Ah, yes - those highly educated, Volvo-driving, $100K+-earning, Harper's-reading Wyomingites. Not representative of America at all.

Well, yep. As expected, all the darned latte-sipping pussies in Cheyenne gave it up for Obama. The XXX-swigging cowpokes in Carbon Co. put out for Clinton. Bellwether Niobrara county, split their 20 votes. Yep, a real microcosm of 'merica.

Well, Obama does have relatives (Cheneys) there.

That's what you get when you let the cows and sheep have a vote.

Well, Jesse Jackson DIDN'T win Wyoming in '84 or '88...

It would be funny if the Hillarians claimed it wasn't important because it's only "12 delegates" when it was Wyoming's delegates that put John Kennedy over the top to win the nomination in 1960.

Oh, and they are currently TIED for the Texas delegates awarded.

It's the Delegates, Stupid.

Meet Me in Denver, Hillary.

One of the main reasons for the super delegates is to compensate for this exact situation. Getting enough people out to win causcus states is too easy for a "cause" candidate and therefore the supers.

Obama has not done well in the big states where running is something more like a general campaign. He has six weeks until PA - with loads more money and all that time he should be able to slay his monster.

McG, don't worry, McCain will wipe the floor with you asshat Dems. Even if you combine your sad white woman and black candidate, you'll get trounced. Love to see the Dems fight.

@6--Aside from discussing this messy business of letting the common people interfere with the Party's preference, would you define "not done well" please?

You mean getting 43% in California? 40% in Clinton's (adopted) state of New York? 47% in Texas and winning the caucus there? Trouncing Hillary with 64% in a state she was expected to win? These are not small numbers.

To assume in the states where Obama failed to "win" more than 50%, that those DEMOCRATS would choose McCain in the general election if Hillary is not the nominee is quite a stretch.

Hillary has only gotten 70% or more in a single state--her own "home" state of Arkansas.

Obama is not a "cause" candidate. He has a broader spectrum of appeal than Hillary, from the left to the right, to independents (who decide elections) and even to disaffected Republicans (something I doubt Hillary can claim to attract).

Even if Obama were to fail to "slay" his opponent in Pennsylvania, it's a heavy spin to discount his NATIONAL appeal and his party-growing 50-state strategy. He's done quite fine even in the states he hasn't "won."

@6, Ohio and Penn are twins. The results will be the same. ...Also, last time I checked, Georgia & North Carolina (Obama will win NC) are among the 10 most populous states. Also, the "small-state" strategy works well for the GOP, doesn't it? Try communicating with Dems in those states sometime. They are hungering for attention. You are the typical elitist Dem asshole.

Andy - take a breath - he has lost in every big state except IL. After 12 straight wins, fawning coverage, 2 to 1 paid media advantage he couldn't close the deal. Yes, he won the caucus in Texas but guess what there is no caucus in November.

Obamatrons go nuts when after being asked three times HRC finishes the last no he is not muslim with "as far as I know" - the Republicans will be far more harsh.

I am not saying that he will lose NY or CA, what I am saying is that running the general is much, much, much more like the big states than little states especially if they are caucus states.

And generally getting under 45% is a poor showing in a two person race.

I've got news for all you mindless, self-righteous Obamatons.

Wyoming... DOESN'T... COUNT. Wyoming is not even a state. I'm pretty sure it's a territory, like American Samoa or the Philippines.

Number of people caucusing in Natrona Co. (with Casper): 843
Number of people at our caucus site in N. Seattle: 700

Number of people caucusing in Sublette Co.: 78
Number of people caucusing in my precinct: 111

Wow, Wyoming is empty and Republican.

Yeah, let's see how Hillary does in the big states when African Americans like me and my family don't vote for her in Nov. I'm not a fan of Al Sharpton or the NAACP, but he's got a point about marching in the streets of Denver, and withholding votes from the Dems. No wonder Nader is now making the rounds of black talk shows.

McG @10: Obamatrons go nuts when after being asked three times HRC finishes the last no he is not muslim with "as far as I know" - the Republicans will be far more harsh.

Here's the initial quote from Hillary on 60 Minutes:

“You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

I too am willing to take Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim, or a coke dealer, or a latté-sipping homosexual, or an android sent from the future to destroy the human race. As far as we know, he's not any of these things. But boy, if he's lying to us about any of that shit, there will be hell to pay.

