Go Hilary, and I think Obama, Edwards, or Hilary could beat Romney in November, so, go Romney, I guess?!

At least it's not Fuckabee? Every time I see that guy, I think "you know what they say about the Spanish Inquisition..."

I caucused for Hillary. We beat Obama 80-62 at my precinct.

CNN says women and Latinos fueled the victory. I will confirm that there were a lot of Latinos and women on our side at my precinct. There were nine Edwards people, three came over to Hillary's side, the rest bounced. I expected to see a lot more Edwards people.

Completely not shocked about Romney - he's the only one who really campaigned there.

Not overly shocked about Clinton, either, though it was interesting to see the huge racial divide between her and Obama. Poor Edwards just can't get any respect.

Hops... the majority of conservatives around here are either hardcore libertarians (Paul) or Mormons (Romney).

I wasn't shocked either.

Can't say I'm shocked. Romney was definitely given a religious tip, and he actually campaigned in Nevada, unlike anyone other than Paul.

As for Clinton... I think it's interesting that all the media sources seem to announce she "won", but it's sort of misleading, in my opinion. She won the popular vote, from what I understand, but because of the way Nevada divides the delegates, she has one less than Obama. Since the delegates are [sadly] more important than the popular vote in these primaries, I think it might be more accurate to say that Obama won.
Here's a CNN link that mentions it. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/nevada.sc.main/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

As for McCain in SC- I'm not overly pleased. While I would much rather have a president McCain than a president Huckabee, were it to come to that, I think he's far more likely to beat a Democrat than Huckabee is. Which is unfortunate, as I pretty much loathe the stances of the Republican party, and desire very much for a Democrat to win. I'm not saying McCain would beat the Dem, because I'm not sure he would, but he seems more viable than Huckabee or Romney in a general election. Just my thoughts.

While a woman candidate would generally be a good thing - I would be totally on-board a Christine Gregoire (Washington State) candidacy or Janet Napolitano (Arizona) candidacy - I am a anti-Hillary Democrat for two reasons:

[1] I do not like the idea of dynasties or political families. It is ridiculous to have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Clinton, Clinton. After that Jeb Jeb? It's like we are some goofy banana republic.

[2] I was disgusted to read the ACLU report on Extraordinary Rendition and Bill Clinton's involvement; using the CIA to kidnap and transport people to Egypt and Syria to be tortured. I want a White House free of any taint of torture, extraordinary rendition, or support for the WBush war. I would be happy with Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich.

ACLU Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition
www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

===================

I completely agree with LlesbianLlama regarding McCain and SC. I believe he is probably the only Republican who has the chance to beat a Democrat, whether its Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. He appeals to the Independents as well which makes him a dangerous opponent, whereas it seems as if the other candidates are too polarizing.

All I can say is, I'm ridiculously excited to see how Super Tuesday turns out...maybe that makes me a huge geek, but that's okay! :)

"[1] I do not like the idea of dynasties or political families. It is ridiculous to have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Clinton, Clinton. After that Jeb Jeb? It's like we are some goofy banana republic."

I have to say, that's not the best reason to choose a candidate. You should be looking at where each candidate stands on issues compared your beliefs, not who they are married to or who their dad is. That's just as bad as voting FOR them because of who they are married to or who their dad is. It's reverse nepotism.

Also, being against Hil because of Bill's involvement in something? Did she ever say how she felt about this? Or are you just assuming her beliefs are the same as her husband's?

Liza, I agree with you completely! Well said.

Apparently even though Clinton won Nevada, Obama gets more delegates because of the rural areas that voted for him? Bummer.

Urgh. Not happy. Never mind Nevada, McCain took South Carolina. If he takes the Republican nomination - which now looks more than likely in my book - and Clinton takes it for the Democrats, I'm putting my $$ down on McCain. I have a hard time gaming political scenarios in which she beats him, and after all we've gone through with the Republicans over the last 25 years, that's sad. McCain will take most of the centrist/independent vote, which doesn't like Clinton, and she'll do the job of bringing out the Republican base, which REALLY doesn't like Clinton. Obama, on the other hand, would compete for the center and induce the Republican base, which doesn't loathe him and isn't nuts about McCain, to stay at home. Here's hoping Obama takes South Carolina to vault him into position for February 3rd, because nominating Clinton would be borderline political suicide for the Dems if McCain takes the Republican nomination.

Oh, and if Kate 21 will forgive me a postscript, it's entirely legitimate to conflate the record of Sen. Clinton with that of former President Clinton, because that's been a centerpiece of HER campaign. Every speech she makes she talks about her "experience" in the White House, how she's been "tested," referring to Clinton Administration accomplishments as things that "we" (she and Bill) did etc. I'm not necessarily saying that it wasn't the case, though I have no way of knowing how much influence she had over her husband's policies. Rather, it's not legitimate to confer upon her the mantle of experience and give her credit for all that was good about the Clinton years, and then harp about how she and her husband have different views every time a less-than-flattering historical fact comes up. If she gets to claim credit for the Clinton administration's successes, then she should be blamed for its failures. It's a two way street.

