79 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumblePublished Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008 | 5:31 a.m.
Updated Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:14 p.m.
They could have been more patronizing. They could have been more disingenuous. They could have been more cynical (Just read the opening sentence.).
But I don't see how.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal's endorsement this morning of Barack Obama is an exemplar of intellectual bankruptcy, designed to be an attack on Hillary Clinton by using a phony embrace of Obama. It is likely to have the opposite effect because Democratic activists loathe the RJ -- and they are who will be voting Saturday. And with the RJ's track record on major endorsements, this could be, as CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius put it, the kiss of death for Obama's campaign.
Rather than the "Sun's" editors endorsement of Clinton. Why the DNC chose this state for an early primary is beyond comprehension.
You can dislike the RJ's view - but the first paragraph is very true:
"As state Democrats prepare to hold their Saturday caucuses, cynical Republicans might well encourage them to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton, figuring her high "negatives" -- the unusual number of Americans who tell pollsters they'd never vote for her under any circumstances -- would virtually guarantee a GOP victory in the fall."
THAT ALONE TELLS DEMOCRATS WHO THEY SHOULD CAUCUS FOR
Obama '08
Jon Ralston, as you know, the underlying racism in our culture that seems to show up in every election where there is a secret ballot (aka, the Bradley Effect) will prevent candidate Barrack Obama from winning any southern states in a general election and it will prevent him from winning several delegate heavy states in the Iron Belt or in the Midwest. No one will get elected to the White House without winning a majority of those states.
What I find odd is that in listening to the pundits, none have considered that Hillary's win in New Hampshire may have been the ushering in of something we might just call the Hillary Effect, and that is that women, when they think all things are equal or near equal, will make a last minute decision to vote for a woman when they are casting a secret vote inside a closed booth. Then, if at no other time, is when no man can and will tell them what to do.
For Obama, there are not enough African American voters out there to make the Bradley Effect work as a positive, but for Hillary, the Hillary Effect could very well bounce her into the White House with a sizeable mandate. After all, am I wrong and have I not heard and read that more than half the voters are women.
OUR NATION, OUR FUTURE, OUR CANDIDATE - HILLARY '08
I have a solution to the problem: Hillary for President and Barrrak her running mate as Vice President. After eight years they can switch positions for another eight years. Following that there will be no need for a President, just a Chief Financial Officer, as the Country will be in such good shape we can all retire and live off the budget surplus.
Don, regarding the Chief Financial Officer in the year 2022 - you don't suppose his last name will be Greenspan do you?
Darryl, the only thing I am sure of is that it will not be Bush!
If you were interviewing these three for a job to run your company, who would you choose? Clinton comes across as the most knowledgeable, most mature, and best to start from day one. Obama might talk well, but you'd better figure on a rough learning curve, and Edwards, well, I'd typically want to interview three candidates before making a decision.
If Obama doesn't poison the campaign, he might make a good VP, otherwise, he should build up some serious legislative experience that goes being voting Present. He should support Hillary over the next eight years and position himself to be her natural successor.
Clinton is the best candidate today. BTW, I like her timely catch last night: "President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic." He failed even begging to his Saudi friends. I do not think we would ever see Clinton begging to anyone, ever.
Good post Matthew.
43's begging moment is almost equivalent to his 41'a vomiting into the lap of the Japanese PM.
You know, we fight wars to keep those people safe and this is the thanks we get.
And I wish one of the candidates would make one point - if we are going to spend this much money to keep the flow of oil coming to this country, the oil companies like Exxon, et al, should have to pay for it. The price of oil per barrel should reflect the cost of the war in iraq and all the other s..t we do, the money we spend, to keep it flowing so the oil companies can make record breaking profits. Now, I am getting myslef pissed... gotta think about something else for a while. Bye.
It's fun to watch the Clintons scratch and claw to keep their reins on power.
I absolutely love the gift of spewing gibberish and not answering the questions.
Obama in 08!
...the Hillary Effect could very well bounce her into the White House with a sizeable mandate...
Wow, she really secured a *huge* mandate in Michigan--what an impressive "win," 55% to 40% over UNCOMMITTED!! And in some counties, her 'mandate' was 49% to 47% over UNCOMMITTED!
You have GOT to be kidding me--HRC barely gets over 50% in this primary where it was her, Kucinich, Gravel, and UNCOMMITTED? Thanks but no thanks!
Say what you will about Clinton, call her names until you're blue in the face, she was the most knowledgeable, the most confident, and the most presidential. Given all the hate and nastiness directed her way, her calm, cool demeanor is even more impressive.
Does anybody over the age of 25 really think you can work with the extremists in the Republican party? We cannot afford Obama's naivety.
Tough economic times ahead, folks. We need someone that we KNOW can do the job. It's not about hope and unity--it's the economy, stupid.
A Republican is thanking us for nominating Hillary?
YOU'RE QUITE WELCOME!
Your party has the sorriest bunch of freaks and losers vying for the nomination that I've ever seen. It will be a pleasure to see you crazed Hillary haters go nuts on the January 20, 2009 when she takes the oath of office.
Sun dog, the 40% uncommitted was the combined votes of Obama and Edwards supporters. They chose not to be on the ballot and so their supporters had to vote for "uncommitted."
Clinton = 55%
Obama/Edwards = 40%
Anyone who thinks Hillary is experienced should read Timothy Noah's article "Hillary's Experience Lie" (simply Google that) and discover how experienced Hillary really is before you caucus/vote for her.
While Hillary was working for Wal-mart, Obama was rebuilding communities. America and Iraq need that type of rebuilding more than ever.