#9 Yes GA is 9 and NC is 10 and they both have 15 EC votes - CA has 55, NY has 31, FL has 27.

By SurveyUsa Obama loses both GA and NC while winning most of the big states. The question is whether he will stand up in the general. So far, the civil by comparison to Republican attacks seem to have him and his campaign at a loss.

I certainly support Dean's 50 state strategy, a bottom up approach, but don't think going after the Idahos and Georgias make sense in 2008.

10 - But Bill Clinton didn't get 50% when he was elected. Ah, but fight on Dems. Rip each other apart. Young College Republicans are watching you.

12 - Another liberal elitist tool who thinks everything revolves around Seattle. How well does your idiotic strategy work in presidential elections? Glad you like to ignore the "red" states.

@16, I agree with you. The folks here are delusional. They really think that winning the big states is enough. I hope the rest of the Dems are this stupid, because this strategy repeatedly fails. Nevermind the fact that they have a white woman and black man representing them. hahaha

Wait, are Obama supporters "Obamatons" or "Obamatrons"? Hillary supporters need to decide on just what stupid fucking childish name to use. It'll really help you convince people to vote for Hillary if you act as a cohesive unit. Don't let this important issue divide the pro-Hillary party.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/9569/obamahopenosisop9.gif

Cressona if Kroft hadn't of asked a the last time the answer wouldn't have included "as far as I know". If she had planned to sow the seeds of doubt she would have answered the initial question by saying "as far as I know" at the beginning of the answer. See how that works. Kroft is person you should be mad at for giving the non-issue a forum.

Boy the Obama supporters aren't following his lead.

Hillary supporters still haven't responded as to how they are going to win in November when blacks stay home as was mentioned above. My guess is that they are in denial. They realize that she will lose without the black vote in key states like Ohio & Florida. ...Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because McCain will win in Nov.

Meow what a cruel trick.

Wyoming is the key. As Wyoming goes so goes the country and then the world.

Latte-drinking? Isn't that what Republicans call those who live in NY & CA? Was the surrogate borrowed from the GOP? It's disheartening to see that we don't have a truly great candidate on our side. Hillary is a *itch & Barack is a N*****!

McG @20:

Cressona if Kroft hadn't of asked a the last time the answer wouldn't have included "as far as I know". If she had planned to sow the seeds of doubt she would have answered the initial question by saying "as far as I know" at the beginning of the answer. See how that works. Kroft is person you should be mad at for giving the non-issue a forum.

Mr. McG, I'm just as angry as you are at Steve Kroft. He forced Hillary to say things like "I take him on the basis of what he says" and "As far as I know" concerning Barack Obama's Islamic beliefs. It's pretty clear he was trying to set a trap for her.

Just another example of the elitist, latté-sipping press' bias against Hillary.

First WHAT IS UP WITH THE FOR LEASE SIGN ON THE STRANGER OFFICES??!!!

But clearly if Hillary does not win that state does no matter. Will be interesting which states will matter in November if she somehow becomes the nominee. Maybe the whole country will be "unimportant" if she looses.

25 - She'll win the nom, then the blacks will pull the rug from under her. ...President McCain FTW

@7- McCain and Crist? You really think the GOP is going to be happy with a gay VP candidate?

And yes, I know Crist denies he's gay. Just like Larry Craig.

Jake - Gay & eye candy to boot! (Oh, Texas' governor & one of SC's senators is gay. Everyone knows, it's just not discussed.) As long as Crist denies it, most in the party will look the other way. It's not like Hillary can bash him for being gay. If she does, she will alienate gay voters just like Bill did with blacks. Crist will come out after he wins the presidency. And we will have our first openly gay president! Go GOP!

But Wyoming doesn't count...its a caucus...so Hillary can't rely on the Old Folks' homes and the trailor parks! So it doesn't count!!!

you know, she really is a monster.

its likely mccain will stroke out or drop cork-legged before november. multiple years in a POW camp don't add to your life expectancy.

You think Hillary cares about alienating gay voters? HAHAHAHA There is reason Obama has a GLB section on his website and Hillary does not. When you're appealling to the over 60 crowd and the "lunchpail" crowd there is no incentive to support gay voters. The Clintons have throw gay people under the bus before, they'll do it again.

