Tonight Obama won the delegates that were up for grabs. That means tonight Obama increased his lead over Clinton.
And of course Obama won NC by more than 200,000 votes and "lost" (as of this time of the night) IN by less than 40,000, so Obama got by far more popular votes.
Will the MSM portray tonight as a "draw" with each winning one state? That would be the way to keep the Clinton delusion going and helping the Republicans.
I'm of a mixed mind about whether Obama is electable. Why? Because the more I like him, the more I realize it is because he is giving the voters the bitter truth that they don't want to know. If he becomes the messenger of truth, as he seems to want to be, then the myopic, parochial, and ostrich-like "in denial" American public, who are largely brainwashed by the Main Stream Media-government collaboration, will turn on and attack the messenger and continue to close their eyes to the truth.
Rev. Wright.
Not wearing a flag lapel pin.
Comments about bitter people in Pennsylvania.
All good messages of bitter truth that make me like Obama, but they are messages that Obama is being attacked for and feels he must apologize for.
If apologizing works then I'm wrong again and that's fine with me. But personally, I'd prefer to have him be the unashamed bearer of truth and go down in flames rather than being the apologizer who loses anyway.
But if there has been any discussion about the Obama and Clinton campaigns referring to it I have missed them.
My concern is that basically Obama and Clinton are trying to talk about how to bring most of the troops home without really dealing with the issues that are raised by Iraq and Afghanistan. Though Obama flirts with it, neither candidate is actually discussing the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are already lost and they are lost because of the conduct of the military from the Commander in Chief all the way down to the grunt in the field killing civilians simply because his sargent said "open fire."
This was reported on my local ABC station in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Over $900,000.00 has been spent by the Obama and Clinton campaigns to get superdelegate support. Obama has spent over $600,000.00 and Clinton over $200,000.00 buying up superdelegates. How? By transferring money from their presidential campaign funds to the campaign funds of individual superdelegates who are in elected office such as Congress, state legislature or local offices.
This is legal under election laws and the Democratic Party rules. But it sure looks like legal bribery to me.
Okay, the Hillary Clinton campaign appears to be in meltdown mode, and it is flowing from the top with ex-president Bill whining about not getting any respect from Barack Obama.
It's bad enough when Bill says his wife isn't getting respect, but when Bill starts defending himself he is taking away from his wife's campaign and making himself look like the biggest loser.
Then Bill gets on such a roll that he makes a statement that can only be seen to imply that Obama's camapaign is an evil jaugernaut "taking out" the "good" candidates.
Decide for yourself below the fold if I'm seeing things that aren't there.
I can understand Edwards saying he made a mistake on the Iraq vote. But I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would believe anything from Hillary Clinton after her explanations about her Iraq war authorization vote.
At the time, Clinton's vote on Iraq showed terrible judgement and lack of intellectual ability and experience, but her explanations afterwards have indicated more than just dissembling; she has shown nothing but outright dishonesty.
If experience is worth anything, it is that experience means you know what things mean. You know what "taking responsibility" means beyond the lip service. You know that "taking responsibility" means you admit you were wrong and you say you are sorry for being wrong. If you don't know that, then you don't have the basic life experience needed to be an adult, much less the president.
After watching what the Democratic Party has done to Dennis Kucinich, it is abundantly clear that the Democratic Party doesn't care a whit about democracy or the principles of fair play.
Rather than conducting a primary election for delegates in which every candidate has an equal chance to collect delegates going to the convention, the Democratic Party has rigged the game so that candidates who represent a minority view within the party are disenfranchised.
The Democratic Party does this in many ways but the two chief ways are through the manipulation of the voting system using the 15% rule, and the manipulation of the debate system by collaboration with the media-military-industrial corporations. Just as the Democrats in congress have sold out the Party over the war and impeachment, the Democratic Party has abdicated its own authority over its own primaries and convention by giving control of our public elections to private corporate interests.
This cannot stand if we are to have a viable democracy. It is not the neo-cons to blame only. Instead the Democratic Party is bringing us a neo-fascism that is sold with the expertise of Madison Ave. By having no principles when it comes to the conduct of the primaries and the debates the Democratic Party has shown its true colors.