CNN is also reporting that apparently Obama has one more delegate from New Hampshire than Clinton does?

Also:

referring to Clinton Administration accomplishments as things that "we" (she and Bill) did etc.

On that note, I wonder what the deal is with her and the DOMA. I did read this: http://insomnia.livejournal.com/782665.html but I'm having a hard time finding out any more specific information about it than that.

i was set to comment on nevada when i noticed one of the "premium blogads" on the left side of the page. the one that caught my eye (and, i might add, stimulated my gag reflex) reads "hillary now! (obama later)".

interestingly, it also includes the line "ditch your sexism." why not ditch sexism AND racism? why, even if one supports hillary (i'm still deciding), the emphasis on obama later? a black feminist, i can say with great confidence that any statements that are supposedly in support of feminism yet simultaneously uphold other systems of oppression are not anything that i wish to ally myself with. i would hope that the maintainers of the blogs/websites i visit would think the same.

sidenote: i realize that the feministing itself may not necessarily control the content of the ads, but my comments also apply to many of the (veiled or blatantly racist) comments people have left in response to other caucus-related posts.

re: alicia,

As a black feminist as well, I didn't read "Hillary now, Obama later" as a racist statement or as a statement privileging ending sexism over ending racism. I read it as a statement of the feeling some people have that Obama would make a great presidential candidate with a few more years of experience. I don't think we should make the same mistake that so many people seem to be making of pitting race against gender and assuming that any statement that favors Clinton over Obama must be racist, or any statement that favors Obama over Clinton must be sexist. There are perfectly valid, non-racist, non-sexist reasons for voters to prefer one over the other.

"I read it as a statement of the feeling some people have that Obama would make a great presidential candidate with a few more years of experience."

If one reads the reasons behind that blog, the claim is simply that Sen. Clinton is more experienced, and that if she had been born a man, the nomination would be a given. The concept of gender vs. race is the topic of some posts, as in sexism is more acceptable (but not "worse") than racism in this campaign.

The NYT reports ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/us/politics/20nevada.html?hp ) "Vote of Women Propels Hillary." I really don't like the headline. They don't back it up with actual numbers, and the implication is, "men don't support Hillary." Sound like a very backhanded headline to me. The numbers they do report are that, "two thirds of African Americans voted for Obama," so why wasn't the headline, "Vote of African Americans Propels Obama?"

Also, they say that while Clinton won the popular vote, Obama won the most delegates.

I just looked over my post, and it's a real downer - I should have started with, Wow, this is a really nail-biting Democratic primary full of viable contenders all of whom I like, which is awesome!

Hillary won a decisive victory yesterday - a thumping of around 6%. The media barely mentioned it. MSNBC played about 20 seconds of her victory speech, yet they played the entire boring length of Thompson's lackluster 3rd place finish in SC and they played every word of Romney's NV victory speech.

I am disappointed in the way Obama is handling the loss. On his website, he is claiming delegate victory, disregarding the fact that no delegates are actually awarded right now. He has made himself "the decider." He has also not given a concession speech. I think lower of him now.

You didn't hear Clinton saying of Iowa, "Yeah, but Obama only won by 1 delegate..." Nor did she contest her 3rd place finish by pointing out that it was actually a 2nd place finish if one considers delegates.

Also, I'm sick of the rabid anti-hillary talk on the leftie blogs, equating her with bush, yammering on about "dynasties" and railing on in what is sometimes a very sexist manner about Hillary.

Given all of this opposition, I hope Hillary beats the pants off of them all!

Hype -- That's because he actually did win in terms of delegates, and I'm finding it a little weird myself that the media is playing it up like a Clinton win, even though it would technically be an Obama win if one were considering the votes that actually determine who is nominated. So I don't find it all that weird that he hasn't given a concession speech. I would find it tasteless though if he said that the popular vote was irrelevant, but as far as I know, he hasn't.

alicia -- I've seen that ad a few times myself, and even though it's probably pretty inocuous, it makes me a little nervous for the reasons you've said. Also, it seems like it's getting more and more difficult to be a feminist in support of Obama these days.

why wasn't the headline, "Vote of African Americans Propels Obama?"

Maybe because unlike women who made up a full 59% of caucus participants in Nevada, black voters are a small minority, and while minority support may be significant, it will not "propel" Obama, the way appealing to women in general will. News stories and headlines accurately note the need for and efforts of candidates to get the female vote. The Washington Post of 1/19/08 notes the contribution of the Latino community to Clinton's success in Nevada with the headline "Latino Community, Female Voters Push Clinton Over the Top" as well as references to unions (30% of caucus goers) and efforts of the Clinton campaign at "Las Vegas beauty salons." I guess Obama's "Clinton does not respect your people" message to hotel and casino workers did not work.

Also, the Post notes "more than 80 percent of black caucusgoers in Nevada went for Obama" and he still did not win, further demonstrating that support of women in general (mainstream whites) is much more important by their numbers, than support of minorities, as did the story "Female Voters Abandoning Clinton for Obama" with his Iowa win (CNS news, 1/7/08). It would be foolish of the Obama campaign to attempt to pit simple race against gender, or for him to target Latino service workers the way he did.