If Hillary is the democratic nominee Michael Bloomberg will enter the race--
And he won't enter unless he thinks he can win
The fact is that the country will not elect another Clinton -- she can be smart - she can have the best work habits - she can stand on her head - it won't happen
Hillary the Movie by the same smear people who brought you swiftboating - is filmed and ready to be shown -- it's all over the internet
It's all gonna come back -- and the Republicans cannot wait
I am not a Christopher Hitchens fan but he has a very sad but true article in Slate --
"The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Jan. 14, 2008, at 12:15 PM ET"
http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/
-----------------
And another link from Slate WHICH IS PRO HILLARY
"Her Majesty Queen Hillary
Looking at the candidates through Slate readers' eyes"
Compiled by Moira Redmond
Updated Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008, at 8:40 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2178675/
--------------
and one more link - same magazine
"Hillary's "Experience" Lie
If that's her selling point, put me down for Obama."
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, Jan. 14, 2008, at 7:16 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2182073
--------------------
THIS IS A PRO CLINTON MAGAZINE!!
THE PUBLISHER IS A HILLARY SUPPORTER --
So to all those blind Clinton supporters who post here - please you need to think really clearly about this --
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY - with friends like this -
DEMOCRATS - ARE WE INTERESTED IN WINNING IN NOVEMEBR 2008? OR A TAKE NO PRISONERS PRIMARY
The Clinton machine has not shown they care about the party - they ONLY care about winning and controlling the party (look at the last week: they start the trouble - race baiting - voter disenfranchisement and then say "WHO ME??") and leave shambles in their wake
I for one am NOT interested in winning the battle and losing the war
I support OBAMA and could easily get behind EDWARDS as our candidate -- but cannot live through another republican administration - and that is surely where we are headed -- just close your nose and read RJ endorsement this am or watch FOX news -- they are chomping at the bit
DEMOCRATS -08
AW, stop lying - your candidate wants you to stop. The campaign that pays your salary wants you to stop lying. So, stop! That is a direct order from him, for me to pass on to you. So quit lying or quit the campaign.
By the way, any day you think Christopher Hitches is a Clinton supporter is the day you've had too much BO-flavored KoolAid. Time to put down the jug, and sober up.
OUR NATION, OUR FUTURES, OUR CANDIDATE - HILLARY '08
these are links to articles Darryl
sticks and stones -- mean nothing
There is nothing mean in what was posted - are you saying in the six minutes since that posted and you replied you read all three articles?
Wow - that's impressive
Matthew,
If I am interviewing Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, then I will hire Obama because of his clear judgment, ability to bring all kind of people together and the track record of overcoming personal odds.
I will also hire Edwards or at least put him as an alternative because he has 'fire", conviction, and he is smart too.
I will stay way from Hillary because she will divide the team. I don't care about her so called experience because it comes with many truck loads of negativity that will only split the nation.
What is experience if it divides the team?
yeah, I got my numbers and letters down real good.
When you post what you know is a lie, it is in fact a lie and if you are doing what your campaign headquarters and Obama want you to do - the people paying your salary - then obviously they lied about not encouraging lies. Wow!
By the way, OJ Simpson is back in town or headed back, I guess to support Obama. He knows how to cut straight to the truth and he knows how to run. So, maybe we'll see an Obama / Simpson ticket. If an Obama ticket is viable, any derivative of that is, as well.
Dusacre,
You certainly would hire Obama because of his drug connections.
You might hire Edwards because you never know when you might want to file a baseless class action lawsuit to pay for what Obama got for you.
You would never hire Hillary because she would figure out what you're up to, take your job away from you and fire all three of you for trying to suck money from the company for services never rendered.
Dusacre,
OJ Simpson is back in town or will be soon. You might want to hire him as well since he knows how to cut headcount.
I understand he is supporting Obama and wants to be on the Obama ticket because he knows how to run.
An endorsement like this will not have a negative impact on Obama. In fact, he has much bigger factors at work which will secure his nomination and presidency. see www.WhytheDemocratsWillWinIn2008.com
Barack Obama does nothing to inspire me. He talks a lot about hope and uniting, but does not seem to have a plan to lead the country. Hillary Clinton seems to bring about more of the same blue state/red state divisiveness and Republicans can't wait to run against her.
John Edwards is the only candidate that has comprehensive plan to bring our country back together.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/
If you get a chance, see John Edwards in person. He is in Reno today, Las Vegas tonight and Henderson tomorrow.
http://www.johnedwards.com/nevada/events...
Go John Edwards!
Darryl,
You are a sick person!
Well, they sealed it that Obama is now EXACTLY only a symbolic change and continuing the same as we've had these past 8 years.
In experienced, a good talker, a Uniter, want to have businesses make policy, wants nukes, pre emptive strike, more tax cuts when we are a sinking ship AND NOW HE"S LIKABLE.
NO THANK YOU.
REAL CHANGE, John Edwards, keeping the promise for AMERIC!
yeah - it's the Navy's fault - my time at Fallon.
Didn't the LVRJ endorse Bush in 2004? Just sayin'.
Senator Gravel on Barack Obama:
http://annienyc.blogspot.com/2008/01/mik...
I am women. I believe Hillary does not represent women. She represents nazi feminist. I have never agreed with them on anything. If I vote for a woman, it will be a real woman. A woman who doesn't mind being a women, that’s who I would vote for. I believe women can be powerful with out trying to act like a man. There is nothing wrong with putting on a skirt every now and then. How is she going to understand women, if she hasn't been acting like one? I just don't feel she understands the average woman as she should. Unless Nancy Pelosi runs, I am voting for Obama.