Tonight the MSM reported a "big win" and a "stunning victory" for Clinton. What a bunch of baloney.
This is a call for sober responses to the primary results. Okay, I'm a Scrooge when it comes to the hoopla. But really it just looks stupid to me when people are calling the outcome of New Hampshire a "win" for Hillary Clintion when is was actually a "tie." And in fact, Hillary did not come in third in Iowa; she came in second.
What the heck am I talking about? These are PRIMARIES people! You really need to stop looking at the vote results and look at the delegate counts.
All the crowing by supporters of Obama after Iowa and supporters of Clinton after New Hampshire is really a form of self-delusion about the actual results.
Danny Glover was on Democracy Now! last Friday discussing his support for John Edwards and the mandate for change.
Harry Belafonte has also endorsed John Edwards. These two gentlemen have impeccible credentials as progressives.
So far, the only down side to electing Edwards is that he is a European ancestry male.
The Clinton campaign is attacking Edwards specifically and saying it is a two-way race between Clinton and Obama. That seems sure to backfire to me, because everyone they convince not to vote for Edwards will more likely vote for Obama. Glover says if it is a two-person race the two people are Obama and Edwards.
Comparing Huckabee's and Obama's Iowa speeches on change centered on hope, Glover also said, "I had problems distinguishing between Huckabee’s idea of this new America and Obama’s."
I really hope that Edwards can continue through to the convention and gather enough delegates to prevent both Clinton and Obama from getting the 2025 needed for the nomination. I think the best thing the Democratic Party could do is to have a contested convention with Richardson and Kucinich having some delegates also to work with in brokering a compromise platform and consensus candidate.
Dennis Kucinich (and Mike Gravel) is being banned from the ABC Facebook debate. Where is the outrage here? Where is the outrage in the Democratic Party.
I submit to you that the treatment that Dennis is getting now is exactly the treatment that his proposals are getting from the Democratic Party leadership.
Impeachment off the table? Dennis out of the debagtes.
Single payer off the table? Dennis out of the debates.
I'm reading comments in here on DKos diaries that I have commented in that say Kucinich should be banned because he is not polling high enough. I can't express how sick that makes be feel, that people who call themselves Democrats would act like such self-interested fascists against the principle of democracy.
As I see it the principle takes precedent over the self-interests of the other candidates or the vested interests of the media like ABC who have a conflict of interest in telling the American people what they can hear or not. ABC is supposed to report the news, not make it.
As long as there is one person in the state of New Hampshire who would vote for Kucinich (or Gravel as one of the 6 national candiates), then Kucinich (and Gravel) should be in the debates and given the fair chance of convincing one more.
For all those who have written off Kucinich I suppose any thing written in his favor just seems like satire or snark. I have such a weird view of politics, I'm wondering how others look at the serioucness of running in the primaries and seeking delegates for the convention. When the other so-called 2nd tier" candidates have left the race, Kucinich will show his determination, sincerity, and seriousness by continuing on to the convention.
Is this a factor at all in your equations of what makes a "serious" candidate? I don't see any candidate who isn't willing to go the distance and finish every primary as a serious canidate and since I know Kucinich is the only candidate who has that level of determination I see him as the most serious candidate. But I assume some people would see that kind of determination as just "silly".
I'll vote for the longshot who hits the target 9 out of 10 rather than the shortshot who can't hit the bulls eye but 3 out of 10 tries.
This is a four-part diary re: (1) Robert Perry's analysis of Bill Clinton's comments about a "world tour" with Bush 41, (2) Sean Penn endorsed Kucinich, 3) Kucinich asks his Iowa supporters to make Obama their second choice, and (4) Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Gravel are banned from ABC's NH debate.
"Former President Bill Clinton’s comment that his wife’s ‘first thing’ as President would be to send him and former President George H.W. Bush on a worldwide fence-mending tour has a political subtext," reports investigative journalist Robert Parry. "It signals that a second Clinton administration would give a free pass to the second Bush administration on its abuses."
