Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Obama picks up steam

JOAN LOWY

The Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 2:55 PM EDT 11/05/08

With many new endorsements, Obama closes in on Clinton's last stronghold ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: Now Hillary can complain that she was defeated by a "vast left wing conspiracy." Which is true.
    Now it is funny to believe that Obama, the most liberal rated senator, is going to unite the
    country behind him. Ha, Ha, Ha.
  2. Patrick King from Canada writes: Ron Paul has not dropped out of the Republican nomination race, but nobody seems to care, and he is still having fun continuing his race to the finish. Even if Barack Obama becomes the Dem nominee, he has not won. He has said he would transcend race in this election; ironically, if he is crowned the Dem nominee, it is all because of race. Tom Hanks' endorsement of Obama in the last few days said it all; that he wanted to see somebody with Obama's skin colour as the President, not because Obama is the most qualified candidate. I subscribe to CNN, but as of late, I have tried to avoid CNN in order to avoid seeing David Gergen and Joe Klein on the screen. They look like two dead men talking; they are lifeless and mean. Like Ed Schulz and Jack Cafferty, Gergen and Klein are the only way Obama's message resonates with me - that they are old and hopeless, and should hop off the stage. They are difficult to look at on their own, but in particular when they gang up against a woman. Go home, Gergen, Klein, Cafferty, and Schulz. Your time has past, and your days are numbered.
  3. Karunaratne Jeyatilleke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Andy, you got a point there.
  4. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Good to see a good Irish boy get the nomination "O'Bama".
  5. My Spin from Canada writes: Patrick King from Canada writes: Even if Barack Obama becomes the Dem nominee, he has not won. He has said he would transcend race in this election; ironically, if he is crowned the Dem nominee, it is all because of race. Tom Hanks' endorsement of Obama in the last few days said it all; that he wanted to see somebody with Obama's skin colour as the President, not because Obama is the most qualified candidate. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Typical of the Clinton crowd to distort reality. Here's the actual Hanks quote: "History with a capital `H' is going to be made this November, no matter who the president-elect is. I want Barack Obama to be president of this country, a country that once said people with his skin color were only three-fifths of a human being." The New York Times has a good piece this morning on who has been playing the race card in this campaign. And they actually endorsed Clinton! "We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.” Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin Take your head out of the sand at your leisure.
  6. My Spin from Canada writes: Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: Now Hillary can complain that she was defeated by a "vast left wing conspiracy." Which is true.
    Now it is funny to believe that Obama, the most liberal rated senator, is going to unite the
    country behind him. Ha, Ha, Ha.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ha Ha Ha.......all the way to the White House...........two terms......Ha Ha Ha..................
  7. Pvt. Happy from Canada writes: Obama is a centrist... in the US context. This makes him a rightist in a global context. If people think he will usher in some kind of new dawn for the states, they are deluding themselves. He will engage in foreign wars because the US needs to do so to maintain its power. The US needs a social democratic party willing to cede power. Obama is a joke. He might beat McCain, but won't be appreciably different in his policies. Don't fool yourselves!
  8. My Spin from Canada writes: Pvt. Happy from Canada writes: Obama is a centrist... in the US context. This makes him a rightist in a global context. If people think he will usher in some kind of new dawn for the states, they are deluding themselves. He will engage in foreign wars because the US needs to do so to maintain its power. The US needs a social democratic party willing to cede power. Obama is a joke. He might beat McCain, but won't be appreciably different in his policies. Don't fool yourselves!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples please.
  9. Eastern Ontario Robert Bythelake from Eastern Ontario, Canada writes: Hillary Clinton has softened her stance over the last few days by referring to the "team" and that the ennemy is the GOP. This is, in my opinion, an opening for Obama to quickly finish the race by offering Clinton the VP spot on the ticket.
    The only way that the Democrats can win the next election is by having both Obama & Clinton on the ticket and appeal to the different constituencies that both seem to bring.
    Obama would do well to follow the example of John Kennedy who was able to swallow hard and give the VP position to LBJ after a bitter race and go on to win the presidency. This is where real politics separate those who can from those who only hope.
  10. Tony Mareschealle from mississauga, Canada writes: America changes presidents, but America does not change.

