DISQUS

I am totally outraged by Lieberman's statements that Obama would be bad for American security.


He doesn't offer any reason to back it up. He just says, basically, "We'd be less safe with Obama as President", or "some terror group wants to see Obama elected."



By the way, Lieverman is entitled to his opinions about the war in Iraq and other things, but he is NOT entitled to accuse Obama, with no reasons whatsoever, of being "weak on terrorism".



It should be obvious to anyone who follows Obama's statements that Obama loves this country and cares very much for the safety, and well-being, of Americans.

Looks like they're playing the "class card" against Obama, accusing him of being elitist.


I suppose the class card can be just as nasty as the race card or the sex card.



I am beginning to understand what Obama means when he says he wants to go beyond politics as usual. In the USA right now, "politics as usual" is pretty sad.

John McCain and his wife adopted a vey dark-skinned daughter in 1993. (In the 2000 presidential race, George W. Bush made sure that South Carolinans knew that.)


I know McCain has gone neocon and a bit crazy lately, but I'm optimistic that he won't run a racist campaign.



Assuming the Clintons don't take center stage in the news again, I think race will become less important as an issue.



Of course, the issue of race will always be there. There will always be Mark Fuhrman - Pat Buchanan types out there.



Obama has been an example to all of us that what unites us is greater than what divides us. So I like to think that with the Clintons fading away, we've seen the worst of "race nastiness" in the 2008 campaign.



Cheers!

I'm afraid that one big weakness Obama might have is if he's perceived as a "tax and spend liberal". I was very unhappy to hear a day or so ago that Obama spoke in favor of a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This is exactly the kind of "gimmick" that turns off Independent voters.

I disagree with what the post says about Alan Greenspan.


I definitely blame him for lending his good name to the 2001 Bush tax cuts. Greenspan did warn that the tax cuts had to be matched by spending cuts. And he was trying to give some slack to a new President. Still, I disagree with him on that one.



Other than the above, though, Alan Greenspan is one of the very few politicians I actually look up to. In fact, I would say that Greenspan and Obama are the two politicians I admire most.



Greenspan kept the economy together for almost 20 years, in the face of the craziest, wacko policies by 4 Presidents and Congresses. Working with Bill Clinton, Greenspan helped achieve budget surpluses, which nowadays seems like an impossible dream.



Keep in mind that the wacky Right Wing hates Alan Greenspan: simply because he served George W. Bush for 6 years and doesn't worship Bush like a god. Greenspan's book was respectful about all 4 presidents he served (plus the 5th President, Ford, whom he served in a different job), but he criticizes Bush politely when appropriate, and this drove the right wing crazy.



So I don't have a problem with Andrea Mitchell. From what I've seen of her, she seems perfectly intelligent, interesting, and capable.

to d,


I am sorry, I did not know about Webb's "confederacy issues". Of course, this ruins Webb in my eyes.



Good thing the Obama campaign is vetting these people.



It might be nice to have a running mate with "military credentials" to neutralize Republican smears.



Unfortunately, I don't like Wesley Clark, and he's already run for President. I can't think of a good military running mate right now.



I like Hagel, but I don't know much about him. He's a Republican, and I'm not sure what his positions of various issues are. I do think that you can look at Hagel and say that he'd be ready to step in as President.



Ed Rendell may be worth a look as well...

I am starting to like Jim Webb as VP. The smears against Obama try to make him look like "not one of us". This isn't only about race; it's also that he's from Harvard, never served in the military, bowled a 37 (ouch!) and wouldn't be comfy in a small-town bar (neither would I).


Webb would vaporize those smears. Totally vaporize them. Webb is not some general with a chestful of medals. He's a down-to-earth military guy who will get standing ovations at Veterans of Foreign Wars meetings.



Webb might neutralize McCain's entire military appeal. Webb was Reagans Secretary of the Navy. He saw real combat in Vietnam. His son, I believe, is (or was) serving in Iraq.



As I look at the Republican attack machine, I think it will take a lot more than that new web site (fightthesmears) to fight the smears... and Webb would really blow them away.



Also, no offense to Barack, but with Webb, there's no sense of "the nerd from Harvard". Obama and Webb seem like a great match.

Of course people like Sean Hannity have mental problems, and nothing Obama says will ever satisfy them.