I’m originally from the Midwest (Ohio), and I believe I retain my Midwestern values, common sense, and balance. I’m moderately conservative, pro-choice, and while I consider myself politically independent and don’t vote a straight party ticket, the fact is I’ve voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968. Now, however, I am ready to vote for a Democrat for president, and I know there are many others like me. But I will not vote for Hillary, and if she is nominated, I will vote for her Republican opponent.
I’m ready for a change, and by that I mean not only a change from an administration gone awry, but also a change for something wholesome and energetic. Ethics, values, and straightforwardness are important to me, and Ms. Clinton brings weighty baggage in those areas. But most of all I’m put off by the “it’s all about me” attitude that she purveys; she could make a great contribution to the nation by remaining to become a powerful, effective leader in the Senate, but of course that was never her intent. And when I’m asked who I like in the presidential race and I respond with my “anybody but Hillary,” others around me invariably respond in agreement. So count me among the “anybody but Hillary” army I sense is out there, and as you vote in your upcoming caucuses please take that into consideration.
AW you are right on. As time goes on I see more and more negative comments on Hillary. She is only going to hurt the Democratic party if she is the winner of the primaries. For anyone to vote against a candidate just because someone or a publication has endorsed them that they don't like is ridiculous. Look at the bigger picture and what is right for America then vote. To vote for a woman just because you may be a woman is also ridiculous and is a set back for the women in out country.
"She represents nazi feminist."
"There is nothing wrong with putting on a skirt every now and then."
Um, Pam? I'm not even a Clinton supporter, but I think it's time you stop drinking the Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid. She was wearing nail polish last night. Was it not pink enough for you? I'm glad that women can finally be judged by their brains rather than their pantsuits.
In preparation for the caucus, I read all of the articles concerning David Axelrod which Wikipedia publishes. FYI David Axelrod is Barak Obama's chief image maker, sounding board and strategist. Axelrod is the master spinner, repackager, seller of dreams. Coaching candidates to be smoothly rhetorical is his specialty.
I'm sorry, I just cannot support a candidate who is sold to me like designer blue jeans.
"While 58% of voters familiar with Hillary Clinton have a positive view of her, 41% give her negative marks, for a net favorability score of +17." TIME. Woo hoo, that's an impressive 17 favorability score!
Chameleon Clinton hasn't been able to keep her campaign strategy on track, all they've done is flip flop depending on the day of the week.
First, "I'm the inevitable candidate"
- then "I'm your girl" awwww...
- then attack dog on her rivals
- then "I'm hyper-experienced"
- then the likeability tour (still LOL...)
- then "I'm the change agent" ???
- then "we're BFFs with Magic Johnson and we're going to Iowa!" huh???
- then "look who I'm married to in case you've forgotten"
- then "I'm still the change agent--and Wes Clark and Madeline Albright show just how much change I offer!" ...deja vu all over again...
- then gender card/crocodile tears (the question was about how she looks so nice everyday...)
- then "we're BFFS with Bob "I promoted smut on BET" Johnson and we'll trot him out to SC to show how much we care about African-Americans"
- then "I'm eating in a taco shop so me and the Hispanic voters can be BFFs..."
Come on, HRC can't even be truthful to herself about who she really is. Yet voters are supposed to trust her...thanks but no thanks. Stay tuned for the next makeover of HRC...
Mike Gravel, a Senator from Alaska, who speaks the truth. When asked about Obama, he hit the nail on the head.
Reporter: What about Obama and his change message and rhetoric:
Mike Gravel: "Foolish, and dangerous. Because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. thats dangerous. I would rather Hillary, at least she knows what she's talking about, he doesn't. Edwards probably knows better what he's talking about than Obama. Obama of the 3 is the most dangerous...he raises greater expectation of youth and can't deliver and the worst thing you can do is raise expectations they don't happen, you create a whole 'nother generation of cynics. And the youth that line up and haven't reasoned out what he's saying. Listen to the words, make up a speech and say change 10x, What specifically are you gonna change? i don't hear it. He doesn't say anything ... he's like an actor on a stage, he gives you a scene and you read into it, that's what he's doing, that's terrible. What you read into it isn't going to happen because he's gonna have the reality; the simplest one of all We have a 50 trillion dollar fiscal gap, there's no money to DO anything..."
Assuming the Clintons are ethical and honest with the American public, it still doesn't matter because the perception is that they are not. If we wind up having Hillary as our nominee I am terribley afraid we are going to loose to the "I don't believe in evolution" Mike Huckabee. If by some miracle she can win against the Republicans the next 4 or if she is lucky 8 years is going to be more of the same because the Republicans will not let her get anything done and there will just be more fighting and nastiness in Washington. None of those options sound very good to me. Hillary says she have experienced and has survived previous attackes from the right. She does has experience fighting the other side of the aisle but is that what we really want-more fighting? We as a party need to be united and move forward in a positive way and not go backwards.
Desertlover (me too), the difference this time is the Republicans are not in charge of either the House or Senate, so I don't think they will be investigating anything other than how to sell their houses in Washington in this downturned market they've created so they can move back home to Podunk.
The Democratic party could stay with a candidate they know, of whom they are comfortable and familiar. Or they could embrace a new generation of leadership with a new understanding of a new age and new policies and ideas.
Obama's endorsements show that people who best understand the urgency for a new direction within the party have the courage to change. The public outside Iowa, so far, not so much.
Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, and U.S. Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota among others understand that a new generation of leaders - unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships - can move America beyond the gridlock which is destroying our country.
This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power.