    Whoever wins in November, there will not be a change in Foreign Policy, Home Security policy or trade policy - unless they wish to reopen NAFTA.

    They id ba as self-centred, shortsighted and generally as ignorant of world matters as ever, after all "They are the World" - aren't they
  11. Dvae Gregoroff from Verner, Canada writes: How do you become the President?
    Never mind what's right, Never mind what's fair, Never mind what's the most intelligent thing to do. Just tell an American what he wants to hear, and you'll get his vote every time.
  12. Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: Patrick King you sound 'bitter, bitter, bitter'. Will you be clinging to your god and your guns as you watch your heroine, Mrs. Clinton, concede defeat to Senator Obama? Clinton's ship is now taking on water and going down faster than Monica in the Oval Office. Hillary's recent racist rant will help to seal her fate. Hers has been one of the most vile campaigns in recent U.S. political history. Rather than debate Obama seriously or even attempt to challenge him in any other meaningful way on any of the important issues, Mrs. Clinton scraped the bottom of Karl Rove's barrel of dirty tricks to smear Senator Obama through the McCarthyite tactic of guilt by association and through scare tactics such as the '3 a.m. phone call' ad that she ran in Texas. When those ploys failed, she trotted out the gimmick of her 'gas tax holiday'. Fortunately, an increasingly large segment of the electorate now sees her for what she is - a bitter, soon-to-be has-been who will be remembered long after 2008 as one of the most divisive and destructive candidates in U.S. political history.
  13. Compos Mentis from Toronto, Canada writes: Memo to Ms. Clinton: Thanks for the party but it's over....don't let the door hit you on the way out, and for goodness sakes take that mongrel Billy with you when you leave. We don't need him messin up the yard! ........

    Memo to Mr. Obama: Some people have compared you to a cocktail stick, you do a nice job in mixing the combined elements in the glass, however, like the stick, you will soon be discarded in the trash can.

    Memo to Mr. McCain: Got your inauguration speech ready? No, well you better write a good one.....
  14. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Obama represents change that is just too big for some people to accept. They reject the hope and optimism that he offers. They don't believe that politics could be done differently. They have committed themselves to a cynical world view.

    Obama's critics mostly seem afraid of change, afraid to think big, afraid to see the truth spoken out loud. They need to get over their fear.

    Obama's daring attempt to change the game of politics would have been unthinkable a few months ago, yet it is working.

    Obama is hard working.
    He is intelligent.
    He is daring.
    He is eloquent.
    He challenges Americans to rise above their own prejudices.
    The US, and the world, needs an inspirational visionary now more than ever.