Speaking of isms, I wonder why everyone seems to refer to all of the male candidates by their last names while referring to Senator Clinton as "Hillary"?

All of Hillary's campaign material does just say "Hillary" not "Clinton."

In terms of people calling Hillary by her first name instead of Clinton, it's just the easiest way to distinguish her from her husband, who was, you know President for 8 years. Remember, during the 2000 election, people referred to George W Bush as "W", which was also the easiest way for people to refer specifically to the candidate without being confusing. Similarly, Hillary is trying to look less cold and calculating, and a first-name referral goes a long way.

I'd prefer Obama to win the primaries, simply because he has a better shot of getting independents and even moderate republicans on his side, especially if more right-wing candidates like Huckabee or Romney get the nom instead of McCain. Huckabee is a weird mix of socialism and evangelicalism that turns a lot of Republicans off.

In terms of policy, the three top Democratic leaders have very similar platforms, so electability is really the biggest factor in who to choose. Hillary is too polarizing in general--Republicans straight up HATE her in a way that doesn't apply to Obama.

Also, Fuckabee? Aren't we a little old for namecalling.

I think a reason Republicans are not spewing as much poison at Obama is because they want him to be the nominee. I know many believe that Hillary has less of a chance than Obama of winning against McCain, but I disagree. If I was Republican, I would want Obama to be the Dem nominee. How easy is it to point to his lack of experience, unproven record, and urge voters to vote for McCain, a likable, middle of the road seeming fella, with experience, a record, etc. Of course, the opposing argument that Hillary would be easier for McCain to beat is also valid.

Clinton & Obama's policies are relatively "similar," but not the same... As I sort of mentioned above, I've been hearing some things lately that lead me to believe that Obama would be much more supportive and friendly towards the gay community than Clinton. For instance, I recall hearing that at a debate (sorry I don't have a specific citation, ergh) Melissa Ethridge told Clinton that the gay community felt "thrown under a bus" by the DOMA, and Clinton told her that she doesn't think that's what happened at all but "respected her opinion." What kind of lame non-answer is that? I also recall hearing that Obama supported a full repeal of the DOMA whereas Clinton only supported a partial repeal (leaving in place, among other things, the section that gives states the right to ignore marriage licenses from other states). I had other reasons to like Obama, but this in particular seems like a major, major issue that is getting basically no attention at all...?

The_becca, perhaps we're not hearing more about the candidate's difference in opinion about the DOMA because it's only a major issue for the portion of the gay community that
a) actually wants a same-sex marraige and
b) wants to go from state to state with that marriage and thinks it's right to force other states to recognize that marriage.

Remember, the DOMA is more than just a gay rights issue, it's also a states' rights issue--to say that the people of Massachusetts can tell the people of Arkansas that they have to recognize a same-sex marriage goes against the principle of states rights, and thus, the issue isn't as cut and dry as one would think.

adambeezly,

"the people of Massachusetts can tell the people of Arkansas that they have to recognize a same-sex marriage goes against the principle of states rights"

Ummm...you're forgetting a little thing I like to call the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Constitution specifically took decisions like this away from individual states. Most states have different criteria for who can and cannot marry. It was the Full Faith and Credit Clause that required states to recognize inter-racial marriages even though many states had anti-miscegenation statutes. So if Illinois has to recognize the marriage of two 14 year olds from Alabama, explain to me why the states are not required to recognize gay marriages.

In short DOMA is unconstitutional and I won't support a candidate who would try to restrict the human rights and eviscerate the Constitution just to get elected by the centrists. P.S. I'm not a member of the gay community...so I guess this is a bigger issue than you think.

"Speaking of isms, I wonder why everyone seems to refer to all of the male candidates by their last names while referring to Senator Clinton as "Hillary"?"

Hillary herself does that. I can only assume it's to distinguish herself from her husband. When someone says "Clinton" the immediate image for most people is Bill. I think it's a good move on her part. It might help people who weren't fond of Clinton as President separate Hillary from Bill.

The final word on the Nevada Delegates issue:

**Clarification** of Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby
(Las Vegas, NV)-- "The Nevada Democratic Party and its officials have taken great effort to maintain our neutrality in the presidential campaign and the integrity of our process. Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

This is going to be an unpopular thing to say but in response to people saying that racism and sexism are equally bad but that sexism is more accepted in our society:

Not even feminists can get behind a female candidate over a black candidate without people throwing out the "racist" word and Clinton supporters doubling back and adding justifications to their position and support.

I support Senator Clinton because she has EXPERIENCE, she is QUALIFIED, and because I am much more fond of her positions. I find her Health Care proposals MUCH more in line with my ideas and opinions compared to Obama's.

Obama is part of a VERY radical church and has said point blank that his "morals" and "concern for the poor" come DIRECTLY from his religion, suggesting that without which he wouldn't give a damn. I do not believe religion should play any role in politics and listening to his pastor/mentor speak of him and their religion, I threw up in my mouth a little.