Jake - Gay & eye candy to boot! (Oh, Texas' governor & one of SC's senators is gay. Everyone knows, it's just not discussed.) As long as Crist denies it, most in the party will look the other way. It's not like Hillary can bash him for being gay. If she does, she will alienate gay voters just like Bill did with blacks. Crist will come out after he wins the presidency. And we will have our first openly gay president! Go GOP!

Poor Dems, the old Catholic and Jewish women will flee when they find out that Hillary is a lesbian. McCain is waiting to unleash on her.

McCain/Crist @28:

Jake - Gay & eye candy to boot! (Oh, Texas' governor & one of SC's senators is gay. Everyone knows, it's just not discussed.) As long as Crist denies it, most in the party will look the other way. It's not like Hillary can bash him for being gay. If she does, she will alienate gay voters just like Bill did with blacks.

I can just imagine the 60 Minutes interview:

Kroft: “You don't believe that Governor Crist is a gay?”

Clinton: “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Kroft: “You said you'd take Governor Crist at his word that he's not…a homosexual. You don't believe that he's…"

Clinton: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

Did anyone else notice that McCain didn't win a single delegate in Wyoming today? Romney won the state with 8 delegates, Thompson won 2 and Duncan Hunter won 1.

Those republican totals are from their primary back in January

The Republican caucuses in Wyoming were held on January 5th, not today.

Oh, that's right; I remember that caucus happening then, now that you mention it. Still interesting that two months ago, Wyoming didn't find McCain all that compelling a candidate, isn't it?

Closet queers have ALWAYS been OK to the mainstream.

What a new conclusion - there are CLOSET Queers in the Republican party.

Wow, would have never guessed, Dan, can you confirm this from your vast sexpert experience?

VOTE NUKES IN ALL OUR FUTURE WARS, VOTE MC CAIN

The Nation has a great piece on Mc Cain and his militarism. Just the first salvo.

In a November general election between Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton,

I would vote for:
Hillary Clinton 50.0%
John McCain 50.0%
11582 total responses

In a November general election between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, I would vote for:

John McCain 30.9%
Barack Obama 69.1%
12627 total responses

You'd think he'd have "maverick" status there.

Er, I mean maverick appeal.

Cressona your really nuts on this issue. Did the Clinton campaign run ads where they say "as far as I know". No they didn't. The only reason I heard about this is because of all the noise the Obama supporters have made.

Does it matter that he is or is not a Muslim? How can you know what a person believes except to take their word for it? Personally I think most politicians are lying about the depth of their faith.

Now, if Kroft had asked if HRC knew why Rezko's wife bought the lot next door to Obama, that would have been more interesting and I'll bet you'd have been happy for her to say I take him at his word that there was nothing untoward about the transaction.

McG, how are you Clinton-monsters going to resolve the blacks-won't-vote-for-her problem? You can't! hahaha Go McCain!

I certainly support Dean's 50 state strategy, a bottom up approach, but don't think going after the Idahos and Georgias make sense in 2008.

McG, I'm a little late to this thread party, but I can't agree. This would seem to be the perfect year to go after Idaho and Georgia. My conclusion is based on three things:

From a standpoint of long term party strategy, providing support to state level parties will strengthen the Democratic party overall and make it more likely that those states will be competitive in the future. Many of the current red states were once Democratic, and probably can be again.

Consider how much money is flowing to the respective campaigns this cycle. Obama raised $55 million in February, Clinton raised $35 million, and McCain raised $12 million. If I understand correctly, the imbalance is similar for fundraising organizations raising money for the congressional campaigns. Based on these numbers, I can't remember the last time there was money like this to invest in building party strength.

Finally, the best long-term plan for a sustainable Democratic majority lies in going on the offensive. Democrats have spent too many years trying to protect a core constituency in certain states, and for the most part losing on a national level, all because the Dems seem to dig in and wait for the GOP to come to them. If Democrats can force the GOP to invest scarce time, brains, and money to defend Idaho and Georgia, that's less time, brains, and money they can afford to expend contesting Ohio and Illinois.

To steal and corrupt a famous movie line, I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Republicans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the GOP's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the GOP. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!

McG @43:

Now, if Kroft had asked if HRC knew why Rezko's wife bought the lot next door to Obama, that would have been more interesting and I'll bet you'd have been happy for her to say I take him at his word that there was nothing untoward about the transaction.