    I can't imagine a more suitable person for the times. In the words of Bob Dylan, "the times they are a changin'," ... so get out of the way if you can't lend your hand.
    .
  15. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: Hillary in the last two days has been talking about "White Workers" and Obama's failure to woo them. She knows she has lost has lost the war, now
    it will be hit and run like the Taliban. Until Bill realizes that this would cause
    them to file for chapter 13. Perhaps she should be the first person to accept
    the change; Go back to New York and contest for the Governorship that would suit her psyche and she will do with the New Yorkers. Otherwise a small state like West Virginia can keep her busy as their CEO. Let Obama
    prepare his armour to joust with McCain and win Camelot in Nov 2008.
  16. Patrick King from Canada writes: To: Jack Robertson from Toronto "Rather than debate Obama seriously or even attempt to challenge him in any other meaningful way on any of the important issues, Mrs. Clinton ..." You are in denial or you really don't know what you're talking about. It is Obama who declined to have a debate with Hillary Clinton in North Carolina before their primary. It is fair, factual and on record. "you sound 'bitter, bitter, bitter'. Will you be clinging to your god and your guns as you watch your heroine, Mrs. Clinton, concede defeat to Senator Obama?" You've spoken Obama's heart. 20 years ago, whatever made him bitter has made him turn to Rev. Wright, who has had a profound impact on him. "Mrs. Clinton scraped the bottom of Karl Rove's barrel of dirty tricks to smear Senator Obama through the McCarthyite tactic of guilt by association..." You are the one who is associating the Clintons with McCarthy. When you point one finger at others, you are pointing three at yourself. Both Obama himself and Rev. Wright have admitted their close relationship for 20 years. It is not Hillary Clinton who has associated Obama with Rev. Wright. Obama made that choice himself, why do you blame it on Hillary Clinton? "and through scare tactics such as the '3 a.m. phone call' ad that she ran in Texas." What is so scary about a 3 am phone call? You mean you're scared when you get one. If a man is scared when the phone rings @ 3 am, it is indeed doubtful whether he is ready to be the President of the United States; the leader of the free world.
  17. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: In a race for between 4025 to 42209 delegates, in which Obama has 44% to 46% of the delegates and Clinton has 39% to 41%, there are still somewhere between 13% to 21% of delegate votes left to be cast, provided none of the superdelegate votes change. Further, this still excludes Florida and Michigan, which were won by Clinton and doesn't consider that there has been unethical conduct among Obama supporters including, apparently some intimidation of voters and internet smear campaigns in virtually every online newspaper, and includes caucuses which are not reliable votes. I hope the Deomocratic Party is cognizant of all factors at work in this contest. In any event it is far too early to proclaim a valid winner.
  18. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Patrick King from Canada writes: "It is Obama who declined to have a debate with Hillary Clinton in North Carolina before their primary. It is fair, factual and on record." _____________


    Including the larger Democratic field at the beginning of the primary season, Obama debated or participated in public "town hall" meetings something like 18 times. How many debates are reasonable? It's not as if any really new issues have cropped up since the most recent debate aired on ABC a few weeks ago. That debate, FWIW, was poorly handled by ABC, which chose to tackle only peripheral knee-jerk issues like flag lapel pins. By that point, both candidates had said all there was to say.
  19. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Happy you have this completely backwards.

    Obama is an extreme leftist in the American context and a centerist in the International context. Look at his record or lack thereof. He is the furthest left of the entire bunch, which puts him somewhat right of the Liberals.

    Nobody knows what he might do if elected not even him.

    McCain is a maverick and votes against his own party and Bush too often which is why he is not the most popular of the Republican bunch but he has the nomination and they will all stand behind him.
  20. joseph Cheng from Toronto, Canada writes: Obama is just like any other U.S. politician. He is a big mouth and knows how to speak from both sides of his mouth. Saying one thing to get the votes and doing something else behind the backs of the voters. The U.S. will deserve what she gets if Obama gets into the White House: a big mouth that has an answer for everything but nevertheless, just a big mouth and nothing else!
  21. Guy Olivier from Columbus, Ohio (blue city in a red state), United States writes: "Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: Now it is funny to believe that Obama, the most liberal rated senator, is going to unite the
    country behind him."

    Do you have no memory of the past? Neo-cons say that about every democrat that runs for any office... they are always the MOST liberal of congress. It's a popular scare tactic... one of many they have to hand out to people who are too stupid to rationalize.
  22. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: joseph Cheng! Are the politician here any different from their kiss'in cousins
    in the South? It seems you have a crush for the fading Clinton dynasty. If
    Obama wins will you lead a protest march in Ottowa.
  23. Duncan Morris from Salmon Arm, Canada writes: All these disparaging remarks about Obama's experience and abilities from the (former) Hillary supporters, makes me wonder by what "experience" they come from? Any of these chaps believe they have the political acumen of a George Mcgovern? Ted Kennedy? Bill Richardson? The list goes on and on of Obama converts. Some how the quasi pundits like Patrick King and Andy Garrit have noticed something about Obama that has escaped the former Democratic Hall of famers.
  24. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Li'l Andy: . . . Remember: John McCain is "a centrist".