This has NOTHING to do with race. I do not think Obama has the experience to lead this country decisively and make the changes it so sorely needs. I think he is a great speaker that appeals to younger voters because he speaks on their level and is energetic and enthusiastic. I do not feel he gives enough specifics and I do not feel that he has the experience to save this country.

Kristen: I was trying to answer the question at the end of the_becca's post, pointing out a subtlety in the issue that she might have missed. The constitutionality of the DOMA is beyond my knowledge in general, but again, I don't think things are so cut and dry.

Kate21: I'm curious to why you have such vitrol against Obama's religious background. Why should it matter if he got his egalitarian value system from religion, instead of some conscious, rational, atheistic choice that helping the poor is "good"? Where do you propose one's morality should come from?

AdamBeezly, the idea that morality comes from the fear of an eternal judgement as prescribed by a dogma is allot less appealing than someone who genuinely cares about doing good works - regardless of judgment or reward or because an ancient book tells them to. I understand that its unrealistic to expect a candidate to not be religious in this country, but when they base their entire world view on faith it opens up all kinds of reasons for making decisions based on personal faith.

The religious rant aside, he's spent a very limited time in politics and while he was a representative he spent very little time actually taking stances on important/controversial issues. I would be much more comfortable supporting him with a little more experience and more of a record to judge how he might actually behave as president.

"I was trying to answer the question at the end of the_becca's post, pointing out a subtlety in the issue that she might have missed. The constitutionality of the DOMA is beyond my knowledge in general, but again, I don't think things are so cut and dry."

Kristen is right- in other cases, such as a state recognizing the marriage of two people not old enough to be legally married in that state because they were married in a state where it is legal, no one cries about "states rights". Constitutionally, this is a VERY cut and dry issue, the only problem here being peoples' [including judges] fear and hatred of gay people and their subsequent denial of equal rights.
It's pretty sad when states like MA choose to bring in old laws originally written to deny equal rights to interracial couples in order to justify the denial of rights to same-sex couples. Back in the day, again, as Kristen pointed out, the Full Faith and Credit Clause forced states to recognize the legal unions granted to interracial couples, among other things. This is no different.
This is the clause:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
While some people try to deliberately ignore its role in the marriage equality debate, it's pretty simple to see by reading it that it applies, and that it makes the denial of same sex marriages unconstitutional.
It is, of course, only one of MANY different ways of proving the constitutionality of same sex marriage.

My inner law student came out to play. :)

Kate21: Correct me if this is a false assumption, I would venture to say that you are not a religious person. That's okay, neither am I. However, to simplify religious basis for action into "judgment or reward or because an ancient book tells them to" discounts the immense power that "the religious feeling" has over many individuals and its capacity to motivate those individuals to do "good" things is something that is, in my experience, undervalued by most secular, well-educated, non-religious people (Including myself, until I began to immerse myself in religious theory).

I have no problem with someone who has religious feelings and I'm not in any place to say what they do or do not "feel" but I strongly believe that religion should NEVER EVER EVER be used to justify political action - good, bad or indifferent.

In a perfect word, discussing religion or God would be a banned topic on political debates. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or spirituality and everything to do with the concept that religion and politics should be completely and utterly seperate.

I mean, honestly, what basis is there for arguments against gay-marriage or comprehensive sexual education that don't stem from religious "morality". Personal opinions aside, policy, laws, and decisions should not be made based on religious doctrine.

Also, Fuckabee? Aren't we a little old for namecalling.

It's actually quite mild considering what I really think of that man. To say the least, his ego could take a few shots.

He thinks he has a direct pipeline to god that no one else has access to, as if God tells him something that he doesn't tell the rest of us because we're so unworthy. I distrust anyone who considers himself a prophet, and my distrust is intensified when that self importance is tied to sexism, homophobia and a desire for a theocracy.

The_becca, perhaps we're not hearing more about the candidate's difference in opinion about the DOMA because it's only a major issue for the portion of the gay community that
a) actually wants a same-sex marraige and
b) wants to go from state to state with that marriage and thinks it's right to force other states to recognize that marriage.

Remember, the DOMA is more than just a gay rights issue, it's also a states' rights issue--to say that the people of Massachusetts can tell the people of Arkansas that they have to recognize a same-sex marriage goes against the principle of states rights, and thus, the issue isn't as cut and dry as one would think.

The word I'm thinking of is "waaaaah," the noise of a crying baby. Oh no! One state might inadvertantly force another state to give people their rights to equal protection under the law. This must outweigh the rights of individuals to form the families of their choosing, and move freely about their home country.

Romney was definitely given a religious tip, and he actually campaigned in Nevada

Just wanted to say, anecdotally, that a friend of mine whose family is Mormon reports that all the Mormons he knows are very skeptical of Romney, despite his church affiliation. I haven't seen any national polls, but I think people on the religious right (even Mormons) see him as someone who's a faker on moral issues. So I'm not sure how much the "Mormon vote" helps him.

adambeezly wrote: "In terms of people calling Hillary by her first name instead of Clinton, it's just the easiest way to distinguish her from her husband, who was, you know President for 8 years."

Um, yeah, I remember him. I guess it just reminds me too much of how often I hear women referred to as 'girls' by men in organizations, and how much that pisses me off.