As state Democrats prepare to hold their Saturday caucuses, cynical Republicans might well encourage them to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton, figuring her high "negatives" -- the unusual number of Americans who tell pollsters they'd never vote for her under any circumstances -- would virtually guarantee a GOP victory in the fall.
That's why it's a good thing for Democrats that freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has managed to challenge the perception of Sen. Clinton's "inevitability."
The Clinton campaign cites Sen. Clinton's "experience." In fact, she's a one-term-plus-a-year senator whose lackluster legislative record rivals Sen. Obama's. Other than that, the "experience" in question must surely refer to her presence as a witness and enabler during her husband's presidential terms.
Suffice it to say there are dozens of issues that Americans happily dismissed as "water under the bridge" as the Clinton era came to a close, but which would quickly ensnare Sen. Clinton and her party in a presidential race that would soon look like a struggle to escape the La Brea tar pits.
For starters, imagine Sen. Clinton and "co-president" Bill Clinton invited onto a "This is Your Life" talk show where they're joined by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky……
As Nevada Democrats head to their caucuses Saturday, they might ask themselves whether they really want to spend two months later this year watching a re-run of the horror movie "It Came From Little Rock," with the sound turned up much too loud -- or if they'd rather make it a real contest this fall.
If they prefer the latter, they're better off backing Barack Obama on Saturday.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.htm...
So, Darryl, you're quoting Mike Gravel and implying that anyone who argues in support of Obama is a paid shill. I think you've made your character quite clear to everyone here over the last couple of days. I don't think you're doing the Clinton campaign any favors by sticking around here and posting this dreck.
As for the LVRJ, well, I don't think even Karl Rove would be so hostile. I expect that caucusgoers will completely ignore their "endorsement."
Why anyone would support another Clinton, or BUsh for that matter is beyond me. Lets put someone in who doesn't have a divisive history in government. Someone who can actually get these politicians on boths sides of the aisle to get off their bums. Whoever you think that may be
so nissl, you jissl, are you saying you do not agree with my reasons as to why Obama should move back to Indonesia and teach at a madrasa? Oh, that hurts.
Is it true that Obama got his Iraq War policy from OJ - cut and run
To the Las Vegas Sun writers, editors, and readers:
The power that you have at the Las Vegas Sun is amazing. You have the power to enlighten and inform your readers with what you write. You also have the power and the free-will from the Constitution of the United States of America for free-speech. One of the greatest things we as Americans sometimes take for granted. What you think and feel is exactly that, what YOU think and feel. It might not necessarily be the same ideals that your readers are having. Whatever your personal beliefs might be coming from your writers, you must look at what is best for your community and the communities surrounding you in this great nation. No longer are you dealing with people who will sit by and let a powerful force such as the media sway them into thinking one way, yet voting another. I am so proud to be an American, but so disheartened that you might think you will change the viewpoints of some of your readers by clearly favoring one candidate over the other. I feel sorry for you for thinking that your words would have the power to cure this Obama-fever. This "epidemic" of sorts is nothing more than a fire (Obama said that first). A fire that is burning inside the hearts of the young, the old, every race, religion, or thinking American that has seen exactly what Obama and his supporters have seen: That it is truly time for a change. I truly feel sorry for the people of Nevada for having put up with your obvious display of favortism within your articles and I hope that you will be more diplomatic in the future, because we are in fact a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y that is one Nation under God.
May God Bless the people of Nevada.
May God open your hearts and minds to clear-thinking and choice making in the days to follow.
and May God be with us all as Americans.
Thank you all...
(obviously) Obama '08 single mama and clear thinker,
kelly
"Ask not what your country can do--ask what YOU can do for your country"
Remember that America...
you can always enlist Darryl -- the war is still going on - people are still dying -- they could certainly use more soldiers
Barack Obama not only was against the war but predicted with amazing clarity EXACTLY what was going to happen
Here is an excerpt and a link to the speech Senator Obama gave in October 2002 - the same week Senator Clinton gave her speech in the sanate vigorously supporting and championing the Iraq War resolution
How about a President who gets it right the first time??
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordi...
"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
The Barack Hussein Obama supporters here (all three of you) are Republicans. They want nothing more than to bash Hillary and prop up Hussein so they can win in November.
HILLARY CLINTON IS THE ONLY ONE TO TAKE ON THE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER. SHE WILL WIN.
Last night's debate PROVED that. Hillary smacked Bush while Obama praised him for being on the covers of TIME Magazine!!
OBAMA IS A REPUBLICAN!
Good heated elite democrats, even JFK did not win 50% vote.
It will be a battle of inches, weather that makes you take Malox or not. Don't drink the cool aid of bi-partisanship. There is no Alan Keyes to run against.
Only two democrats have won two or more presidential election in over 100 years and only one them is alive.
Get real, vote with the democrat commoners. Elites, we love your dream, and it makes the country better every time, but you need infusion of reality to make your dream come true.
Vote with the commoners. Vote for a winner
Barack "talked" against the war, but "voted" for the money to fund Iraq war
Barack was "absent" from Iran resolution.
It is "talk" vs. "action".
It is "backbone" vs. "lack of it"
Please try to go beyond the words. Look at actions. Look at who sent out the race baiting memo in South Carolina. It was Obama campaign.
Is Barack Obama, then, the ideal Democratic candidate for president? Hardly. His policy recommendations -- when he can be convinced to get any more specific than "I represent change" -- are the opposite of "change." They're old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing.
Sen. Obama is a relatively young man with relatively little of the kind of real-world experience that prepares a candidate to stand firm against urgent advice to, say, bomb some remote population of defenseless civilians to "send a message," or plunge the economy into a dark night of unforeseen consequences by crippling the free market in the name of "fighting greed."
