DISQUS

Dave_in_Gainesville John McKeating is not running as a moderate Republican.

NCYvonne I disagree. He has a much better chance winning VA than OH. Here's why: (1) VA has a 20% black population, compared to 12% in OH. (

2) The white population in VA is increasing becoming more affluent and educated--the kind of voters Obama does well with. It is also becoming more anti-war.

(3) More than 200K new voters have registered to vote in VA since January. 64% of them are under 35. That's Obama's sweet spot!

(4) Mark Warner has some long coattails and they will pull him across the finish line with 51%.

If Obama had listened to folks like you, he would have lost the primary because you would have told him "don't waste your time in ID, UT, NE, KS. Focus on CA, NJ, MA where the big delegate hauls are." That's the conventional wisdom. Thank goodness he didn't take it because he net more delegates out of ID and UT each than Hillary did out of NJ.

You don't win by taking a narrower path, especially when you have the resources to play the field.

pisher Well jgrillo, nobody's making you hang around here and talk nonstop about your military experience--in the airforce--in the 90's.

;)

Roehl Rule of thumb: the supporters of the guy getting hit ALWAYS want to talk about something else. Republicans are especially good at this "kill the messenger" routine.

You've been here long enough, jgrillo. If you're still "quite surprised," then you really haven't been reading PW.

graniteguy Ron Paul is not a nut job just because Fox News says he is. He happens to be the only true republican and true federalists, unless you call protecting our constitution, our military, and our overall free way of life nuts. I think maybe you should do a little research and find out out who is fighting the real fight cause it ain't Karl Rove, Dick Chenney, and Sean Hannity.

NCYvonne He *is* taking Ohio seriously! He has twice the number of campaign offices and staff there that Kerry had. It's second only in expenditure to FL. Just because he's playing in the west doesn't mean he's not working like crazy in OH.

Suppose he does as you suggest--ignore VA, CO, MT (where he's either leading or tied) and banks everything on OH. Then he, like Gore and Kerry, lose OH. Then what? He's fucked because there's no way he can make up the difference.

He knows he can't count on OH and since has the money and the resources to play hard in several states, he'd be a fool not to.

just me Because your next post would imply that only black folks or democrats would vote for Obama. Trying to save your sad little mind from finding more excuses why someone wouldn't be voting for "Cuntry First" McCain

just me Hey Grillo: Read the question that caused the response. It asked: "Is there an Obamite out there older than 30?" SOMETIMES -except when you post - the threads refer to one another. No wonder you are voting for McCain. You don't think.

Wynstone I would say you are right to a certain extent. I guess I was making a larger point than the original comment. Bush's problem in my view is not so much hypocrisy as incompetence. As far as support for dictatorships, I think Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 loom larger in terms of complicity than their Democrat counterparts.

Lida It is obvious a waste of time responding to you, because you lack a ton of facts...you don't seem to remember that the UN inspectors told the US that Iraq HAD ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...there is document after document that proves the BUSH ADMINISTRATION LIED TO AMERICA, because they knew there was none there and Iraq was not involved in 9/11...nothing like turning Iraq into their cheap gas station...oops, that didn't work, or maybe it did. Bush and all his cronies are oil men, right? They're making a bundle, right? Looks like this debacle worked for them...I guess, bulling and intimidation is profitable.

Wynstone I would say where the hypocrisy lies is in our support of cruel dictatorships as long as we benefit. Such as Marcos in the Phillipines, Noriega in Panama, Pinochet in Chile, the Shah in Iran, and Saddam in Iraq. We didn't have a problem with him gassing the Kurds as long as he was a thorn in the side of Iran. Ross Perot brought up in the debates with Bush 41 how we had given sanction to the invasion of Kuwait, but then decided to use it to destabilize Saddam's power base.

jgrillo I know the barrage is going to come so let me ask this? Is it bullying or intimidation to ask Saddam comply with UN Resolutions?

braidy See, I would say that kicking people in the balls is an absolutely terrible attribute for someone in charge of national security.

And if a woman, an african-american, even a mormon can run for president, but never ever wins, I think it does matter, as long as there are people who vote against them for those very reasons.

Hunt Just me, exactly my point.

jgrillo, if you clearly understood what I was saying..."This is America's night. We should all be proud of what America has accomplished -- whether you support his candidacy or not." That's what I said. Meaning: America judged him by his merits, not his skin color. That's a win for ALL of us...not just Barack.

just me That's why we are proud. He WAS judged on his merits and NOT on the color of his skin.

vshawnt I disagree.

Many people have spent the last 8 years deriding the Bush/Cheney idea & expression of strength, yet, in the responses to Obama I can see that many of us have absorbed this as their idea of what it means to be strong. Bush/Cheney are weak, little men because they can't let an opportunity pass to demonstrate just how strong, bull-headed, and uncompromising they are. This is not strength, it's ignorance.

Obama supporters shouldn't embrace the ignorant form of strength. Often, strength is more subtle, and - especially in politics - sometimes gives the impression of weakness. Don't mistake his smart moves for weakness.

Obama knows not to give the Clinton's (or their most passionate supporters) an excuse to become belligerent. He is focusing on fighting the Republicans, and doesn't need a challenge from within his own party. He is appeasing them at the convention, but that will gain him votes, even if it's uncomfortable. This is their last opportunity to take the spotlight and he's giving it to them in exchange for insuring that from September on, it's his party.

Besides, many presidential candidates have had their names placed in nomination over the years (including most of the conventions over the past 30 years) that have had far less support and success in the primaries. Clinton is the first female candidate to seriously challenge for the nomination...she deserves to have that accomplishment recognized officially (and I've been an Obama supporter from the beginning).

Political Junkie Two days of the convention will be dominated by Clintons... Tues and Wed. And a roll call will eat up time as many states will vote for Hillary outright. Unless she's going to be Obama's running mate, this is a big mistake.

pisher Wow--then it's worse for McCain than I thought. :D

jgrillo Pisher...how many damn questions are you going to ask me? Next you'll be asking me if McCain will receive the majority of votes from E-4s and below stationed in the Anbar Province.

McCain will receive the majority of Active Duty votes so you can go back to sleep now and hope he receives the majority of some other group's vote.

pisher Do you think McCain will be the choice of the majority of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because it sure does seem like an awful lot of them like Obama.

Where were your last few postings before you retired?