOTTEN PAID 14 MILLION DOLLARS IN ADVANCE.
ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE FOR OBAMA

Any one know the source of #30? Is this true?

LTOR

Experience is heavily overrated. If experience was so hot, things should be great now. Don't forget that there is no one with more experience than Cheney and Rumsfeld. As for the gender issue. The fact that Hillary is a woman shouldn't get in the way of seeing her corporatist background. I'll remind you that the most right wing, viscous, corporatist Prime Minister in the history of Great Britain was also the first female Prime Minister--Margaret Thatcher. I have zero problems voting for a woman, put Boxer in there and I'll vote for her, but I won't vote for more of the same insanity we seen in this country for the last 30 years.

Tyler,
I agree all politicians lie
but BILL was the only one to lie under oath, broadcasted world wide.

Ron - I think that's in large part a symptom of the system as it is set up. The Bushies (41 and 43) would have a similar story I am sure.

Just to provide a bit of contrast, the President of the US manages a trillion dollar economy, the largest military in the world and has to be an expert on any number of policy decisions. His or her pension and associated costs, which may number a couple million a year, absolutely pale in comparison to the multi-national corporations, where CEO's of a $100 billion company (a tiny fraction of the size of the US economy) routinely pull down $100 million a year in salary/bonuses and walk away with hundreds of millions even if they drove their company into the ground.

So while there are plenty of good reasons, in my opinion, to questions whether The Clintons would make good White House residents, I don't think that the associated post-office costs to the taxpayer are a particularly compelling reason to vote for or against.

Ron -

that's why Bush, Cheney, etc. refuse to testify under oath!

And what Bill lied about (which I am not condoning), the subject matter being a personal indiscretion, hardly measures up to the lies of the Bush Administration, which took us into a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

This lying thing is really an apples-and-oranges comparison, in my opinion.

And no one died when Clinton lied!

TYLER, BILL experienced a personal indiscretion??//. really.. I do agree on the bush , cheney record, its past time for them to go.

Apples and oranges??a lie is a lie, even under oath.

SPK, I guess my position at the moment is that it’s not just experience, but the right kind of experience that makes me a fan of Hilary’s (and not because she’s a woman. I was living in London during part of the Thatcher regime. I was revolted by her just as much as I was by her ideological bedfellow –Reagan). Despite the current backlash against Bill Clinton, I am just as much wanting him back in the White House as I do her. The best bang for our buck, as far as I’m concerned.

Remember, Hilary wrote a healthcare reform package that, from what I gathered at the time, was workable. Even a few of her detractors thought it was “damn near brilliant”. She was eaten alive by the insurance companies; I think much of her subsequent determination to “work within the system” stems from that failed attempt. I truly believe her heart and focus is in the right place on most of the important issues. Her work on behalf of children’s and educational issues precedes her time in the White House. Whether or not she and Bill were at fault for the political divisions of the 90’s is open to interpretation. I blame Newt, Ken Starr and the rest of the Republicans who just became apoplectic at the very thought of the two of them garnering any sort of power.

Our biggest concern should be getting the criminals out of the White House and making certain that such a horror show never happens again . We have two brilliant Democratic candidates. My dream would be getting Hilary in for 8 years (I doubt she will run again at 68) and then a more seasoned Obama for another 8. Enough time to wipe out the evil taste in our mouths from the current regime.

LTOR --

I think you have revealed another depth to the situation by admitting you would like to see Bill back in the White House. I for one would be a LOT more inclined to favor Hillary if she were not attached to Bill. But apart from my personal inclinations, we have a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a person from serving more than two terms as President, and the way Bill has melded himself into the Hillary candidacy, I really feel he is violating the spirit of that Amendment.

If the election were a Supreme Court case and Bill were sitting on the Court, he would have to RECUSE himself from considering the case, since his self-interest in it would be so conspicuous and undeniable. By running around the country and injecting himself so thoroughly into this contest he similarly demeans himself and her. He is not just some spouse, he is a former President, and he is using his office to weigh in very emphatically and vigorously on an issue where he has a tremendous vested personal self-interest.

This is why I find his current behavior disgraceful to the office and why the idea of returning him to the White House makes me ill. He just wants to be President all over again and is riding the coattails of his WIFE to get there.

That's how I see it too.

"I really feel he is violating the spirit of that Amendment"

I agree!