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.htm...
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Clinton is a good senator, but she is not the best presidential candidate the democrats have. Dems would be wise to nominate Obama, a much more difficult nominee to beat in a general election than Clinton or Edwards. The Republicans have Clinton-bashing to unite them and Edwards' terrible Senate record, but they don't have a thing on Obama other than grasping at straws. If supporters of Clinton or Edwards think their candidate could easily beat the Republican nominee, they are sorely mistaken. Regardless of who the LVPJ or Sun endorses, Obama is simply the better candidate.
1: When the soldiers were already in Iraq - what would you do? Not send them money?
That is a false argument
2: Every poll - check "real clear politics" which averages all polls - shoes Obama performs better than Hillary Clinton against all the republican candidates in a general election
3: he was campaigning the day of the Iran resolution - made a statement he was against it - and has since said he made a mistake and should have been in congress (although it was a foregone conclusion and his vote would not have changed the result). Of all the presidental candidates in the Senate Only Hillary Clinton voted for this (Biden and Dodd both voted against it)
4: Bill Clinton made and distributed a list of 80 "slights" as he saw it made by the Obama campaign against him and Hillary - as he saw it -- and a staffer in NC made a list of racial slurs she thought were made against her candidate.
So you have a much beloved former President head to head with a volunteer staffer -- Obama has said this was done without the campaign's authorization and taken responsibility for this -- what has the Clinton campaign said -- and what can they say -- tell Bill Clinton to cut it out? (he was still on black talk radio yesterday - a day after the "truce" pushing the same story line)
Absolutely go beyond words - absolutely look at judgement and action
Absolutely get educated --
Absolutely turn the page
Obama '08
I consider myseslf a red-blooded, patriotic American and very much a feminist. I'm also an educator at a university in Florida. Career-wise, nothing is more important to me than education.
I read Obama's "Education" viewpoints, which not only were very detailed but easy to find under the "Issues" tab on his website. I was thoroughly impressed with the professionalism and detail applied to this very public proclamation/statement of his ideals, goals, and plans. Obama has clearly listened to real educators, not politicians, and seriously addressed the most important issues regarding education in the US today.
I wanted to see what Hillary had to say on the topic. I went to her site and clicked on "Issues". THERE WAS NO "EDUCATION" CATEGORY. I did find a few statements about education under an issue labeled "Parenting and Raising Children" or something to that effect.
As a proud American woman and educator, I couldn't be more disappointed in Hillary, who I've never disliked in the past. Let me emphasize I've never been wild about her either, but I had hoped for much more from her.
She's lost my vote, support, and much of my respect.
I'm currently reading Obama's autobiography, published in 1995, when he was in his early thirties or so.
Obama is THE REAL DEAL.
All the comments about "lack of experience" and "no real plans" are completely negated by the truth about Obama. The truth is easy to find. It's in his books stocked in most bookstores, and on his website, in great detail and free of charge. In fact, you can go there now and read his 67 page PDF file detailing his recognition of serious issues, his ideals, and his plans for change.
The real truth and information about Barack Obama will not be revealed to you, for whatever reason, through the mainstream media. Yet the truth is out there if you bother to seek it.
Read. Read the opposing points of view. Educate yourself. In the end, it's amazing clear Barack Obama is the right choice for the office of President of the USA.
one more point
Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43% because Ross Perot siphoned votes from the Republicans (19% Perot that would have gone to GHW Bush)
If Hillary is the Democratic Candidate for 2008 - Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent - likely with Chuck Hagel - and he will draw most of his support from the Democrats
Most Obama democrats would go for Bloomberg before they would vote for Hillary Clinton. Just "google" this info --
We would be fine with a President Bloomberg - but if Bloomberg falls short - we will have a republican President
Michael Bloomberg will not run if Barack Obama is the candidate
Haven't you ever heard ABC? (anybody but clinton)
It's loud and it's real
jfnikki-- another mis information
Gambling enthusiasts jump on board the Obama wagon
By Graham Clifford Published on 7 January 2008
http://www.onlinecasinopress.co.uk/gambl...
--
what a state senator does in the best interest of his state is not related to his federal position
AW, you like obama. you like pimps, right?
Obama couldn't find any word but PRESENT 130 times when we needed him to take a stand in Illinois.
He missed 160 out of 260 votes in the Senate in an 8 month period - missed a chance to pimp for war.
A man of words. He can talk about his drug use to sell a book or two but if anyone else mentions it - holy cow!
Darryl
If you want to discuss issues and have an intellectual argument - no problem
If not - stop posting
There may be people reading this who really care about what happens to this country
Only someone bereft of the facts resorts to name calling (so change now and post under your assorted alias --)
AW, why do you intentionally lie to other people here. What makes you think Blomberg will run for office in a third party candidate if Hillary is the candidate?
Funny thing is he does not want to run, says he has no interest in running and you just assume it is Hillary that is the trigger - could be the other candidate that will be the trigger since everyone who is awake and not on some kind of drug knows that if Obama is the Democratic candidate, any republican will win.
Oh yeah, just for the record, show me the numbers that says Perot caused Bush the election. Just curious if that is true or your drunken version of the truth.
Seriously AW, if they are reading your tripe, they already agree with you.
You haven't had anything to say for two days now. Look, Obama is on the way out. If he keeps this up, if people like you keep this up, his senate career is in danger as well. We will not re-elect him because he is damaged goods.
Did you know Barack Hussein Obama's national security advisor is the SAME MAN that trained Al Queda AND OSAMA BIN LADEN to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets????