    HA HA HA!

    . . . and why are you saying such, uh, "unpleasant" things about Hillary, since she and your current hero (McCain . . . replacing your previous hero, Rudy the Transvestite) have nearly identical views ?
  25. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Li'l Andy: When are you going to start calling Obama a "terrist" ?

    Just asking.
  26. joseph Cheng from Toronto, Canada writes: Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: joseph Cheng! Are the politician here any different from their kiss'in cousins.....................................................
    ______________________________________________________
    Khalid: You're right. Most of those here aren't any different. But Obama just appears to be too sleek and has a too ready answer for everything. He talks about "change" but yet he never dares to elaborate. Just to give an example of his ignorance about Canada : he refered to the leader of Canada as "president of Canada". When Bush used to make the same mistake, all the media jumped on him. But when Obama made the same gaffe, nobody pointed it out. Obama is a creation of the usual American hype and a product of the media such as Oprah, as well as the racial biasness of a large segment of the American population. Just mark my word, if Obama is elected president, his popularity will be down the drain within a year. By the way, I am not a Clinton supporter either. I think
    Sen. Kerry would have made a good president and way better than these two prentenders. But unfortunately, Kerry did not have the media on his side and he went nowhere.
    .
  27. James Ed from Canada writes: Obama for Prime Minister!!!!
  28. Expert Eel from Canada writes: Hillary is right, she will get more votes from uneducated, hard working white people that O'Bama because America is a very racist Country.

    If you were impressed with the rioting after the Rodney King trial, wait until O'Bama is denied the White House.
  29. George S from Toronto, Canada writes: Hilary is doing the Republican Party a big favor by staying in the race.
  30. Richard Lovegrove from Toronto, Canada writes: Andy Garrett and other critics of Obama show how their rejection of him has almost nothing to do with his policies, everything to do with isms - racism, conservatism, religion (ism). Dogma is the main reason for our world's ills and this man (Obama) is willing to put that aside to make the world, not just the US, a better place. Sad that so many are digging in the trenches rather than putting down their weapons.

    Even Ernie and Bert agree!!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=mwTCzjE-3TM
  31. Child of the North in Canada from Canada writes: Hilary is a Republican.
  32. AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: So now Osama, uh obama is McSteamy.
  33. Bill Wall from Cranbrook, Canada writes: It's remarkable how the Dems have kept on nominating strong leftists in this decade (Gore, Kerry and now Obama). One would think that they would learn to nominate someone closer to the center. Hillary is probably an extreme leftist, but would have governed near the center, just like Bill did.

    McCain ain't pretty, but he's looking like the default candidate in the middle of America.
  34. My Spin from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: In a race for between 4025 to 42209 delegates, in which Obama has 44% to 46% of the delegates and Clinton has 39% to 41%, there are still somewhere between 13% to 21% of delegate votes left to be cast, provided none of the superdelegate votes change. Further, this still excludes Florida and Michigan, which were won by Clinton and doesn't consider that there has been unethical conduct among Obama supporters including, apparently some intimidation of voters and internet smear campaigns in virtually every online newspaper, and includes caucuses which are not reliable votes. I hope the Deomocratic Party is cognizant of all factors at work in this contest. In any event it is far too early to proclaim a valid winner.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It's over Emma, accept reality. Even Rasmussen polling won'y be asking Clinton related questions anymore. Your candidate underestimated Obama. At least she has said she'll support and campaign for him which is more than some of her supporters have said.
  35. Duane Freemantle from writes: The interesting thing is Obama seems that he will lose the next primary by 40 points. Ms. Clinton will try to spin this into a significant victory, which it will not be. From my estimate Obama only needs on average 40 percent of the remaining delegates (super delegates and pledged delegates) to secure the nomination. Clinton has statistically lost, and at some point has to concede defeat.