Of course, I still reserve the right to go 'out with the girls' :) All relative, I guess.

"Just wanted to say, anecdotally, that a friend of mine whose family is Mormon reports that all the Mormons he knows are very skeptical of Romney, despite his church affiliation. I haven't seen any national polls, but I think people on the religious right (even Mormons) see him as someone who's a faker on moral issues. So I'm not sure how much the "Mormon vote" helps him."

Thanks for the heads up on that. I read *somewhere or other* that the so-called "Mormon vote" was a factor in Romney's win... but I don't recall where, or by what authority they were making that claim, so there's a possibility it's totally wrong. I *might* have read it was something they found out through exit-type poll data, but again, I don't remember now.
I think more than anything his win has to do with the attention he paid to that state. It's my understanding that Romney and Paul were the only Republicans that really campaigned in Nevada, and with Romney's win and Paul's tie for 2nd with numbers he hasn't managed anywhere else, I'd imagine that's true.
The Mormon thing could easily be hype.

the idea that morality comes from the fear of an eternal judgement as prescribed by a dogma is allot less appealing than someone who genuinely cares about doing good works

Not all people who feel that their morality is influenced or even predicated by their religion are moral just because of fear of eternal damnation (frankly, if that IS true for some, I think they've probably missed the entire point). For instance, I don't eat meat in part for religious reasons, but it's not that I fear THE ETERNAL FLAMES OF HELL if I eat a steak -- it's that eating a steak would be a bad thing to do for a variety of reasons, none of which involve my literal punishment by some anthropomorphic intervening God, and all of which are enough to compel me not to do it. I think Christians are often like this as well -- maybe they care about other people because those other people are created in the very image of God, which would obviously be a Big Effing Deal if true, and compel moral behavior without even thinking about things like "punishment."

I do agree that religion shouldn't play as huge a part in current politics as it does... religion and politics is always an ugly mix no matter how you slice it. I just feel a bit defensive on behalf of all the real people of faith out there, because I think it's a really rich part of human life that is often categorically maligned because of a few stupid loudmouths in this country who don't even understand a fraction of what they're saying.

Re: DOMA, it's my understanding that neither Clinton nor Obama advocates that states without same-sex marriage must recognize same-sex marriages in other states.

It's a tactical difference: Obama says that's already the case even without DOMA, so you might as well just repeal the whole thing.

Personally, I think Clinton's approach would have a better shot at actually succeeding. Ya gotta start somewhere...

The only candidate who seems to be calling for same-sex marriages to be recognized in all states as a right is Kucinich.

Regarding Obama and gay rights, he, "courted blacks by tossing gays under the bus with the appearance of homophobic “ex-gay� advocate Donnie McClurkin [at an benefit for Obama]" (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3530 ).

Also, Obama's campaign chair suggested that Hillary's "crying" moment was about her looks. ( http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_tears.php )

I will absolutely admit that in her long voting history, Hill has cast some bad ones - I bet that if you give anyone that much time in Senate, they will, too - but even given the relatively short amount of time Obama's been around, he's accumulated some dirt, as well, which I feel like I have to point out when I hear about how Hillary is bad in this and that way, and Obama is just good.

I would argue that they're both good, but neither is perfect.

Kate21, I completely agree with you.
I am of the "Hillary now - Obama later" camp. It's not that I dislike him; I just think that at this point in time Hillary could accomplish more as the POTUS. I would not hesitate to vote for Obama in the general, but I would prefer to see what he's capable of in the Senate before entrusting him with the presidency.

And about religion: If a person's "good" works are inspired by his/her religion, what is to stop that person from doing "bad" things in the name of said religion? One's sense of justice should come from a rational, humanistic place. "God says so" is not a good reason to do anything.

According to CNN's polling data, 94% of the Mormons who turned out to vote in the Republican primary voted for Romney. I can't find the link right now, but I just saw it yesterday. I'm sure that it can be found if anybody really wants to confirm.

biancamarisa--i respectfully disagree that obama would be easier for mcccain to beat than hillary. i live in perpetual fear of a hillary-mccain matchup, quite honestly, because all those myriad uninformed middle-of-the-roaders who haven't been paying attention to mccain's actual record and his positions and who still maintain some respect for his "maverick" reputation carried over from 2000 could tip the tides his way.

clearly if obama is the dem candidate he will be subject to cries of "inexperience!", but i think that is easier to combat than hillary's overflowing closet of skeletons and the vitriol she's been subjected to really ever since her husband was elected president. i think a large number of voters, young and old, possess an irrational dislike for hillary, and that can't be undone with her campaign tactics.

obama, on the other hand is too new to have such a rap sheet. the reps will have to scramble around much more to make him look like a bad choice--the coke thing? no one cares. his name sounds foreign? i mean, really? i do think his relative inexperience will be a downside to a lot of people, but depending on who he would choose as a running mate (ideally someone with a lot of experience to balance him out), he can play up the "clean up washington" and "i'm an outsider, i can effect change" rhetoric and edge out over mccain. after all, it's not like dubya had all that much experience either--other than being governor of texas what did he do? coasted thru the ivies, ran a few companies into the ground, got an elite ticket out of vietnam. at least obama became successful on his own merit, was a law professor, a community organizer and a state legislator.