YEP!!!!!!!!!!
Put the pieces together. MUSLIM IN CHRISTS CLOTHING.
NO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Barack Hussein Obama played the race card in this election and ADMITTED to it last night on national television. Tweety held up the four page memo from his SC chair campaign and Obama ADMITTED they started it.
Obama is trying to win by getting minorites upset. He is a sick DIVIDER!
NO OBAMA!!!!!!!
"Holy Cow," Darryl! You're a moron! Voting for the war and then voting not to give troops money is NOT better than being against the war in the first place, yet supporting troops. Sorry. Your Clinton spin-speak is not going to work, especially with the Iraq war issue.
Dear Friends,
I lived 7 years in Illinois. Obama won the elections because he had the money... Not because he had any solid record.
Looking at him talking, I can only hear few words obsessively repeated "hope", "change", "we". I cannot hear anything about his true convictions. Is he a puppet in Oprah's hands?
We know Hillary, based on her record. Sure, she did some mistakes, but she shows that she has learnt from them. She fought for universal health care and she has learnt how to win next time.
Obama, even if looks smart, will have to go through the same mistakes before he will have any chance to defeat the Republican machine.
Between the two there is no-brainer to vote for Hillary. Unless you have a below 50 IQ.
Obama, like Bush, is good at rhetorics. We need results.
Mike.
The Bradley Effect = Obama will not get elected and we will have a Republican president which is good for wealthy people.
The Clinton Effect = Hillary will become the next president which is good for everyone.
Why is that so hard for AW to understand? Is it because she doesn't want to face reality? Is it because AW can't break herself from teh BO-flavored KoolAid.
The United States supported Osama Bin Laden when he was part of the Mujahhadeen fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.
That was in the 1980's
Go see the movie Charlie Wilson's War - if you don't want to read about it --
That same advisor you refer to- worked in the Clinton administration from 1992 - 1998 -- and is not supporting Hillary Clinton because he feels - like so many other top level Clinton administration people that Barack Obama is better equipped to deal with the world as it is today
Judgement and Vision
Quoting Gravel:
"Hillary is the most dangerous candidate on the Democratic side."
"She wouldn't know propaganda if it bit her. She IS propaganda. Her campaign is nothing BUT propaganda."
Soooo, ennyway, I'm sure Gravel is the complete authority on other Democratic candidates. He stated more than once in the debates that all the other candidates "scared" or "terrified" him with their "dangerous" policies. Clearly a level-headed and dispassionate observer.
His take on Obama's record was to close his eyes and then say "I don't see anything." So much for informed decision-making.
As for Barack Obama's chances, this 20-year political junkie (me) who has worked on winning democratic campaigns which had to put up with the sniping, muck-raking and condescension of Jon Ralston more than once, places little weight on the columnist's utterances. The R-J endorsement will not hurt Obama, may help him, and will not help anyone else. To infer otherwise is to "assume facts not in evidence."
It may be wishful thinking on Jon's part. I don't know. I am certain, however, you will not hear from ANYONE on exit-polling - "Well, the RJ endorsed Obama. That was enough to turn my vote elsewhwere." While it's true a number of NV Dem activists despise certain of the RJ's positions, Obama is winning AGAINST the state democratic machine, not with its assitance (witness the Teachers Union suit). I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but count me among those who are anti- the knee-jerk dem establishement in this state.
If one bothers to study Obama's record from his community organizing days to the present, and actually read the history of the events his career comprises, one is apt to be duly impressed. I am, and I don't impress easily.
Edwards- hm. His actual legislative record is essentially the reverse of his current positioning. 'nuff sed.
Hillary - I am an observer and analyst by trade, and have to get things right in order to remain employed. Her and Bill's (and other surrogates') statments relative to their own and other's positions, experience, policies, etc. are heavily weighted with misinformation, disinformation, deliberate distortion and the sort of slicing and dicing of otherwise factual information which causes the listener to understand something vastly different from, even the reverse of, what really happened or what was really said or done.
Typical establishment political-machine-speak.
Her "35 years" of experience takes up a good deal of space (35 years) but, like helium filling a baloon, contains little appreciable substance. Put me down as one grizzled democrat who is grateful for the rare sensible word emanating from the RJ editorial staff.
sorry you missed me Darryl
some of us have to work for a living an cannot sit on line (as you and other paid bloggers do)
It appears you are the kind of person who would look at an egg and swear it was an orange - so it would be impossible to convince you of anything if you thought you were right
That makes you a great person to be a Clinton troll
As I said on another thread - if you want to have a discussion about the election fine - if you want to continue to try and intimidate (also a good quality for a Clinton troll) -- you make yourself more and more obsolete
(time to change alias -- Seed of Change. Girly Girl)
I am sure I am not the only one to notice the only posts the LVS staff removes for offersive content are written by you or one of your psydonym's(that means the same person posting under multiple identities)
The status quo is what got us into this mess- most clear headed people see this very clearly
Holy Cow, PC, we know who the morons are: you, AW and Hussein Obama.
* Either you are for the war or you are not. Obama says he is against it.
* Either you are against the war but will fund it because you have a political agenda, (war pimp, Obama's camp)
* Or you are against the war and will not give George Bush any more money.
The war pimps voted for the funding and let more people die because that is easier than taking a stand.
The good thing is that last night in the debates he suddenly realized Senator Clinton will be the next Commander in Chief and he quickly toed up to the line and agreed to cooperate.
AW, you seem to be wrong about everything. How can that be? How can you be so wrong on everything? Does bad judgement just run rampant in the Obama campaign?