David, this isn’t a court case where two opposing sides are being adjudicated. This is a political situation where two people have the same agenda, are working for the same goal and many of us feel there is a real benefit in the “two for the price of one”. Frankly, I don’t see any conflict of issue situation here. I’m obviously not among fellow believers on this issue here on the OP, but I wouldn’t discount this very sentiment in many other places. But hey, enjoy! Obama is on fire!

Meant to say, of course, "conflict of interest"...

And furthermore, it is because our Constitution and The Bill of Rights (and every thing else we hold sacred) has been shot to hell by the current Administration that we need a team in there who know how to get things done and turn things around. They did it once (even while getting the crap kicked out of them). Remember the Reagan deficit and how vilified we were around the world? Remember when things started to trickle up instead of down? Remember the FIRST time you swore you were going to move to France (or New Zealand or wherever) if he got four more years? (Well, many of you are way too young for that, but you know what I'm talking about). I guess I'm not clear about all the vitriol towards Clinton. Many believe he will go down in history as one of the best, and most popular Presidents. (I guess I should be careful what I ask for - I'm sure many of you will tell me exaclty what you feel. :)

I don't see why the democrats have to always measure all of their candidates as to how they are so like JFK. They did this same thing with Clinton when he was running. The only similarity with Clinton was his "indiscretions". And after all it was JFK who got us into Vietnam. They are now camparing Obama to JFK, why can't they just let the guy carve out his own character.

Interesting point, Brian, but a couple comments.

1) its not just "they" saying it - its Caroline Kennedy, JFK's daughter, explicitly saying it

2) the GOP, from Bush to the pundits to the current candidates themselves, deify Reagan, and invoke his name at every opportunity.

Come on, its ridiculously easy to simply re-write your first sentence as "I don't see why the Republicans have to always measure all of their candidates as to how they are so like Reagan, and why the candidates compare themselves to Reagan."

3) it's human nature to compare individuals to those that came before. Whether its comparisons to Reagan, JFK, Mother Theresa or Babe Ruth, its not just the Dems or Repubs that do it.

It's funny how the Repubs invoke Reagan's name all the time now, "I'm a Reagan Republican!" You never hear them say, "I'm a Bush Republican!" Yeah, suddenly they're all Reagan Republicans, only the ones saying it the loudest can't even spell his name.

HA! This is three minutes of hilarity: Highlight Reel: South Carolina Ronald Reagan Debate. Brian, this is going to crack you up.

Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan........You've ruined me, I'll never be able to say R***** ever again !

Very funny! And a big thanks to Brian for walking right into that one!! :)

i do love this man:

"One Bush Left Behind

by Greg Palast

Here’s your question, class:

In his State of the Union, the President asked Congress for $300 million for poor kids in the inner city. As there are, officially, 15 million children in America living in poverty, how much is that per child? Correct! $20.

Here’s your second question. The President also demanded that Congress extend his tax cuts. The cost: $4.3 trillion over ten years. The big recipients are millionaires. And the number of millionaires happens, not coincidentally, to equal the number of poor kids, roughly 15 million of them. OK class: what is the cost of the tax cut per millionaire? That’s right, Richie, $287,000 apiece.

Mr. Bush said, “In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them.”

So how much educational dreaming will $20 buy?

-George Bush’s alma mater, Phillips Andover Academy, tells us their annual tuition is $37,200. The $20 “Pell Grant for Kids,” as the White House calls it, will buy a poor kid about 35 minutes of this educational dream. So they’ll have to wake up quickly.

-$20 won’t cover the cost of the final book in the Harry Potter series.

If you can’t buy a book nor pay tuition with a sawbuck, what exactly can a poor kid buy with $20 in urban America? The Palast Investigative Team donned baseball caps and big pants and discovered we could obtain what local citizens call a “rock” of crack cocaine. For $20, we were guaranteed we could fulfill any kid’s dream for at least 15 minutes.

Now we could see the incontrovertible logic in what appeared to be quixotic ravings by the President about free trade with Colombia, Pell Grant for Kids and the surge in Iraq. In Iraq, General Petraeus tells us we must continue to feed in troops for another ten years. There is no way the military can recruit these freedom fighters unless our lower income youth are high, hooked and desperate. Don’t say, ‘crack vials,’ they’re, ‘Democracy Rocks’!

The plan would have been clearer if Mr. Bush had kept in his speech the line from his original draft which read, “I have ordered 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year – and I am proud to say my military-age kids are not among them.”