    I would have liked to see Ms. Clinton become president, more for the historical significance than anything else. This was her nomination to win. It is not hard to determine the real effect than Obama has had on the Democratic Party's primary. With Clinton, they have cause historic turn out for the Democratic Party's primaries. Obama; being a rapid rising star in the Democratic Party; seems to engage Democrats at the grass root level.

    There are people who say he will make a bad president. This can be doubtful. Every president has assembled a team of advisers and a cabinet that has assisted the president's. However, it is very premature to say who be come the next president.

    There is no reason for Obama to debate Clinton. The only person that could benefit from another debate is Clinton. Obama, however needs to go to West Virginia, even though he will not win.

    My Spin I have also heard Tom Hanks' endorsement of Mr. Obama. I agree, Tom Hanks speech was about the change of America and (I think) that Obama represents the change Tom Hanks believes Obama can make both in America and the World. I hope Tom Hanks is right. However, there are those that do not like Obama, and try to hide it behind meaningless words. Thanks for the transcript of Tom Hanks' endorsement.
  36. The Wight from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne:

    "Further, this still excludes Florida and Michigan, which were won by Clinton and doesn't consider that there has been unethical conduct among Obama supporters including, apparently some intimidation of voters and internet smear campaigns in virtually every online newspaper, and includes caucuses which are not reliable votes."

    Hillary, don't you have something better to do that sit there posting to a Canadian newspaper?

    Serioiusly, Emma, your blind faith is start to get that stink of ideology around the edges. When you start insinuating that there might have been improprieties by the Obama campaign, you had best provide proof. We don't want Clinton's followers to start acting completely like Republicans, do we?
  37. Mark H from Indy, United States writes: Before anyone crowns Obama, remember that a few things have yet to be decided: 1) Michigan and Florida 2) The mindset of the superdelegates The Democratic primary process is a mess, and internally with at odds with everything the D's say they stand for: equality. Look at this race: it's coming down to the votes of people nominated not by the people, but by the party elite, because the same party elite thinks the electorate might be too stupid to nominate the "correct" candidate. For a party that prides itself on equality, giving a voice to the voiceless, or whatever platitude you choose, this practice is outright hypocritical. It's not surprising, or anything. I mean, this is the Democrats. I think Hillary has a good case for the candidacy: look at the states she's won: Texas, California, PA, OH....those are all huge swing states. If the D primary process wasn't propotional to popular vote, like the Electoral College (or the R nominating process, for that matter), Clinton would have had this thing butttoned up months ago. Polling before the debacle pulled by the DNC showed that she's take MI and FL, as well. But, because of the fear of being percieved as racist for switching their votes from Obama, the D's will never switch their votes. My guess is that the superdelegates go bye-bye after this election cycle. They've caused more problems than they've solved for the D's.
  38. The Wight from Canada writes: In fact, Emma, coming onto the G&M and insinuating voter intimidation might just constitute and "internet smear campaign" dontcha think?
  39. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Cut the Crap: Nice quote from one of the biggest capitalists in the music industry.
  40. Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: No one should be surprised if Hillary's campaign debt is 'settled' by grateful Republican donors if McCain wins in November. By prolonging the race for the Democratic nomination unnecessarily, Mrs. Clinton is only inflicting further damage on the eventual nominee (Senator Obama) and the party itself and is ensuring an otherwise unlikely Republican victory. Given her public bitterness at the inevitability of her own defeat, it is now fairly clear that Hillary would rather torpedo the ship and toss the crew to the sharks if she can't become captain.
  41. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Gotta love the attempts to label ANY Democrat as "an extreme leftist".

    . . . and -- now -- McCain is "a centrist".