For all those self-righteous Obamatons or Obamatrons who wonder why Hillary won't release her tax returns, I have a two-word answer: Tony Rezko.

For all those self-righteous Obamat(r)ons who wonder why Hillary won't release the record of her time as First Lady, I have a two-word answer: Tony Rezko.

For all those self-righteous Obamat(r)ons who wonder why the the donors to the Clinton foundation and library are kept under wraps, I have a two-word answer: Tony Rezko.

Obviously, all you Obama fanatics have been driven mad by your unhealthy obsession with the Clintons' private lives. But y'know, you can keep going on and on about Marc Rich and Marc Rich's wife and Norman Hsu and uranium deals in Kazakhstan and how Hillary ranked behind only Rick "man on dog" Santorum in Congressional contributions from the health-insurance industry. Blah-blah-blah. I have two words for all you haters: Tony Rezko.

Oh, and did I mention?... Tony Rezko.

cressona, ...simply wicked.

Apoc - The states that used to be Dem before 1968 pretty much were southern states that hated Republicans but were always more reactionary. Should the Dems go after states like VA, TX, and a few other "red" states, sure. BTW it is not a Dem strategy to go after the swing states both parties have been doing it. If the Dems spend money in ID, it is very hard to believe that they will get to 50%.

Check out the SurveyUsa poll

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Hillary can't win the nomination. The Clintonistas need to stop drinking the Koolaid put out by her campaign. It is over.

McG is a racist!

Cressona watch these hard hitting Kroft interviews of Obama - pay special attention to Obama's instructions for his campaign on the second video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DfZ3-4TClE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H47o8n5GJ0&feature=related

Barry will not win the big states if Hillary supporters don't vote for him, otherwise, I cannot see how he could lose. Vice versa. This is where the Dees are and it does not look good for the Dees. Go McCain!

Kroft: “You don't believe that Senator Clinton is a lesbian?”

McCain: “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Kroft: “You said you'd take Senator Clinton at her word that she's not…a lesbian. You don't believe that she's…"

McCain: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

Actually, McCain would say:

"Keep that cunt away from my wife!"

McG, Hillary doesnt win big states by any margin that matters.

and to boot, if the wins in "big states" actually were of a margin that mattered wouldnt she be winning now? nope.

Spec. Kevin S. Mowl

Hometown: Pittsford, New York, U.S.

Age: 22 years old

Died: February 25, 2008 in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Unit: Army, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis Wash.

Incident: Died Feb. 25 at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., of wounds suffered in Baghdad, on Aug. 2, 2007, when the vehicle he was in encountered an a makeshift bomb.

Who isn't a latte-sippin' pussy sometimes (parents in town), right?

BA - Clinton beats Obama in Ohio by 220,000 votes and gains 9 delegates while in Vermont Obama gains 3 by winning by 30,000 votes. Vermont get 2 EC votes Ohio 20.

HRC beats Obama by 400,000 votes in CA and gains 36 delegates

Obama wins by 13,000 in ID and gains 12 delegates.

Oh Lordy, are we going to have a parade of obituaries to wade through now, posted by some self-righteous prig who wants to remain anonymous?

What a depressingly stupid debate.

funny, there's been ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of Obama calling Clinton a "monster." Hypocrisy much?

It is pretty amazing that Clinton is so incapable of motivating people to do something that takes more than 3 minutes.

#60:

Maybe but probably not. While we're on the subject of self-righteous anonymous prigs, what's your real name?

TURN THAT APPLE IPHONE SHIT OFF!!!!

@60 Silence is complicity ASSHOLE! And then there is this by your beloved Dan Savage: In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we're going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.

Americans dead-over 4000. Iraqis dead-tens of thousands. Don't let those facts disturb you.

There are 493,000 people in WY. 71,000 voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election. Only 8600 showed up the caucus today. Caucuses suck. If MI and FL hold do-overs, Hills will probably go into the convention with a majority of Democratic votes cast this year. Supes will roll over like $20 hoes.

Obama wave, phft. It's only so in the hippy echo chambers like this one.

ps- I prefer reading the comments from the McCain partisans, who are at least naked in their ambitions, to the faux-sensitivity of the passive-aggressive Obama fanatics such as cressona. Though I of course greatly prefer Obama to McCain.

pps- though I promised Fnarf a while back I'd stop using the term, it's OBAMATONS not OBAMATRONS. TRON is the greatest computer program of all time, and after defeating the MCP there's no way he would have sullied himself with presidential endorsements.