Seed of Change and Girly Girl and that guy whose posts are always deleted - not me. You should be able to read posts and tell the different writing styles. That, like fingerprints and eye/cheek patterns, cannot be faked.
Darryl:
Clearly, you come not to quench the thirst but to poison the well.
Your style of discourse is devoid of redeeming social value.
Unless it's because you get some sort of sick pleasure out of causing ill-feeling in others, why else would enyone post such a huge volume of venom, unless paid to do it?
Your INTENT clear. All that is in question is, what MOTIVATES you? Money, or just personal pleasure?
I'll give Jone credit for this much:
"They could have been more patronizing. They could have been more disingenuous. They could have been more cynical (Just read the opening sentence.).
But I don’t see how.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s endorsement this morning of Barack Obama is an exemplar of intellectual bankruptcy, designed to be an attack on Hillary Clinton by using a phony embrace of Obama."
He makes an accurate observation. From it, however, by mistaking that long-time activists will outnumber newcomers to the process at the caucuses, and/or by making the mis-assumption that being a dem activist (such as myself) means you can't think for yourself or you support Hillary, he draws an unsupportable conclusion.
All the evidence points to a huge influx of new participant to the process, mostly attracted by Obama. Further, even dem activists, such as certain union leaders, are bucking the "Hillary" establishment machine in this state. This was unanticipated by the dem mucky-mucks, hence the establishment of the nine Strip caucus sites with large numbers of delegates (which now they're trying to take back - "Uhm, no! Wait, wait - do-overs!")
Jon makes the same mistake in his calculus.
Longview,
I just read your post and I am amazed. A 20 year political junkie and a grizzled Democrat? You are, I believe, none of those. Your post indicates a slanted view from the beginning and your take on Ralston sounds more like sour grapes than anything.
Seriously, Obama is not a candidate of change and take it from a man who has been involved in politics for 35 years (with the exception of 4 years on international assignment in Europe), Obama's record in Illinois (my state) is not held in any high regard. I know it, I see it and I know he has been breath-takingly unspectacular in the US Senate.
With the exception of his support in Chicago, which I admit is sizeable, Obamamania is coming to a screeching halt. Right now, people are having to act politically correct, which is why there is even something called the Bradley Effect, but when it comes time to go behind the closed curtains, it is over.
Think what you wish about this rising star, but here in Illinois, were it not for the claims made in this state by Chicago's southside coallition quickly alleging racism against anyone who would oppose him, he would not have even won the democratic primary for Senator.
One speech, one moment and that was it. Because he was presentable and an African American, we had to support him. Seriously, we had to support him because he is an African American. Tell me, do you not know that the term "affirmative action president" will be the rallying cry of Republicans throughout the red states and most of the blue states.
Regarding his run for the Illinois Senate in the general election, I am curious; do you know why he had no one to run against him? The Republican's had a melt down here in the state and they couldn't put together a viable candidate in that short time. In fact, they could barely put together a state wide slate for anything. While we were enjoying their pain (the Republicans), we were not aware that the last laugh would be on us.
Now, if you think you know so much about politics, you 20 year seasoned grizzled political pundit analyst, I want to ask you what gives you the thought that if Obama is the candidate, he will be elected to the Presidency. Like it or not, because of his race, he will not carry any of the iron belt delegate heavy states, he will not carry any of the southern states, he won't carry the west. He will be Mike Dukakis all over again. Heck, go ahead and put him in a helmet and sit him in a tank and take the photograph. The Republicans are waiting.
Well, I've never seen a grizzly work for common goals, or one that didn't divide a crowd.
History has been overtly generous to the Clintons in what it perceives they have done for the poor.
Federal Minimum Wage Bush one-April 1991 $4.25
Clinton-October 1996 $4.75 Clinton-September 1997 $5.15 You don't close the gap between the rich and poor with a .90 /hr raise over 8 years!!!
“The income gap actually grew more during the Democratic Clinton administration than it has during the Bush administration. According to U.S. Census data, the share of income for the wealthiest 5 percent rose from 18.6 percent in 1992 to 22.1 percent in 2000. That’s a jump of almost 19 percent.”
Furthermore, capital gains tax was only 20 percent during the Clinton Presidency. That means the super rich only paid 20 percent on their income from the stock market. Actual wage earners would pay up to 38 percent. Most CEO get paid through stock so they only pay 15% tax now and 20 % back then. The rich got richer and the poor got .90/hr spread out over 8 years!
darryl:
You're right. Not a 20-year political junkie. The first Democratic campaign I did in this state was 1984. 23 years. I am grizzled. My mustache has turned white and my sideburns are grey. I'm a "senior citizen."
You're certainly entitled to your OPINION, and you may feel you have ample grounds on which to base it.
Your OPINION:
"...I am amazed." (thank you)
"You are, I believe, none of those." (your belief turns out to be inaccurate.)
"..a slanted view..." (possibly fair as I am clearly for Obama)
"...your take on Ralston sounds...like sour grapes" (sour grapes would indicate I didn't get something I wanted. The campaigns I have worked on won. What it "sounds like" is I don't care much for Ralston's style. I don't.)
"...Obama is not a candidate of change..." (we'll see, if he's elected, won't we?)
"...Obama's record in Illinois...is not held in any high regard..." (by whom? By you, OK, and perhaps others. Turnout and the tally will tell the tale when IL gets its primary.)
"I know it..." (You THINK it, and you believe others do, too.)
"he has been...unspectacular in the US Senate." (which is why other senators on both sides of the aisle comment on his "fast start," "hard work," and "remarkable accomplishments" for a freshman senator. Your "unspectacular" is, to others, "remarkable." Opinion.)