    HA HA !
  42. Jim Saxon from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne:
    Next time tell us what was the American Idol poll saying about American Presidency. No matter how much Clinton supporters try to avoid the straight argument and spin the math - what is clear is that Obama is winning fair and square in one criteria that counts that that was agreed to (in writing) by all the contestants - whosoever wins the 2025 delegates first wins the nomination. Florida and Michigan will not count because they flouted the rules of engagement.

    Now, tell me again why Clinton should be the nominee because she is the winner among the losers of the world..... and why she should be handed over the nomination because she is a woman and carries the mantle of all womanhood and all men are against her - except the white (hardly) working low-income folks who are more likely to beat up their wives :-)
  43. Jim Saxon from Canada writes: All you Soccer Moms out there - you ain't seen nothing yet! Let McCain win and you will be back to back alleys for terminating unwanted pregnancies. His professed mission in life is to appoint conservative (read anti-abortion) judges to Supreme Court. Say Good Bye to Roe-v-Wade.

    May be that's what you want! May be the streak of self-hate and self-destruction is rearing its head again. Or the fear of boogeyman has made you a psycho already. It's you who voted in GWB last two terms.
  44. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Clinton knows that she is finished. She is just desperate to recoup her $11.5 million, so she needs to convince her supporters that she is still in the race. Her spending is now cut way back, and she goes straight to fundraising efforts every time she speaks.

    This is fraud of course, and she feels that she can convince her support base to pour more of their money down the drain, or in this case, back into her bank account.

    This is classic Clinton. We are lucky Obama has put an end to it.
    .
  45. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: McCain's spiritual adviser -- the Rev. Dr. John Hagee -- has now reversed his retraction (made last week) that "God" send Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans because of -- and I am NOT making this up, folks -- plans to hold a gay pride parade there.

    All this "change of mind" stuff . . . it must be tough to interpret the Will o' The Almighty.
  46. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: . . . I should add: (1) Hagee does represent Mainstream Protestant Christianity in the USA (NOT Mainstream Catholicism, since he views the Roman Catholic Church as "the whore of Babylon" . . . as set forth in the Book o' Revelation), and (2) I continue to predict that John McCain will be the next president of the USA.

    Needless to say, Hagee is a lunatic.
  47. Gary Thomson from Canada writes: If you go to the New York Times on-line edition you can see a complete list of all the 'super delegates'. They are sorted into Clinton, Obama or undeclared categories. Each delegate has been contacted by the NY TIMES and those that granted permission have had some remarks published. Many of the undeclared are party officials in sensitive posts or in states that have not yet voted but who make their preference clear. Many others give a strong indication of how they will vote. The list is a few days old and most of Obama's recently declared 'super delegates' were those who had already made their support for him pretty clear. EEspecially after allowing for these, but even if you don't, Hillary is well up in the declared, undeclared delegate count. Also, my experience in Canadian nominations, where automatic delegates routinely make up about 20% of delegates to leadership conventions and many elected delegates are 'uncommitted', is that hold outs tend to be cautious people who don't support the front runner. Hillary still has a chance, especially after she whups Obama in West Virginia and Kentucky. Even Obama's probable following victories in Wyoming, and that other middle of nowhere state, could benefit her with 'super delegates' by underlining the way that Obama got his 'massive' 150 delegate lead was by sweeping small states that Hillary ignored and the Dems will never win. Hang in there Hillary.
  48. Jim Saxon from Canada writes: Gary - you mean the NYT story headlined "For first time, more super delegates support Obama"?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

    Hillary is up in "undeclared" superdelegate count?? And you are selling that beach house in Kansas right?
  49. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Hillary should hang in there because she is a woman, per this article:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902298.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    Here's the thing: "It" isn't about views on Iraq or Iran, "it" is all about gender, per this article.