bottom line: i like obama and edwards much better than hillary not just for the issues, but because i see either as more electable and symbolic of a true regime change.

sadly, in our two-party system, voters in the democratic primaries and caucuses aren't just voting for who we like the best, but who we like the best who can beat the clusterfuck on the republican side. it would be a real shame to lose what should be an easy election because we just picked someone who so many people are predisposed to dislike.

biancamarisa--i respectfully disagree that obama would be easier for mcccain to beat than hillary. i live in perpetual fear of a hillary-mccain matchup, quite honestly, because all those myriad uninformed middle-of-the-roaders who haven't been paying attention to mccain's actual record and his positions and who still maintain some respect for his "maverick" reputation carried over from 2000 could tip the tides his way.

clearly if obama is the dem candidate he will be subject to cries of "inexperience!", but i think that is easier to combat than hillary's overflowing closet of skeletons and the vitriol she's been subjected to really ever since her husband was elected president. i think a large number of voters, young and old, possess an irrational dislike for hillary, and that can't be undone with her campaign tactics.

obama, on the other hand is too new to have such a rap sheet. the reps will have to scramble around much more to make him look like a bad choice--the coke thing? no one cares. his name sounds foreign? i mean, really? i do think his relative inexperience will be a downside to a lot of people, but depending on who he would choose as a running mate (ideally someone with a lot of experience to balance him out), he can play up the "clean up washington" and "i'm an outsider, i can effect change" rhetoric and edge out over mccain. after all, it's not like dubya had all that much experience either--other than being governor of texas what did he do? coasted thru the ivies, ran a few companies into the ground, got an elite ticket out of vietnam. at least obama became successful on his own merit, was a law professor, a community organizer and a state legislator.

bottom line: i like obama and edwards much better than hillary not just for the issues, but because i see either as more electable and symbolic of a true regime change.

sadly, in our two-party system, voters in the democratic primaries and caucuses aren't just voting for who we like the best, but who we like the best who can beat the clusterfuck on the republican side. it would be a real shame to lose what should be an easy election because we just picked someone who so many people are predisposed to dislike.

In reference to the religion debate, being inspired by religion to do good does not necessarily equate to "God says so." And if a person is inspired by personal opinion and reason to do good things, what is to stop that person from doing bad things, however well meant those things might be? You see, that argument can go both ways.

More musings on the possibility of the Democrat frontrunners to beat McCain:

McCain can be argued to have more experience than either Clinton or Obama, but wouldn't that require reminding voters of--

a) His former more moderate positions on "the issues". From what I remember, he was a bit more middle-of-the road last time around and in his voting record throughout the years, and has since shifted right-ward in an attempt to capture more Republican votes.
b) That he is not a "change" for this country, because he's one of the Washington "good old boys". This works more in Obama's favour, since he is supposed to be the "change" candidate [I personally disagree] and Clinton is seen as part of the Washington network because of her involvement in her husband's presidency [which I think is also pretty feeble, but people seem to think it.]

I also don't mean to say anything controversial or that offends people in the least, but I wonder about opposition to Obama based on race being far more prevalent in the voting box than it would be in the Main Stream Media and social situations. Clinton bears the burden of sexism everywhere she turns because it's unfortunately seen as acceptable to be sexist and say so in "mixed company", so to speak, but I think people are less likely to come out as racist in public forums. I wonder if this more closeted racism will have an impact, perhaps in some areas of the country more than others.

Yea Hillsta!

this shows the stances of candidates from both parties on LGBT issues (some of them have dropped out since this was published):

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf

there really isn't a substantial difference between Hillary and Obama, but do have to say that as a gay girl, I would have a hard time voting for a candidate who compared his/herself to Ronald Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP1esS0AEzk

kate 21: I am curious as to where you get the information that Obama belongs to a "radical church." I know that the church he attends is part of the UCC (United Church of Christ) denomincation, which I am also a part of. UCC churches are generally progressive and liberal (the UCC was the first denomination to endorse and issue gay marriages.) It is a "radical" denomination in the sense that we have a hymnal that uses gender-neutral language, we celebrate gay marriages equally, have many, many women pastors, etc... But in terms of doctrinal beliefs, Obama's church would probabaly not be considered "radical" if the means fundamentalist or something of the sort. I don't know if that's what you were referring to.

Also, I am bothered by all of the suggestions that morality that comes from religion is inherently bad. (Granted, I think it might be a problem if that's the only place morality comes from, if that is true in Obama's case.) While religion has caused wars and caused people to do awful things, many religious people do amazing works of charity and goodness at least partly because of their religion. And it's not all because of dogma and an ancient book that tells us so. Religious people often genuinely care about poor people and would do good things no matter what. I know I would. My desire to do good is partly because of my faith, but it would also exist without it.