Of course, there’s an effective alternative to Mr. Bush’s plan – which won’t cost a penny more. Simply turn it upside down. Let’s give each millionaire in America a $20 bill, and every poor child $287,000.

And, there’s an added benefit to this alternative. Had we turned Mr. Bush and his plan upside down, he could have spoken to Congress from his heart.

-For more on Bush and education read "No Child's Behind Left" in Armed Madhouse excerpted here.
-Also read Palast's take on the 2007 State of the Union here.

*************
Greg Palast is the author of the NY Times best-sellers, Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. View Palast's investigative reports for BBC Television on our YouTube Channel.

Join our social networking sites on Facebook on MySpace and on Google's Orkut. Sign up for RSS updates of our site and for our podcasts.

Support our work by donating to the Palast Investigative Fund(a 501c3 educational foundation)."

Thanks El Anonimo! That Greg Palast is too astute for this world!
Great books, great writing, great web site.

Here's Barack's response:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/sotu

You're a good sport, Brian. Ha!

Indeed he is!

Suza - thanks for the link to Barack's response.

As with each of this candidate's pronouncements, I continue to be underwhelmed.

His politics of "hope" are politics of naivete so long as he believes that Bush Republicans, DNC Democrats and the like are all going to stand and applaud him as he brings health care to every American, ends the war, etc. etc.

I would have much more confidence if he would acknowledge that the past eight years have been in the grip of an ideology that has once again been proven a failure, as it has every time it has been tried for nearly one hundred years. "Free market conservatism" always destroys this country, resulting in recession or Depression, and militarism run amok. It is a failed ideology, a fact acknowledged by competent economists, and denied only by reality-challenged, committed ideologues - including Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee, to name a few - who, like the remnants of true-believing communists, fervently claim that their ideology didn't fail, it just "has never really been tried."

Barack, tell us that you will unite around smart, common sense policies that have proven they work, and that you have the strength and judgment to DIVIDE over wrongheaded policies, or with those who do not have our people's best interests at heart, and I will feel more confident that you might have what we need at this dire time.

Instead, Barack funds the war, and displays what is either contempt for our intelligence or his own ignorance by talking like there is something legitimate to win in Iraq, talking like the "surge" could "work", talking like the problem in Iraq is the Iraqi people and their "divisions," and the "terrorists", when it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the problem, the ONLY problem, is our occupation. Hello?

Barack says he will bring health care to every American. But unless I read his "plan" wrong, what he's talking about is health insurance for everyone. He sounds like he would be for the insurance mandate debacle that thankfully, the California legislature killed yesterday. Does Barack not understand that health insurance does not equal access to health care?

(Hillary, on the other hand, uses a clever euphemism so as not to draw the fire of the insurance lobbyists ("the same health plan options that members of COngress receive"), but make no mistake, when she says anyone should be able to choose Medicare, she is taking us to a true universal health care plan, albeit through the back door.)

We don't need false politics of "hope" and togetherness. We need competent leadership that can stand up to the Repugnicans and get us back on track. If Barack can do that, great. But I wish he'd make it more clear.

As it stands, Fox News loves the guy, and the right seems to relish having him as the front-runner. Whether that's because they think they can beat him, or because they think they can work with him, tie him up in knots, and continue business as usual under a Barack administration - or all of the above - I don't know, but none of those possibilities can be good.

That's why I wish Kucinich was still in the running!

Last night I dreamed he and Elizabeth were back in Ojai, staying at the Ojai Retreat, recovering from the stress of running for President...

http://www.ojaipost.com/2008/01/a_man_with_the_courage_of_a_li_1.shtml

Wait a minute...is "Wary" LTOR?

sounds like an invitation that needs to be made, Suza!

Greetings from Arizona, the site of a really big sporting event. No I'm not a big football fan, I'm just working. Boy am I glad we passed some sort of chain ordinance in Ojai. It's really really grim here in and ALL around Phoenix. I drove on surface streets in one direction for 20 miles today and it was nothing but corporate chain after corporate chain. It was like an old cartoon where the background is simply on a constant loop: Chili's, Home Depot, Fridays, Starbucks, Lowe's, any fast food chain, Chili's, Home Depot, Fridays, Starbucks, Lowe's, etc., etc. Surreal.