But I believe there are plenty of other people, who are not mentally challenged like Sean Hannity, who would really appreciate long, drawn-out discussions from Obama about his reaching out to all kinds of people, ranging from Republicans to Jeremiah Wright.



Actually, this reaching out to many different kinds of people is one reason I believe Obama will be a great president.

Just my opinion: I really like Obama, and I'm concerned that he needs to do a lot more to neutralize the Rev. Wright issue.


I'm unhappy to see the smear against Michelle and Barack, and I'm glad they're fighting back.



Of course, most of the smears are just plain silly and offensive. But I'm afraid that the Rev. Wright performances will "stick".



I know Obama had complex reasons for becoming so involved with the Rev. Wright. What I'm trying to say is, Obama's reasons were complex, and his explanation also needs to be complex, and long, and repeated.



Just my opinion... obviously Obama knows how to run a campaign!

These days, I see Lieberman as simply some guy who is drinking the Republican kool-aid. What I'm trying to say is, I don't even see him as Jewish or a friend of Israel; I see him as a typical worshipper of George W. Bush. To these people, everything good is the result of the goodness of Bush, and everything bad is the result of the evil of the Democrats.


I actually think Lieberman used to be a nice guy, but he has changed in the past few years.

To me, Hillary Clinton is like George W. Bush: there's nothing you want from them except for them to go away.


It's not like they can never do anything good, it's just that it's time for new people to have their turn.

Obama's enemies would LOVE to get him provoked in some way: it would make the evening news and stay on Fox News forever.


I wouldn't be surprised if all kinds of people do some pretty wild and crazy things to try to get Barack riled up.

I'm with carribbean lionesse: I think Obama's acceptance speech in South Carolina was a moment of realization for me: that Obama was both a great speaker and a well-intentioned politician who would really work to improve things. I don't remember any details, but there was something awesome about that South Carolina speech!

There is yet another reason that Obama should not pick Clinton: the reaction of Republican and Independent voters.


People talk a lot about how Democrats will react to Clinton on the ticket. Sure, that's important, but let's also look at how Republicans and Independents would react: (1) quite a few Republicans like Obama; these people would high-tail it out of the room if Clinton were on the ticket. (2) Independents have a big influence on any presidential election, and let's face it, Independents do not like Hillary!



I know I keep going on and on about her, but I can't wait until Barack picks a VP other than her!!!

What a great night with good feelings. For all its faults, American took a great step forward today.


Of course, I won't feel really good until Obama announces his vice-presidential choice; if he is forced to pick Clinton, all will be ruined. It's a shame to have this great moment soiled by the Clintons.

I don't have a problem with Obama's helping to pay down Hillary's debts. This seems like a normal thing that politicians do for each other. I'm not happy about it, but it seems like it's not a big deal.


It would be a different matter entirely for Obama to be forced to offer Hillary some position like Vice President or Supreme Court Justice. These are, or should be, opportunities to serve the public (all of us), not opportunities for individual self-glorification. Positions like these should be given out of love, not fear.



Compared to this, it seems to me that paying down debts isn't such a big deal. (I don't like it, but I guess that's one reason I'm not involved in politics!)

I must disagree with a big premise of this post. The same disagreement as other commenters above.


The only way to see Hillary Clinton as representing feminism is to be totally guided by identity politics: she's female, therefore she's a feminist.



Obviously identity is important. It matters if a candidate is a woman, or African American, or whatever.



But identity doesn't go on forever. At some point (as other commenters have already pointed out above) we need to look at the individual human being. In the case of Hillary Clinton, take a look, and keep in mind the line from the Beatles Strawberry Fields: "what did you see when you were there? Nothing that doesn't show."



This is a privileged person who used private detectives to harrass women whom Bill harrassed. This is a feminist?



Hillary's supporters should look to the many truly admirable women who are breaking barriers, who are getting things done (which usually means working with other people... not Hillary's strong suit, as you may have noticed).



I could totally get into the feelings of her supporters, that it would be great to have a woman president, BUT I just can't do that with THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL woman.

I must say, I totally agree with this post!


When Obama says nice and polite things about Hillary, I get a creepy sense of "up is down, left is right, 2 plus 2 equals 3." When I listen to his polite words, I want to scream: "but that's not true!"