@66

Dan Savage has mea culpa'ed so many times and so completely and sincerely that this year I finally gave in and forgave him.

Clinton has never said she was wrong let alone apologized to the American people.

The war vote was a good example of what happens when ignorant morons are motivated to do stupid things. In Dan's case it was a very sincere fantasy of liberation. Clinton should have know better, but she had a White House fantasy, and unlike Dan, she appears to be willing to do anything to stay in that fantasy world.

@64, I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you Nobody too?
Then there's a pair of us - Don't tell! they'd banish us you know

How dreary to be Somebody!
How public like a Frog
To tell you name the livelong June
To an admiring slog!

P.S. @66, "I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates (396-314 B.C.).

Bill and Hillary are lawyers for god's sake. Ten years setting up this run at the White House and they have no back up plan for their simplistic name-recognition Feb 5 Super Tuesday strategy. Poor planning, poor execution, poor foresight.

The last seven years have taught us what that gets you in a president...

@68 Dan Savage wrote that pro-war piece because he assumed people expected him to oppose the war, and being Dan he has to go against the expected grain. Read it and the over-the-top tone he uses: War is good for children for fuck's sake. He cites statements by Cheney for Christ's sake. Around the time he wrote this shit The Stranger was bashing anti-war street protesters. Again, I would argue, because that was the flip side of what most people would expect a "liberal" publication like The Stranger to do. There is a limit to this shit and that is supporting a fucking war. I'll forgive good old Dan when the maimed and mutilated are made whole and when the dead are returned to the life. Bush went to war with the support of many individuals. As a nationally syndicated columnist Savage had influence exceeding that of most individuals and he abused it. Ha Ha Ha everything is a joke to this asshole. War crimes, torture, carnage, it's all fair game for Mr Savage. Now let's everyone have a good chuckle and move on to the next amusement.

this thread is like a big festering blister

Paul Wolfowitz apologized several times for some bad advice he gave about anal sex with a partner who doesn't keep his matted ass hair clean and I finally forgave him the other day.

@71

You just described Hillary Clinton, but without the admission of error.

re: your earlier post.

One of the main reasons parties like caucuses is because it is a good way to build up the PARTY. The Democratic party should have as it's objective to build up the party. The Clintons and DLC are not interested in building up the party nationally. They are only interested in building up the party in a narrowly controlled 51% strategy.

Obama is following a 50 state strategy much like the 50 state strategy pushed by DNC head Howard Dean that netted the Democratic party so many congresspersons in new and unexpected places.

This is one of the most clear and striking differences between these two candidates and wings of the Democratic party they represent. The Clintons beleive in the 51% strategy, as Bush does for himself. Obama believes in a 50 state for himself and the whole party. It can be reasonably argued that Democrat Foster's win of Dennis Hastert's seat today in a previously solid red district is an Obama 50 state coattail victory.

yeah, McG, blame democratic party not obama for doing what is necessary to winning. If you dont like the DNC's way of doing things try to change it. being a sore loser isnt going to help.

#71

perfect recap of the topic ...
of course, such an obscure topic is war, that who could predict massive death and dying, including children, women, non combatants of all types

remember Dan shares a piece of brain with Andrew Sullivan who liked the war as well

were they not gay, and trapped by the horrid homophobia of the far right Republican party, they both, Savage and Sullivan, would be functioning garden type mid west Rs ... so goes the movement

if you do not like war, devote your heart and soul to stopping Mc Cain in his presidential bid - Mc Monger for sure

wow, i just fell asleep reading this shit.

@46

From DailyKos:

"Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago’s "Operation Board Games."

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama."

Be careful what sort of knifefights you ask for...

Bellevue - I accept the DNC system although it should be reviewed but part of that process is super delegates that can vote any way they want. The Obama supporters seem to be fine with everything except the freedom of the super delegates.

No response to the numbers from Ohio, Ca, VT, and Idaho? It is the system but clearly gives more influence to each voter in the smaller states.

Obama will not pursue a fifty state campaign unless he reneges on his promise to accept public financing. If he does, he will be able to run more national adds and may be able to spend more time in non swing states.