So McCain won in Florida tonight. Rudy ends his bid, but don't think we're rid of "America's Mayor" who thought it was a good idea to locate the emergency response center in the only building in Manhattan that had been attacked by terrorists previously. Like I said, I'm in Arizona so I've seen more FUAX News in the last few days than ever before. It seems to be the default channel on all the televisions everywhere. Well, after local boy McCain's win tonight, Fox is claiming that the fix is in and that he will be picking Rudy as his running mate. Cue the Halloween Horror scream. It's a formidable ticket, and probably the last nail in the coffin if it ends up winning against our candidate in November. I'm sorry to say this, but I have a really bad feeling on this one. The same feeling I had on election night in 2000 and 2004.

It seems to me that if Clinton gets the nomination in August, the air will flow out of the election on the Democratic side like a collapsing soufflé. The majority of the American Electorate who DO NOT vote will see no reason to show up at the polls this year either. The progressive left will be seriously underwhelmed and we are liable to lose a large, possible majority, of them on election day as well. Add to this depressed turnout the inevitable cheating and voter machine manipulation that characterized the vote in 2004, and John McCain will be the next President of the United States. Short of an indy run by a Ron Paul, I see no way that Clinton can win in 2008. She is simply too divisive. The moderate Republicans that have been talking about Obama will show up in droves just to vote against her. The Evangelicals that hate McCain and have been threatening to sit this one out like they did in 2006, will show up enmasse to vote against her. The left of the Democratic party won't show much support. And the vast, untapped majority of the electorate that DO NOT vote will not be inspired to do so this time either. I'm sorry, but it's an ugly picture.

If Obama gets the nomination, there might be--dare I say it, Hope. Disagree with me, that's fine. But do this. Spend a little bit of time before Feb. 5th and go on youtube or google video and look at the speeches by Obama. Then look at the speeches by Clinton. If you have way too much time on your hands, look at some other political orators like Kennedy, Roosevelt, or even Eisenhower(especially his farewell address), Churchill or Reagan(the great communicator). Compare and contrast them and realize that our only chance lies in rousing the majority of Americans who don't vote. Many of these eligible non-voters fail to vote because they see nobody running in either party that will make a difference for them. Nobody speaks to them. Listening to the speeches that Obama has made so far makes me think he might just reach these people. I don't think anyone else can.

Greetings from Ojai to Arizona...you are missing all the snow on the mountains...if your Halloween horror predictions come true I am taking the boat back to Amsterdam...

spk, can you predict lotto numbers? Or the Republicans getting in a plane crash? Anything that can give us a sense of hope?

My God, McCain and Giuliani... But, hell please freeze over first, you might be right. Bush/Cheney gave Romney the kiss of death by having Cheney's daughter endorse him. (Romney: "NOOOooooo...! I don't know these people!") That leaves *heart* Hucksterbee to duke it out for VP with Ruby Rudy.

Rudy and McCain both could do a nice tag team campaign. Its all about the terrorists. "We won't surrender," says your future President. "The terrorists will surrender." (Yes, that's a quote.) Like in Vietnam. If we'd only stayed in Vietnam longer - they were on the verge of surrender! McCain sure learned alot during his time in the POW camp I guess.

But does McCain like the openly corrupt, money-grubbing wife-cheating twice-divorced three-times-maligned cross-dressing "nuke'em Cowboy!" brand of Republican that Giuliani represents? Those guys have never done McCain any favors in the past. I don't know, seems to me McCain is going to stay away from all the unsavory baggage that comes with a dirty cheating carpetbagging shameless self-promoter like Giuliani.

And the feeling will go both ways. Do you think Giuliani, Bush/Cheney and the rest of their camp trust McCain to openly steal the election? When the crunch time comes, and the Repugnican candidiate is pushed out onstage to claim victory with a straight face, do you think they believe McCain will pull through? I don't think so. I don't think they are sure they can count on him. They need a wife-cheating alcohol-besotted red-nosed Repug like Rudy up front.

But, if you're right, let me add a prediction: McCain would not last six months before keeling over in mysterious circumstances. Leaving Giuliani to assume the Presidency for the remainder of the term.

It might not even go that far. They might knock McCain off on election night, since they know they can count on Rudy to get up there and strut victory with the voting machines and Supreme Court behind him.

Holy Jesus, I think you've divined the Repugnican strategy.

All you Clinton bashers, imagine what a Clinton presidency might have been like with a Democratic Congress.

Clinton was under assault nearly his entire Presidency! Anyone remember Ken Starr?