A recent article on sex education by Alison Bowen in Women's e-news titled "Views on Sex-Ed Divide Democratic, GOP Candidates" once again shows how Dennis Kucinich takes the uncompromised lead on progressive issues.
Alison Bowen is a New York City-based journalist covering the 2008 campaign. Her work also appears in the New York Daily News.
According to Bowen,
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who is a co-sponsor of the Responsible Education About Life Act that emphasizes comprehensive programs.
Why can't Clinton, Obama, Dodd, or Biden join in on this?
As I see it, it is once again no surprize that the little guy who acturally reads the bills is the progressive leader among the Democrat candidates. That is the type of experience we need and can trust.
See what Bowen says about the all the candidates' positions below the jump fold.
Two diaries discuss the recent Time opinion piece by Joe Klein: More on the Time idiocy by Kagen X and Time's laughable "correction" by Kos. They take issue with Time magazine for its "correction" of a statement by Klein regarding provisions of the Democrat's take on FISA.
Who cares? Based on what Klein writes, the man is an idiot ideologue.
Kline wrote,
Senator Christopher Dodd had a nice moment in the Democrats' Las Vegas presidential debate.
So what was Dodd's "nice moment"? He answered Wolf Blitzer's Republican-framed question like a Republican. In other words, Kline thinks Democrats have "nice moments" if they sound like Republicans.
Dennis Kucinich is the clear favorite among progressives responding to the most recent Democracy For America "Pulse Poll."
Democracy For America (DFA) is the organization of progressive Democrats who supported Howard Dean and it is currently headed by Dean's brother James H. Dean.
Kucinich = 31.97% 49,364 (1st place votes)
Gore = 24.77% 38,242
Edwards= 15.6% 24,078
Obama 13.86 21,403
Clinton 4.21 % 6,504
I think this is a fairly accurate rating and ranking of the candidates' "progressive index." (That is, except for Mike Gravel who is very progressive but with libertarian flavoring and just doesn't seem to have much support.)
Since the polling was done by ranking your top three choices the results graphic at DFA's website has the feature of removing candidates to see what would happen in various configurations of match ups. This is important as an educational tool to understand why we should have ranked-choice voting for all federal elections. That one piece of federal legislation would change the face of politics overnight.
Dennis Kucinich is the Democrat's Democrat. He's the only candidate who opposed the war in Congress and gave the members of Congress his arguments why it was wrong. He's been proven 100% correct. He's the only candidate who had the foresight and analytical ability to explain the situation and stick to it. (Obama said he opposed the war but after being elected he then voted for every bill funding the war until recently.) He's the only candidate in office who has not been bought by Wall Street and other big business interests. He's the only candidate who has presented an actual bill into Congress for a practical exit strategy out of Iraq -- HR 1234. He's the only candidate who has supported HR 676 medicare for all. He's the only candidate who supports impeachment and has introduced a bill to impeach Cheney. He's the only candidate who voted against the Patriot Act.
I have to admit that I don't always get it on my own. Thinking about Hillary's shift from backing Health Care to backing mandatory Health Insurance that benefits the for profit insurance companies and her getting to the top of the recipient list of weapons makers money, I didn't see the connection. I din't have the pieces of the puzzle.
Then, just now, I read Naomi Klien's article and she provided the key that explains why Hillary Clinton is rolling in dough-re-me.
The business press and me: a case of unrequited love
Finance journalists have attacked my book, but I remain devoted to their papers. After all, they supplied the facts I used
Naomi Klein
Thursday October 25, 2007
The Guardian
Several reports have out came out recently about Hillary Clinton's money tree. The Independent reported about HRC's US Weapons industry money and Nation and RealNews reports on the Bush backers money connection.
Does it matter to HRC supporters who think she can do no wrong? Will you say it doesn't matter and Hillary will be "independent" even though she is now getting money from the same people who set up George W. Bush?
Harken Energy? Does that name ring a bell? The people who "rescued" Bush from his failed businesses and set him on the path to become President are now the same people supporting Hillary Clinton using a private equity and investment firm as a conduit for what I call legal money laundering. Terry McAuliffe is the connector.