Bucky wonder - did they buy a garden plot for the Clintons or the Republicans? Were any of them patrons of those they donated to?

Obama and Rezko had a special relationship. He was known in Chicago to be sleazy since the late 90s. He was Obama's first contributor and even kept giving money while cutting off the heat to a low income apartment building in January. The city fined Rezko. It was public information but Obama didn't know.

Big donors often give to everyone.

McG, you've spent a lot of time posting in this thread. Honestly, we don't need racists, like you, supporting Hillary. You're not helping unite folks behind her. We know we can beat Bama, but we need intelligent discourse. Please either stop posting or join the GOP.

hillaryfan, it's obvious, based on the number of posts, that McG doesn't have a life. however, you can keep him. we don't want or need him in the GOP.

@67 (Big Sven) writes:
"...faux-sensitivity of the passive-aggressive Obama fanatics..."

Thank you for finding the words I've been searching for.

@48 McG, I did compose a response to your comments, but the SLOG's spam filter blocked it twice. I'm not going to try to edit and figure out which words triggered the filter (state abbreviations, capitalization of regional names, hell, I don't know). If the webmaster here deals with it, you'll eventually see it.

hillaryfan@81:

McG, you've spent a lot of time posting in this thread. Honestly, we don't need racists, like you, supporting Hillary. You're not helping unite folks behind her. We know we can beat Bama, but we need intelligent discourse. Please either stop posting or join the GOP.

You are a fucking troll, and should go back to whatever rock you call home. First and most importantly, I defy you to find anything McG said in this thread that was racist.

Secondly, your nom de guerre is obviously a take off of "Obamafan", a well known HRC supporter around here. You're attempt to pretend to be an actual Clinton supporter is as feeble as feeble gets.

Thirdly, saying "stop posting so much" is a bullshit ad hominem. cressona and Bellevue Ave have been making a lot of comments for Obama, but it would be absurd to suggest that they not be so passionate for their candidate.

Finally, I've never heard of you before. Showing up new at the SLOG and proceeding to immediately tell everyone what they can and can't say is a great way to instantly peg the Douchometer.

This whole thread has gone way off the deep end. I think Obamatons (myself included) and Hillary fans should stop, take a deep breath, and realize that we are still on the same team. Let's save our vitriol for the bigger battle that lies ahead.

And to the Republicans who have joined us, welcome. You are perfectly free to share your opinions here. But be careful--we are perfectly free to troll your blogs as well.

I have stayed off Slog for most of this weekend since I have been reading The Audacity of Hope. I strongly recommend that everyone, Obamaniac or otherwise, to get a copy, now in paperback, at your local (independent) bookstore and see what he is actually saying. Politicians of his intelligence and insight don't come along every day. This man is absolutely amazing--whether he wins in 2008 or not he will, someday, occupy the Oval Office and be remembered long after all of us are dead. After eight years of seeing this country ruined by the policies of a complete moron I am astounded that the Democrats have not united behind someone who can help set us back on the right track. Let's take advantage of this opportunity to elect someone who offers real change, not just nostalgia for the '90s.

I think Obamatons (myself included) and Hillary fans should stop, take a deep breath, and realize that we are still on the same team. Let's save our vitriol for the bigger battle that lies ahead.

Let's take advantage of this opportunity to elect someone who offers real change, not just nostalgia for the '90s.

Sven is this the faux-sensitivity of the passive-aggressive Obama fanatics such as cressona you were talking about.

@62:
"funny, there's been ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of Obama calling Clinton a "monster.""

Because he didn't call her that, one of his people did.

It's pretty disheartening to read the infighting on here between the supporters of Obama and HRC. This is exactly why her continued campaigning is only going to hurt the Democrats in the fall. She should have dropped out after losing 12 straight contests.

Now the nation gets to watch a bunch of idiots who allegedly are on the same team tear each other to shreds over which candidate gets the nomination.

And, I have to point out, the blame rests squarely with the Clinton camp. They have continually employed divisive rhetoric, and encouraged the negative tone that this campaign is starting to manifest.

HRC is a real winner: doesn't get her way, so attempts to destroy the Democratic party out of spite. Maher made a great point about her essentially implying that McCain would be a better choice than Obama.

Her brand of scorched earth politics should be relegated to the dustbin, but unfortunately she has a lot of dumb supporters who can't evolve their thinking. I predict McCain in '08.