And he still managed to give us the best Presidency and the best eight years this country has seen in most peoples' lifetime. Even with all its many flaws.

Obama may be great, and maybe we'll get a chance to find out, if we're going to take a chance. But the Clintons with a Democratic Congress, a discredited opposition, and all the experience just might surprise all of you with selective memories, who seem to keep confusing the Republicans and their talking points with the actual record of what the Clintons came to office trying to do, and left office having accomplished, despite having a Congress controlled by a shameless opposition and even being impeached.

Hillary's war record is atrocious. But Obama's is no better. And neither is Edwards. Unfortunately, we don't have a choice this year on the war, other than between the Republicans and the Dems. So, we need to compare these people on issues other than the war, as central as that is. Hillary is not a warmonger, and anyway, she would likely be better than Obama at actually getting the troops out and stabilizing the situation there, if for no reason other than she has more credibility abroad.

For those of you with longer memories: JFK brought hope and inspiration. But he also almost brought us nuclear annihilation with the horrible game of chicken he played with the Soviets (thank God they had some sense and humanity). And then the Bay of Pigs.

Hope and inspiration and feel-good politics are nice. But right now, things are not so good in the world. We need competence, first and foremost.

Hi Suza,

No, Wary and the Anonymous entries were not mine. They do, obviously, mirror my feelings however and it’s refreshing for me to see both sides weighing in here.

I think it’s important to begin to try to do some strategic thinking, in the way that SPK does. I obviously want Hilary to win. But if I thought for one minute that she could not win in the Fall I would immediately (albeit with a grave heart) throw her under a bus and change my vote to a candidate who could prevail. In a heartbeat!

BUT, my feelings are similar to SPK except that I have the same fear about Obama. I fear all those “pointy heads” (both literal and metaphoric, both unabashedly out in the open and in the closet) who don’t vote because they are either too ignorant, too lazy or too busy polishing their guns and waving their Confederate Flags (in the South) or are too consumed with trying to overthrow the US government and re-fighting the Revolution (in the Western States). I fear they will come out in droves (be sent out?) to vote AGAINST a black man. (Dare I say it, I might even have a few of these types in my own darn family!!) And maybe, like one poster said above, that is why the “other side” is so giddy about Obama’s latest popularity.

Another thing, SPK – you obviously have a handle on understanding all of this. I just don’t get the sheer hatred for Hilary. Where does it come from? Has the myth of this far outgrown the reality of it? Can people really and clearly articulate what she has done wrong? I wonder….

Also, what are your thoughts on what the various Democratic tickets could be? What about Hilary/Obama. Could that ever happen? (I know I'm dreaming here.) Wouldn't that be a slam dunk at 16 years in the White House? Or if our fears about all of those non-voters were true, could that just double the trouble at election time.

Maybe, practically speaking, we should all be voting for Edwards. And if it’s “change” we actually want, then definitely. Although, I would hope people like Mr. Rowe wouldn’t begrudge him the extra security because SPK isn’t the only one thinking about assassination attempts. Does anyone really think Big Business and the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries would LET him implement all the stuff he’s talking about???

SPK’s post scares the bejesus out of me? Could it really be possible that we could have even ONE more year of this, let alone16?!?! If this country allows that, then put a fork in us, we’re F-ing done!

Hey Tyler, can one access the Ojai Post from France? :)

seems like a good time and place to inject a thought about acting locally (while thinking nationally/globally):

increased voter turnout: can we be the change we wish to see by making Ojai the most-votingest place in our County? can we commit to talking it up to our neighbors? can we organize some Voting Day shuttles to take people to the polls? should we walk the precincts to encourage voting? is it realistic to pursue making Voting Day a local holiday (gasp!)?

"when you pray, move your feet" -African proverb
"quit bitching and move your ass" -American proverb

Amen to that, Evan!

Ooops, sorry - evan. I capitalize by habit.

I also want to say: what you wrote above sounds like that would be right up your alley!

Well, there goes another one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7217838.stm

LTOR: i appreciate your attention to detail and your honor of my identity!

you speak true that what i wrote about is right up my alley, and it's been a back-burner idea for the Ojai Peace Coalition to take on for some time now. but i can't do it alone: it's going to require energy from a COMMUNITY, and hence my appeal here. what say you, Ojai?