"...Obamamania is coming to a screeching halt..." (the actual evidence for this is somewhere between inconclusive and non-existent. On balance, it would appear to impeach you. You could argue that some fact or facts could be interpreted that way, but the polls nationally and in most if not all states show him gaining momentum.)
"...the Bradley Effect.." People have been speculating about this, but again the evidence vis a vis Obama is not there. People do not go to a rally and cheer to look politically correct. Enthusiasts may fail to vote, but no one is bothering to fake enthusiasm for the sake of what you will think of their political sensibilities.)
"...when it comes time to go behind the closed curtains, it is over." (we'll see, won't we?)
"...were it not for the claims made...alleging racism..., he would not have even won the democratic primary for Senator..." (You are remarkable for your ability to read the minds of voters. Jesse Jackson, et al. scream racism all the time. It does not seem to have gotten them votes to speak of. BTW - this is the inverse of your "Bradley effect" argument. Which is it?)
"...Because he was presentable and an African American, we had to support him." (you supported him because he was presentable and an African American? Shame on you. That's racist. Have you read the minds of others who did the same? Shame on them, too.)
"...the term "affirmative action president" will be the rallying cry of Republican..." (Are you privy to Republican campaign strategy the rest of us have not seen? - besides, what if it is? This magical phrase will tank his support? Your logic escapes me.)
"...he will not carry any of the iron belt...states, he will not carry any of the southern states, he won't carry the west." (because we are, after all, closet racists. Your opinion of the electorate is depressing. No wonder you support Hillary. Again, this is your opinion. The evidence I see appears to contradict that opinion. We will see when the dust settles. Would you support him if you thought he could win?)
I saw the Republican meltdown in IL. Gave me a chuckle, as did Keyes, when he wasn't putting my teeth on edge. It's unfortunate that you feel Obama being a viable candidate is somehow the "last laugh" on us! How sad...
"...what gives you the thought that if Obama is the candidate, he will be elected..."
Answer: Polls indicate a) an overwhelming wave of dissatisfaction with Rovian politics b) An overwhelming wave of dissatisfaction with the current adminstration and the Republican agenda in general. Further, the majority of registered voters in the United States are Democrat. Do the math.
Nore: ABC (anybody but Clinton) is a real phenomenon - on both the right and left. You know as well as I that the Republicans salivate at the prospect of running against her, as NOTHING would solidify their base better nor drive more of their party to the polls. It would be a feeding frenzy, and they can't wait. Sure they'll attack Obama, too.
My sense is that both you and they misread the urgency with which the electorate is aching to turn the page - to a new direction, and to a different kind of politics. You have your opinion, and I have mine. In the end, if I "win," you'll rationalize how you were right, anyway, but people are just too stupid to do the sensible thing. If you "win," I will acknowedge that fear, hatred, prejudice and the herd mentality were stronger than I had hoped. I hope I'm right, and I hope you're wrong. But at least I hope.
I am sorry you have lost that.
BRAVO LONGVIEW
But trying logic and facts cannot reach Darryl - a self proclaimed interested party from Illinois (more like a Clinton troll ---)
People are smarter than the Darryls of the world think they are -- but that is just like the campaogn he works for
Bill & Hillary Clinton started in public service for good reasons and with good intentions but someone along the way - they lost their footing -- they truly believe in their own brilliance and ability and that may be ok but they also truly believe they are the only ones who can do the right job as President
Bill Clinton - and I was an avid supporter - was a very good President in a time of peace and properity -- His arrogance caused the distraction of Monica - and the the distraction of Monica hurt the country.
I dont give a hoot who he does personally but I give a hoot that his arrogance took away his ability to be a great President --
I STRONGLY dislike the Bush family and what they have done to this country
It seems fairly clear that both the Clinton an Bush families need to step aside for the good the the nation and their party's--
There is only contempt and hostility when the Bush and Clinton's are involved
So despite their brilliance, their goals and all the rest - Hillary Clinton who is a policy wonk should consider being the first woman Senate Majority leader - get rid of Harry Reid - and do good works for the country in her area of expertise --
That is policy -- she is not a visionary, she is not one who inspires-- she likes to think she is the smartest kid in the room
Prove it Hillary - do the right thing for the country -- Senate Maj Leader is a powerful position - whoever is Pres will have to regard you and you can have the job more than 8 years
Let the country heal and restore USA standing in the world
Obama '08
Have to agree, AW - on essentially all counts.
I find Reid too mechanistic and seemingly too enamored of party and party aparatus loyalty, and of Democratic ideological purity, and too lacking in genuine leadership and problem-solving skills to be an appealing majority leader. I also find his behind-the-scenes machinations in support of Hillary while claiming to remain uncommitted to be disingenuous.
His service appears to be to his party and the corporate power structure rather than to his people - a slow-moving spiritual infection which seems to eventually overtake every Washington politician in time.
Solidarity and loyalty are all well and good, until they overwhelm one's ability to do the job for which one was elected.
Speaking of solidarity and loyalty, I'm hoping a) that the Clinton lawsuit against the Strip caucus sites is tossed under the doctrine of laches (where a plaintiff waits too long to assert their rights - until granting prayed-for relief would unduly prejudice the defendant - leaving defendant without adequate remedy under law if the relief - in this case a restraining order - were granted) or in the alternative b) that Culinary and SEIU pull together and stage a "sick out" or similar in order to stay home and caucus on Saturdy.
Union solidarity could yet save us from the disenfranchisement sought by the Clinton machine.