McG @87 re my post @86: I wasn't pointing fingers at Sven or anyone else in particular. In fact, despite our differences on which candidate we support I actually like Sven and enjoy his posts on other topics. But my point is there have been some very childish comments on this thread from both sides, including my own. This battle diminishes us all and will no doubt come back to haunt our party as we go into the general election in November.

McG @80

This from Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/05/rezko/

"Throughout the 1990s, the word "Whitewater" was the weapon used continuously by the Limbaugh Right and the establishment press to cast innuendo on the Clintons' financial lives. The word was just tossed around as slippery shorthand for corrupt dealings. It never had any substance. No specific allegations of wrongdoing were ever made about the original "Whitewater" transactions by those throwing the term around. And after $73 million was spent on an endless investigation, no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons was found...

"Rezko" is the Whitewater of the Obama campaign. It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the "Rezko" affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption. But what is it? The reporters throwing the word around quite plainly have no idea."

And then Greenwald cited fellow blogger Digby who wrote:

"These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad" . . .

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?"

So let your inner investigative reporter out and please explain to us -- no, even provide a single credible source -- that anyone should give a sh*t about Tony Rezko.

*crickets*

I didn't think so...

B.S. @ 81: Guess I hit a nerve. Don't forget to wear your Klan outfit when you leave your house.

The two articles below should cause anyone pause.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

RainMan, I do hear what you're saying about the fact that the real enemy is McCain. If I thought that the process we're going through right now was hurting our chances in the fall, I'd be bummed. But I don't think it is. Lots of Dems are excited about Obama. Lots of Dems are excited about Clinton. I think both groups of supporters have the right to campaign strenuously for their candidate up until the point that their candidate is eliminated.

Despite what one might hear on the SLOG and right wing talk radio, these are both great candidates and whichever one gets the nod will make a fuckin' awesome President. I'll say that I wish Clinton hadn't said the "experience" thing about McCain and Obama. But generally both camps continue to conduct themselves very well.

Given how tight the race is, and how similar the candidates are on policy, I think the dialog on the SLOG has actually been more civil than I would have expected. With a few exceptions. ;-)

#91 - too funny calling bullshit on yourself. The only nerve ou hit was inside your own spine.

Today Barrack lumped Hillary not only to McCain but also W in being responsible for the war.

I think it was a mistake for Hillary to say that she and McCain had the experience and Barrack had a speech. She should have left out McCain. Barrack should have out Bush.

Ohio: responsible for the reelection of GWB in 2004 and the resuscitation of HRC in 2008.

There is only one way to settle this.

The Thunderdome.

Hey, McGruff the crime-fighting dog:

[From Buzzflash.com, a political website based in Chicago]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/056

"We'll start with Obama's Rezko association because we are well-steeped in Illinois politics, being in Chicago, and have been following the Rezko case with great interest.

The first item of interest to know is that the Rezko prosecution is being pursued by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald -- yes, the same one who convicted Scooter Libby as a special prosecutor. The second thing to know is that Rezko is one of those perennial scumbags who gives large sums of money -- along with getting "business" acquaintances to do the same -- to politicians in the hope that eventually he will get a "pay-off" in terms of getting government contracts or state jobs for people, of which he gets a cutback. (We should qualify that although Rezko hasn't been convicted of anything and is thus presumed innocent, he has been indicted.)

The Clintons know this type of parasite well, since they have had to give back donations from such leeches on a number of occasions. Senator Clinton most recently had to fork up more than $800,000 in donations from one Mr. Hsu, a felon on the lam, who had donated to her campaign.

A February 28th ABC News report on one of the recent developments in the Rezko case states: "Obama is not considered a target of the federal corruption investigation, and his campaign staff says any contribution tied to Rezko has since been donated to charity."

Yes, Rezko's wife brought a thin corner lot -- which was recently sold to a third party -- adjacent to Obama's Hyde Park Chicago house. But the seller of the home, a physician, has indicated that the price of the home had nothing to do with the sale of the adjacent lot.

Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate in any of the long investigations of Rezko that Obama offered any quid pro quo for campaign contributions, similar to the situation that the Clintons have found themselves in when having to deal with rogue donors. The offering of a contract, job, or favorable government regulation is what makes such a donor-politician relationship a crime. If the mere receipt of money from unsavory operators were illegal, the Clintons and almost every other politician would have been in jail a long time ago.