With Edwards dropping out, I am tempted to opt out of voting for a candidate in the primary. May vote for Edwards anyway. I just don't feel that EITHER Hillary or Barrack will have any luck with the swing voters in the general election...my gut is telling me that John McCain will be the next president. I think that he will pick a running mate that is not one of the candidates at this time.
I agree with spk that Obama has a better chance in the general than Hillary. A Clinton Obama ticket could be a real winner.
Of course I will vote Democratic in the general election.
Fasten your seat belts.It is going to get ugly.

Talking with some Repugnicans this morning (yes, to my neverending shame as an American, and despite what I used to believe when living in a more enlightened place some years ago, there ARE actually still real people who call themselves Republicans, even after seven years of Bush): The "reasonable Right" seems genuinely impressed by Obama. They think he's sensible, and inspiring. They might even vote for him.

They can't stand Hillary, and would come out to vote against her.

And they think McCain is "whacky." Would not vote for him, unless it was to keep Hillary out.(Said by one, nodded to by the others.)

I will never understand how Repugnicans think, and also, we have to remember that if one can still call oneself "Republican" today, one is short in the smarts department and subject to all kinds of influence between now and the election. But, if this morning's sample is representative, Repugs might sit out a McCain/Obama contest, but would not sit out a McCain/Clinton contest.

For that to happen, Obama would have to stick with his "above the fray" campaign of hope and inspiration despite the basest attacks. Frankly, I don't think it is likely to play out that way. He'll be Swift-boated as a closet "Islamofascist" terrorist, the Repugs will quickly be led by their echo chamber to believe he's "worse than Hillary" and come out in even greater droves to vote against him. Meanwhile, he'll be playing like a weak, above the fray Kerry to keep the Repugs at home and end up losing the rest of us.

I'm with LTOR, I'd like to explore this "Hillary hate" some more. From where does it come?

Seems to me the reason Hillary brings out the Repugs so viscerally is that they know she will actually accomplish some of the things that need doing. Isn't that why they hate her? Or is it just that their miscogeny is, for the moment, greater than their racism?

Meanwhile, seems like our Hillary-hating Dems really are reacting more to their dashed hopes than reality. They hoped with Clinton, and Clinton, for many reasons, mostly frankly not his or Hillary's fault, was unable to deliver. Hillary-hate by Dems is a psychological defense mechanism against the pain of dashed hopes.

I say, see a shrink and get over it.

Well, now that Edwards and Giuliani have dropped out and super Tuesday looms on the horizon, seems like it's time for a new round of predictions.

Maybe Tyler will open up a new thread for this new page in the presidential saga.

To Anonymous #72: from a Democrat's perspective, it's not Hillary hatred, more just a feeling of distaste. Also, everybody keeps saying she can "get things done" in a way that Barack cannot. I think the truth is just the opposite. She is a proven polarizer, not a proven change agent, as Bill keeps insisting.

"She is a proven polarizer"

Understood. But what specifically has SHE done to engender that?

Anons.(plural?/singular?-hard to tell, at least come up with some distinction),

The myth that John McCain is a saint on the right is insane. I know we're on to bigger and better fraud in this country with Enron and the GWOT(Global War On Terror), but has everyone forgotten the $500 BILLION Savings and Loan disaster after Reagan deregulated banking in this country? John McCain was one of the Keating Five for F sake. He comes from a long line of bloodthirsty military fixers who have engaged in some seriously shady coups, etc. down South. I'm getting an earful from these people here in Arizona about just what a true Repug he is. When the 2000 Republican primaries were going down there was a major split in the neo-con camp about which candidate to back. Half wanted W and the other half were all about McCain, so let's not pretend he "different" than Bush.

Rudy backed out of the race before California where he has some serious backing. California alone has more delegates than all of the previous states combined. After Florida, he immediately endorsed McCain. That's a pretty telling signal. In fact, I'm ready to bet he's in the VP slot on the McCain ticket. Any takers.

Another thing Anon(s),

Clinton had a majority in the congress for his first two years. Bill was the "New Democrat" President. "New Democrat" = Republican-lite. He was chairman of the DLC. DLC = Republican-lite. It' okay to disagree, but look at the facts of Clinton's Presidency. He championed the exact same big-business causes and policies as Reagan and Bush. He pushed GATT, and NAFTA through. He eviscerated welfare and...

"major corporations gave money to the Democratic Party on an unprecedented scale, Clinton demonstrated clearly, in the four years of his first term in office, his total confidence in "the market system" and "private enterprise." During the 1992 campaign, the chief executive officer of Martin Marietta Corporation noted: "I think the Democrats are moving more toward business and business is moving more toward the Democrats."