I get a similar funny feeling about the attitude that "we're all Democrats", and "all Republicans are bad." Yes, I would be very happy if a Democrat (other than Clinton) wins in November. BUT it doesn't feel quite right the way Obama is so darned NICE about Hillary, and is so quick to attack McCain for all kinds of little things.



I have many disagreements with McCain, and I hope Obama beats him in the fall. Still, it seems like Obama is dumping on McCain a little too often.

If the superdelegates don't shut this whole thing down real soon, the Clinton camp will keep spinning their popular vote argument for months.


I am so glad to see this blog post... every Obama supporter should know that the Clinton popular-vote argument is bogus.

One more thing...


Andrew Sullivan points out that the turnout for FL and MI were pretty average, not spectacular.



The FL and MI turnout was much less than the turnout for other states, where the excitement over Obama motivated many people to vote. This did not happen in FL and MI.



FL and MI are simply birds of a different feather. I am really concerned about the upcoming May 31 Rules Committee meeting.

www.andrewsullivan.com has a few interesting posts about why Florida and Michigan should not be counted. For example, a woman Democrat emailed from Florida to say that she was told the vote wouldn't count, so she didn't vote that day. Now, she says, if Florida and Michigan are even partially counted, she'll feel cheated.


Imagine if the Rules Committee partially counts FL and MI on May 31. Then, in 2012, what's to stop West Virginia and Kentucky from saying: "We're going to be the earliest states this time around, even before Iowa. What are you going to do, tell us you won't seat our delegates?"



I am afraid the Democrats often like to "fix things" with a compromise... but in the case of FL and MI, to change the rules after the game is over, even to COMPROMISE on the rules after the game is over... no good will come of this!

Clinton's only hope is to stir up as many bad feelings as possible. For as long as possible. Each of us has a breaking point, when we get worn down by pain that goes on for too long. All Clinton needs is for Obama to break, just once. One mistake from Obama, one angry soundbite, could allow her to force her way onto the ticket as his VP.


There is one thing that Clinton fears the most: that America will actually get to see more of the thoroughly decent and intelligent Barack Obama.



I know it's easy for me to say and hard for him to do, but Obama has to continue to be the nice guy (which of course comes naturally to him anyway), and (alas) he simply must plan to fight both HIllary and McCain at the same time for the next 6 months.

A minor point: in 1992, the Democratic primaries started in March, not January. So when Hillary talks about her husband clinching the Democratic nomination in early June 1992... well that would be like April 2008, not June 2008. Yet another "misstatement" from their side.

Hillary's comment is all the more remarkable, coming as it does only days after Mike Huckabee's talk, when he was addressing the National Rifle Association, about Obama diving for cover when he hears a long bang. (I'm sure many of you have seen it, but I should note that Huckabee's remarks are on video.)


Let me also say something else. I really don't want anyone to feel bad, but I think it's worth it for me to point out something. I've had a few African American friends and acquaintances, I have AA neighbors right now, and I've certainly known a few AA's over the years. Anyway, it is so totally clear to me, as clear as the blazing sun, what a terrible, terrible thing it would be to mention "assassination" in regard to Obama.



It really is like talking about "Jews" and "ovens"... or using the N-word. I mean, there are some things no one in their right mind should ever do.



I mention this because for a politicna to make that kind of terrible mistake, especially someone who wants to be President (well, now, Vice President) is really incredible, inexcusable.



What I'm trying to say is, if an ordinary person like me says something stupid, that's bad enough. But for a politician to come right out and talk about assasination, in the context of what should be Obama's victory lap, is beyond awful.

Help! Help! Help! I just saw that Andrew Sullivan, of all people (I actually like him a lot) came out and said today that Hillary's popular vote is a legitimate argument to be on Obama's ticket as his VP.


***This is why I keep repeating myself: her popular vote argument is bogus, even if she blows out Puerto Rico: THE WHOLE POINT OF THE RULES was to let the "second-tier candidates" get noticed in 4 special EARLY STATES: Iowa, NH, NEV, SC. Hillary's wins in FL and MI must be seen in this context!!!



I am really, really worried that she will use the popular-vote argument to force her way onto the ticket as the VP. No one is pointing out how bogus this is!!! (and by the way, Puerto Rico isn't even a state).



As the party's nominee, Obama has to impose discipline on the party. He needs to put his foot down and tell Hillary NO.