    I still think that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. For one thing, she favors the war in Iraq and wants to go to war with Iran, and -- despite disinformation supplied by Faux News -- so do most Democrats: i.e., she correctly represents most Democrats. I have no idea what Obama thinks about the war in Iraq or any coming war with Iran.

    I don't think much of the "gender argument" (above), but there ya go. Most Democratic women support Hillary, and I expect that most of them also support her views on Iraq and Iran. Most male Democrats support her views on these areas, also.
  50. My Spin from Montreal, Canada writes:
    Gary, fyi

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday afternoon seized the superdelegate lead from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), giving him command of every aspect of his party’s presidential nomination race.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10245.html
  51. Jim Saxon from Canada writes: Gary Thomson - Nah I was wrong, the right article about Clinton is here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?scp=2&sq=low road to victory&st=nyt
  52. Hillary Clinton's Ego from Whereever the most voters live, United States writes: Whose fault is it that my coronation is never going to happen? Black people, smart people, and men. If only uneducated, white women could be the ones to choose the President. Not to mention superdelegates?? Whose stupid idea was it to include them anyway? And I can't believe Obama managed to convince Florida and Michigan's Democratic parties to move up their primaries so they'd be disqualified. How dare this upstart black man challenge a political custom that has been in effect for twenty years! Everyone knows that true democracy is best managed by Bushes and Clintons. What will Chelsea and Jeb do? Woe is me!!! Well, as least I'm going to win big in West Virginia...and we know how they're all so representative of the average American there. Girlpower!!
  53. Mike M from Sheunacadie N.S., Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Canada writes: If you go to the New York Times on-line edition you can see a complete list of all the 'super delegates'. They are sorted into Clinton, Obama or undeclared categories. Each delegate has been contacted by the NY TIMES and those that granted permission have had some remarks published. Many of the undeclared are party officials in sensitive posts or in states that have not yet voted but who make their preference clear. Many others give a strong indication of how they will vote. The list is a few days old and most of Obama's recently declared 'super delegates' were those who had already made their support for him pretty clear. EEspecially after allowing for these, but even if you don't, Hillary is well up in the declared, undeclared delegate count. Also, my experience in Canadian nominations, where automatic delegates routinely make up about 20% of delegates to leadership conventions and many elected delegates are 'uncommitted', is that hold outs tend to be cautious people who don't support the front runner. Hillary still has a chance, especially after she whups Obama in West Virginia and Kentucky. Even Obama's probable following victories in Wyoming, and that other middle of nowhere state, could benefit her with 'super delegates' by underlining the way that Obama got his 'massive' 150 delegate lead was by sweeping small states that Hillary ignored and the Dems will never win. Hang in there Hillary.
    ============================================
    Typical comment by a Clinton supporter. The voters in the states that she can't win aren't important.
  54. Flat Earth from Canada writes: Hillary! Let's face it you're on life support. Pull the plug now or it will be a slow and painful death.
  55. Mike M from Sheunacadie N.S., Canada writes: It's over Emma, accept reality. Even Rasmussen polling won'y be asking Clinton related questions anymore. Your candidate underestimated Obama. At least she has said she'll support and campaign for him which is more than some of her supporters have said.
    ===============================================
    I concur, CNN is only interested in ratings at this point and trot out any fanatical Clinton supporter they can find in order shriek out that a race still exists. Now the Clinton surrogates have been told to play the race card, in fact Clinton herself in a radio interview on Friday did the same despite the denials. This is the Clinton war machine in full battle mode...take no prisoners............
    I would think the Clintons must have an oil painting of Ross Perot in a place of honour as they can thank him for for their ascendancy.
  56. Duane Freemantle from writes: Mike M from Sheunacadie N.S., Canada writes: Typical comment by a Clinton supporter. The voters in the states that she can't win aren't important.