One of the Anons said:

"Hillary's war record is atrocious. But Obama's is no better."

Finally Anons, I'm not knocking Hillary Clinton's competence. On the contrary, I think she is extremely competent. I just think she will continue to use all of her abundant competence for her usual corporate clients like WalMart, etc. She and Bill are committed free traders. They worship Milton Friedman. Bill kept Alan Greenspan as head of the FED who was originally appointed by Ronald Reagan for F sake. With regard to the Corporatocracy, there was a seamless transition from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush, and now they want to go back to Clinton.

"Hope and inspiration and feel-good politics are nice. But right now, things are not so good in the world. We need competence, first and foremost."

There is no denying that Clinton, Bill and Hillary, are better than any Republican, but the primary season is not about being slightly better. It's about trying to push the party in the direction it needs to go. The Clintons are the past.

Is not the reason that Hillary is a "polarizer" precisely because she IS a "proven change agent"? She HAS put radical change on things that are broken - such as health care - on the national table. She has been a force in the White House during a time when things were infinitely better than they are today.

Isn't that the kind of polarization this country needs? Someone who can call a spade a spade, and say no to the Repugs?

People criticize Bill for standing up for his wife and getting out there to push her candidacy. I'm sorry to say it, but now is not the time for wishing that campaign politics were different in this country. If Barack can't stand up to the softballs he's getting from Bill, he is dead meat when the Swift-boating starts.

Hillary on the other hand is Swift-boat proof. They have slung everything they've got at her.

For Hillary, it is as bad right now as it will ever be. Repugs who do not already hate her are not going to start between now and the election. She has nowhere to go but up.

On the other hand, Obama is at the top of his game. He's facing friendly fire, and winning his base. But there is no guessing how far he will fall, or how swiftly, once the Repug attack machine starts if he is anointed the candidate. People don't know him well enough; he is susceptible to attacks in ways that Hillary simply isn't.

Obama supporters ought to start championing a Hillary-Barack 2008 ticket. That is the winning ticket that could deliver us 16 years, which is the minimum necessary to recover from the last eight. Get those two talking. If Barack can put his momentum behind Hillary as front-runner, he could bring back the misguided, disillusioned base. He could counter the "distaste," and help people see the big picture. And, after eight years of Hillary-Barack, enough good things may have happened, and they may have been strong enough to have successfully held the worst of the Bush/Cheney Repugs accountable (thus getting them out of the picture), that he actually can bring us a new, lasting politics built around our common interests. That would be something.

I don't hate Hillary, I just think she's in the wrong party. As for why the Republicans hate Hillary. It's because she's smarter then them and she knows it. That's why Newt and his boys started beating up on her originally.

One more thing about Clinton though. For those of you entertaining the idea that Hillary is a "change agent", what a ridiculous moniker-thanks Bill, you need to realize that Hillary has taken more money from corporate PACS than anyone and she has taken more money from insurance companies than any other person in the entire congress. There, I'm tired of laying out all these facts about Hillary for you. Look 'em up, they're all true.

Now, Edwards is out. Very odd before Feb 5th. I'm inclined to believe it's the exact same motivation as Rudy's bow out. I think the ticket is, and should be, Obama and Edwards. There was some wacky poll out from Yahoo! saying that 40% of Edwards' voters would go to Clinton and only 25% would go to Obama. I haven't had a chance to look at the methodology of that poll, but it was out awfully fast. I'm sorry, but that makes zero sense. Given Edwards positions on corporations and their undue influence, it seems like an Edwards voter, like me, would have to be either schizophrenic or masochism to go to Clinton. The only time I'm a masochist is when I'm mountain bikeing up the Pratt Trail. The obvious choice is Obama. I think the Obama campaign and the Edwards campaign came to an understanding and Edwards agreed to bow out before the big Tuesday vote to give a bump to Obama in exchange for the VP slot.

I guess a Clinton/Obama ticket is possible, but I really seriously doubt they would come together. More likely that Clinton would pick Lieberman or someone like that.

spk, if you are right and the Repug ticket will be McCain-Giuliani, you ought to get behind a Hilary-Obama ticket on the Dem side right now.

McCain-Giuliani cannot beat Hillary-Barack. But, they might beat Barack-______, or Hillary-_______ (though I doubt it).