Ugh...my cousin's wife sent out this moronic email today. The "joke" was that Brett Favre's wife was going to play in the game today because she'd been watching him so long that she must be able to do it to...then compared Hillary Clinton to that. I sent her a somewhat scathing response, basically saying she should try reading platforms instead of being brainwashed. I have yet to see a response...

But I firmly believe people resort to that because there's no logical argument against her.

"I have no problem with someone who has religious feelings and I'm not in any place to say what they do or do not "feel" but I strongly believe that religion should NEVER EVER EVER be used to justify political action - good, bad or indifferent."

Indeed. I thought it was part of the Constitution. People like Bush or Huckabee are clearly out of line, and candidates like Romney, Obama, or Clinton, conduct themselves better.

"Of course, I still reserve the right to go 'out with the girls' :) All relative, I guess."

As adult registered voters, we are entrusted to choose or write in whomever we want to, for whatever reason we want to, with no apologies or explanations necessary.

I genuinely support Clinton as first choice (Obama second, cause he's awesome too) and am glad that she won. And as for the irrational mud flinging at Hillary, I hope that it leads more people to see how idiotic the Hillary bashers are, instead of more people actually believing the crap about her. I asked three of my friends why they did not like Hillary and their responses were,

"All girls hate Hillary."
"She doesn't have the experience that she says she has." (ie. foreign affairs)
and the classic
"I just don't like her and her name."

But, I'm glad Nevada thought otherwise. =D I had almost lost hope, but things seem to be looking up. Let's hope that this continues; we need smart and qualified presidents. :D

I was undecided until this past week. Early on I liked what Edwards was saying, then I thought Obama would be a better nominee, and then in NH I thought HRC was spot on.

I was home all week and had the time to watch the candidates in between NH and NV. I saw many events live, and many that were taped. It opened my eyes to see the campaign unfold in real time; no sound bites, not a lot of talking heads, or pundits telling me what was said. As the week wore on what I saw amazed me.

I saw HRC, her campaign, and Bill create a controversy and then blame Obama for the whole 'race' issue, among a host of false assertions. Obama, from everything I saw (and I was glued to the TV from 8am to midnight)was the most honest of the candidates, especially compared to HRC and her campaign.

Bill was outrageous: he distorted what Obama said; Bill seemed to lie about many things (I was trying to do the research on-line, but gave up after so many distortions); he acted as if he were a loose cannon. He seemed accountable to no one. And HRC also set up Obama by stating he said something (that he didn't say)and then attacked him for what she said he said.

It was all an unseemly turn off for me. I have always believed that how someone runs their campaign is an indication of how they will act as president.

The whole Reagan thing was pure theatre, a fiction. I was very impressed by Obama's level headed approach to the whole mess.

The other thing that causes me great concern is how Bill will act or what he will do if HRC is elected president? She doesn't seem to have any influence on him. To me it seemed that for Bill the campaign was about him, rather than Hillary.

Finally, I hated the way he referred to Hillary and Chelsea as "my girls"! After watching him all week I was wondering why I ever voted for him (in the primary). Now, I can't imagine voting for HRC in the primary for any reason, and I will be very displeased to vote for her in the general election. What is now clear to me is that the HRC campaign chose dishonesty as a campaign tactic, in stark contrast to the Obama campaign.

I want an honest president. My worst fear is that if HRC is the nominee Bill will be out there all over the place making the general election about him, distracting everyone, and raising questions about just what his role in a HRC administration might be.

I found this interesting,

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/obamas-pastor-clintons-treat-blacks.html

"The other thing that causes me great concern is how Bill will act or what he will do if HRC is elected president? She doesn't seem to have any influence on him."

Now that there are some posters willing to be critical of the Senator, based upon readings, I believe for better or for worse that Hillary Clinton MADE Bill, not the other way around. She did not "make" him chase after or abuse women, but she did a lot to keep their (plural) skeletons in the closet to keep his position safe. Bill Clinton could have ended as a failed state governor (first term), or gone back to teaching law school, which was among his options. Hillary did not let him end at that. If the Senator is *allowing* him to be a public ass in her campaign, I assume there is a reason. For example, letting him (encouraging him to, as campaign manager?) talk dirt in the first place, then later conveniently silencing him or publicly claiming not to agree or approve when critics attack, trying to win votes on both ends. It would be no more surprising than using planted questions or getting warm and fuzzy with a *former Washington DC photographer and President Jimmy Carter's official campaign photographer* who just so happened to be present and acting like a local citizen (she does live in the state) simply concerned for the Senator's personal well-being, at an informal meeting of women in NH, allegedly undecided voters, where Clinton allegedly teared up during a display of her human side.

Keep in mind, I do not say any of this, if true, should disqualify her from the White House. She would simply be doing what many male politicians do while campaigning, grandstanding and mudslinging, among other things. Seeing the way former cutthroat rivals are forced to kiss and make up for the general election like Reagan/Bush Sr. is often amusing, another reason I would look forward to a Clinton/Obama ticket.

"I want an honest president."