Those of us in Illinois politics who have followed the course of the Rezko case through each new court filing and leak know that the Rezko case has a high profile target, and it is not Barack Obama, who is just a recipient of Rezko campaign funding and sycophancy (but with no indication whatsoever of any quid pro quo). The person that Patrick Fitzgerald is in pursuit of nailing is the Democratic Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who is known as "Public Official A" in prosecution court filings. Whether it can be proven or not (depending upon whether Rezko and some other indicted schemers flip or not), it appears that Blagojevich's office -- including the Governor -- participated in a "pay to play" scheme on a large scale -- with Rezko receiving government contracts and jobs for himself and others.

Obama, like the Clintons with many of their past donors, appears just to be the recipient of largesse because very few politicians ask where donations are coming from, but return them when a donor is "outed."

As for Rezko's wife's involvement with the purchase of an adjacent lot to Obama's house, Obama has admitted a lapse in judgment and called it "boneheaded." Still, there is no indication of any investigation or breaking of the law in this much discussed home purchase."

A story like this *should* give us pause -- it is the reason that we should have publicly-financed elections like Richard Durbin is sponsoring in the U.S. Senate. As long as politicians have to spend their time dialing for dollars and associating themselves with unsavory types of people in order to survive politically, this kind of thing is going to occur no matter WHO is running for office.

Buckywunder:

Well, if some progressive blogger says Obama's clear, it must be so. Meanwhile, in his home town, actual reporters have some questions:

As recently as Sunday, on ABC's "This Week" program, Obama's campaign strategist, David Axelrod, insisted that Obama has fully responded to every question posed by reporters. But this is not so.

For months, Sun-Times investigative reporters have had a standing request to meet with Obama, face to face, to get answers to questions such as these:

• How many fund-raisers did Rezko throw for Obama?

• Obama is donating $150,000 to charity that Rezko brought into the campaign. But how much in all did Rezko raise?

• Did Rezko find jobs for Obama backers in the Blagojevich administration or elsewhere?

• Why did Obama only recently admit -- after Bloomberg News broke the story -- that Rezko had toured his South Side mansion with him in 2004 before he bought it?

You mean like how Jeff Gerth from the NY Times had questions for the Clintons about Whitewater? Well, $73 million later we know how that turned out, don't we?

Sven, you might have noticed also that this was under the heading of "commentary." What kind of "investigative reporters" are they that they feel the need to go public when rebuffed rather than come up with something on their own? (It looks more like Keystone Kops to me.) I mean, their demands do not exactly have the heft of a grand jury.

You may be coming into the game late, but as I posted above, Glenn Greenwald is an actual lawyer AND a progressive blogger for Salon.com. In a recent column he wrote about his specific research into this case and found that there is no there there:

"But Obama isn't even accused of -- let alone proven to have engaged in -- any wrongdoing at all. I spent many years litigating all sorts of civil cases involving financial transactions like these. Few things are easier than concocting some nefarious angle to innocuous real estate transactions, yet they can't even do that here. Despite that, the "Rezko" innuendo lurks and grows and clearly isn't going anywhere." (subscription req'd)

Weak.

Buckywunder, I sincerely hope they gave you the lime Koolaid. The grape is weak.

But you're right- Obama is not under indictment. And the blogosphere likes him. So everything is fine.

ps- re: Whitewater. Yes, we do know how it turned out. No indictments against the Clintons. What we don't know is know is how Rezkogate will turn out.

Right, so bloggers who are either lawyers OR from Chicago -- and on the record -- as opposed to some unnamed "investigative reporters" who ask their hypothetical questions in a "commentary" are definitely less reliable? Okaaaaaaaaay. Looks like a battle of new versus old journalism to me.

Um, innuendo tends not to impress me much. As low as the bar has fallen after 8 years of total, Orwellian lies on a daily basis, I still require small things like facts and evidence to really get my attention. I am sorry if that is too high a standard for you.

Whitewater did just a little more than end with no indictments. Several people went to prison -- not unlike Donald Siegelman -- for not "cooperating." It set the table for an attempted legislative coup d'etat and bled over into the successive election which contributed to Al Gore's loss. It appears that the forces of political darkness are taking their cues once more from Sauron... just sayin'.