After eight years of Bush, whoever wins will need to fix what the Bushies broke. We cannot get where we want to be on a base of broken institutions. (Unless you are talking real revolution. Which is not something you will get from Obama or any candidate.)

Like it or not, whether the candidate is Hillary or Obama, that means they will be what you deride as "new Democrats", or they will be failures. We've got to fix the institutions Bush broke, get some credibility back in the world, and reprioritize. Instant realignment to the brave new world of hope and change that Obama supporters so fervently wish for is simply not in the cards right now. You just set Obama up to fail, and yourself for disappointment.

Eight years of Clinton-Obama, on the other hand, might bring us to a place where we can move this country in a new and better direction, in a way that will last for another forty years or more.

Remember, there actually is a whole world out there, a "global economy" if you will. Dismantling what is left of our decimated business base might be your fevered desire, but that is not the program that is actually going to bring this country forward.

To go forward, sometimes you have to step backwards. Think of it like this: Your giving Clinton four to eight years to do what her husband did, and get this country in a world-leading, respected position, with sound fiscal policy and a booming economy. (Something that will be much harder to do now than it was for Bill.) Give her a Democratic Congress the whole time, and push them all to get out of Iraq, repeal No Child Left Behind, put in nationwide single payer health care, restore environmental protections, cut taxes on the poor and middle class, realign the tax burden to the lazy rich where it belongs, and restore the U.N. You know what? Hillary's record proves she wants to and will do all those things (except get out of Iraq - but I'm as comfortable that she'll get us out as I am that Obama will).

Wouldn't be too bad, would it?

Then, in 2016, let Obama take over where Gore did in 2000. But this time, make him win.

Here's Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough discussing Republican front-runner McCain's platform:

"BUCHANAN: Here's a guy, basically, what does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars.

SCARBOROUGH: We're gonna start a lot of wars! He has promised, for the record Keith, John McCain's platform -- and it certainly looks inviting for the fall -- he has promised less jobs and more wars. Now that's something we can all rally behind."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#75499

Anonymous (#78):

Well said! My position exactly. We may be wrong, but to me it's the only hope we have of digging our way out of this hell hole we've been pushed into.

I found this to be a much more interesting and balanced article on Hilary's ties to Walmart than some of other knee jerk ones out there. Rather than implying that she sat on the Board out of financial and political greed, they write (among other things):

"In Mrs. Clinton’s complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

Anon 2:30,

Pick a psudonym already. I know you think you're blending in with the other Anon posts, but your style is distinctive, so just call yourself something at least.

You keep persisting in this delusion that Clinton can win and that Obama would play second fiddle on the ticket. Neither of these things will happen, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on those points. Anon 12:29, not your style anon 2:30-so not you, also sees what I see. The mod repugs would vote for Obama, or wouldn't vote at all if their nom is McCain. If Clinton is the Democrat however, they would line up around the block to vote against her. I'm not sure why they hate her so much, but perhaps it could be summed up in this old saying: Familiarity breeds contempt. They recognize her as a Republican and they hate her because they can't stand that she's in the Democratic Party. I don't know. .

Any one know why the republicans want hillary as candidate?maybe they wont be as gentlemany as OBAMA,,EXPERIENCE? didnt cheney and cronies have experience, give OBAMA a chance,
AMERICA is ready for him.

Here's what Anonymous 12:29 went on to say:

If Obama is the candidate, "He'll be Swift-boated as a closet "Islamofascist" terrorist, the Repugs will quickly be led by their echo chamber to believe he's "worse than Hillary" and come out in even greater droves to vote against him. Meanwhile, he'll be playing like a weak, above the fray Kerry to keep the Repugs at home and end up losing the rest of us."

If that is the analysis you are endorsing, sounds like you are seeing the wisdom of a Hillary-led ticket after all (!).

spk, please:

"I'm not sure why they hate her so much, but perhaps it could be summed up in this old saying: Familiarity breeds contempt. They recognize her as a Republican and they hate her because they can't stand that she's in the Democratic Party."

Hmm. You mean like Leiberman?

Except, oops, they LOVE Leiberman.

Admit it, spk, they hate her because they know, like you said before, she's smarter than them, and she'll turn this country around.

They don't hate Obama because, 1) they have not yet been led to do so by their echo chamber, and 2)they hear the naivete in his talk of togetherness and believe they'll be able to continue business as usual with Obama. You seem certain they are wrong, but you haven't offered much to base that conclu