So would I. I do not expect I will find such a person allowed to achieve enough in the political world, to be elevated to Presidential candidate level any time soon. Again, Gen. Colin Powell is one Republican I and most whites surveyed could have voted for in 1996 on image alone, if he had decided to get his feet dirty. Reading about him leads me to believe he is too moderate (he is now free to criticize both Bush administrations, particularly over matters related to Iraq) and too nice of a guy to succeed as a Republican. Sen. Elizabeth Dole also strikes me as honest, but she is far too conservative.

We recall and find it noteworthy 150, even 220 years later that Lincoln and Washington had reputations for honesty, suggesting it was not commonplace among 42 Presidents to date. Even FDR, usually the other in the top three spots on academic or popular lists of "greatest Presidents," eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

for his landmark place in history is open to criticism in hindsight. If he wanted the US to directly aid its allies in a justifiable war against foreign fascism and imperialism, he could have come out and said it from the beginning in the 1930s, or unilaterally declared war, instead of claiming the US was neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor (how that happened is another subject of debate), saving untold millions of European or Asian lives. The public would have come around once they understood the nature of their opponents, without an attack on Pearl Harbor.

Martina, I prefer information sans "sound bites. . . a lot of talking heads, or pundits telling me what was said," as well, which is why you post without any sources or links is vexing.

In response to the "whole Reagan thing being a fiction:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP1esS0AEzk

I wish I could support Hillary in this election, but I feel she has, in fact, been soft on women's issues. I am supporting Edwards, who is, sadly, lagging behind. Hillary unfortunately is so polarizing that I worry that someone like McCain could win, and keep Rep. control of our country.

I do want to encourage all of you to watch a person whom I believe COULD be our first woman president, and that is Kathleen Sebelius. She will be giving the Dem. response to the President's State of Union address.
I will have to time it to catch her response but miss his bullshit session. :) Kathleen is the Gov. in KS, where I live, and is very progressive, despite the image our state has. She is a female candidate I could really get behind. Just wanted to tip you to this up-and-comer.

Hey, Martina, I'm sorry I kinda jumped on you, there - I do see what you're saying.

I agree with A Male, that, "I do not expect I will find such [an honest] person allowed to achieve enough in the political world," at least in our current political system.

I guess Bill being totally egocentric is not a deal breaker for me, although it is distasteful.

Regarding Hillary being too polarizing to win, I was concerned about that a little until she got so much support in the primaries. I figure that the Democratic party is a self-interested machine which will not run a candidate unless he (or now, possibly, she) has a shot, so if she does well enough in the primaries to get nominated, she must be a viable candidate. . .

after posting here on 1/21 and now after watching the debate in s.c. i want to expand on the problem of bill clinton in the HRC during the general election, assuming she is the nominee.

the most important issue was danced around: the role of bill clinton in HRC's candidacy and possible administration. his role, position and power are critical to assess in the singularly unique campaign in american presidential history.

obama/edwards has to press hillary to explain what bill's role if she should become president. bill is not simply a "spouse" as are elizabeth edwards and michelle obama. bill is a former president, he is a figure with a problematic historical record, he is a powerful political figure on the world stage, and in the united states. he probably is better known around the world and in the united states than any of the three candidates.

the question is what will his role be in an HRC administration? is HRC and extension or clone of bill? will he be the locus of power in an HRC administration? will he wield more power than any cabinet officer or the vice president? who is he accountable to? can HRC control him? if she becomes the nominee will the election be a referendum on bill's presidency or a perceived third term? just what will be the difference between an HRC presidency and bill's two terms?

this campaign will determine who will lead the most powerful country in the world and the hillary/bill relationship is unique in american history. the answer to these questions is critical in assessing the nature of a possible HRC administration. in many ways it is the most critical question of her candidacy.

finally i thought the most egregious error of the debate was edwards announcing that mccain would be the nominee of the republican. he did a great disservice to the an attempt to take back the presidency and possibly congress from the republicans.

any thoughts?

i just watched the s.c. democratic debate and i want to expand on post of 1/21.

the most important issue was danced around: the role of bill clinton in HRC's candidacy and possible administration. his role, position and power are critical to assess in the singularly unique campaign in american presidential history.

obama/edwards has to press hillary to explain what bill's role is now, during the campaign, and if she should become president. bill is not simply a "spouse" as are elizabeth edwards and michelle obama. bill is a former president, he is a figure with a problematic historical record, he is a powerful political figure on the world stage, and in the united states. he probably is better known around the world and in the united states than any of the three candidates.

the critical question is what will his role be in an HRC administration? is HRC and extension or clone of bill? will he be the locus of power in an HRC administration? will he wield more power than any cabinet officer or the vice president? who is he accountable to? can HRC control him? if she becomes the nominee will the election be a referendum on bill's presidency or a perceived third term? just what will be the difference between an HRC presidency and bill's two terms?

this campaign will determine who will lead the most powerful country in the world and the hillary/bill relationship is unique in american history. the answer to these questions is critical in assessing the nature of a possible HRC administration. in many ways it is the most important question of her candidacy.

finally, i thought the most egregious error of the debate was edwards announcing that mccain would be the nominee of the republican. he did a great disservice to the an attempt to take back the presidency and possibly congress from the republicans.

any thoughts?

sorry for the double post. sleep deprived...