    Mike after reading some of these post like the one you quoted from Gary Thomson seem to be more sarcasm but I would not be surprised if you were right.
  57. J Dapena from Halifax, Canada writes: Every since Obama went on his ten or eleven state sweep a few months back, it was clear as to what the end result would be. Clinton's supporters have been delusional ever since. Clinton, on the other hand, may be delusional...or she is simply planning for her next campaign four years from now if Obama ends up losing the general election. Clinton isn't stupid and knows this the only possible way her political future could include a Democratic nomination. In the meantime, we'll have to listen to her boosters' play the blame game, make excuses, and continue to shout the importance of counting some peoples' votes (in states where she is favoured) and ridicule the importance of others' (in states where she isn't).

    A lot can happen in a general election, but McCain must be smirking right now.
  58. Vern Wallace from Canada writes: Dvae Gregoroff from Verner, Canada writes: How do you become the President?
    Never mind what's right, Never mind what's fair, Never mind what's the most intelligent thing to do. Just tell an American what he wants to hear, and you'll get his vote every time.

    And Canadians are any different????
  59. Gary Thomson from Canada writes: Jim Saxon(11:17) and My Spin(11:20): You have to do more than read a headline guys. Go through the undeclared delegates comments, make a tally of those that show their hand, subtract those that have recently gone public and look up the local results for those who say they are letting their state/disrict vote decide. Of course I know Obama has pulled ahead,I read the headlines too. But sometimes you have to do your own digging boys. ------------------------Mike M.(11:24):(1) I am not a Clinton supporter, I'm a Canadian who loves a good poltical fight, especially when it's somewhere else. (2) I am not saying that little states don't count. I'm saying that the ultimate goal is to for the Dems to defeat McCain, not nominate the first black man, or for that matter white woman, as their presidential nominee. Hillary, for all her negatives, appeals much more strongly to the swing demographic that the Dems are most likely to be able to capture. Look, I know that in the heat of the battle emotions flare, but 35% of hillary nvoters said they wouldn't vote for Obama versus 17% vice-versa.
  60. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Andy Garrett: Parry Sound: June 26 to July 13 from West Palm Beach, United States writes: Now Hillary can complain that she was defeated by a "vast left wing conspiracy." Which is true.
    Now it is funny to believe that Obama, the most liberal rated senator, is going to unite thecountry behind him. Ha, Ha, Ha.
    *****************************************************
    Apparently a majority of Democrats are in on the conspiracy.
    He has demonstrated that he can unify the Democrats and unaligned, the young, the black, middle class whites and the educated against the Republicans. Complete unity is impossible.
    There are still Republicans who detest President Franklin D Roosevelt who led the country for three terms and who led the country out of the depression with his New Deal and led the country in the war against Japan. Some people will never forgive a man who does not give in to their lobbying for preference over ordinary working Americans. They still hate FDR with a passion. People like Andy Garrett from Parry Sound.
    CYMRO
  61. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: .
    Hillary can't try again after this. She has burned all her bridges except the racist and feminist vote.

    This campaign has shown once again that there is no bottom below which the Clintons will not sink. They believe they can talk their way out of anything, but Bill could not talk his way out of Monika, and Hillary will not be able to talk her way out of her racist politics.

    I'll be surprised if she manages to get re-elected to the Senate.
    .
  62. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: My Spin from Canada writes: Pvt. Happy from Canada writes: Obama is a centrist... in the US context. This makes him a rightist in a global context. If people think he will usher in some kind of new dawn for the states, they are deluding themselves. He will engage in foreign wars because the US needs to do so to maintain its power. The US needs a social democratic party willing to cede power. Obama is a joke. He might beat McCain, but won't be appreciably different in his policies. Don't fool yourselves!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples please.
    *****************************************************

    Don't ask, My Spin. Pvt. Happy's crystal ball tells him about the future. It doesn't give reasons. Reasons muddy the picture for HIM.
    I've got money on Obama. I am willing to back my opinion with dollars.
    CYMRO
  63. My Spin from Montreal, Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Canada,

    We'll have to respectfully disagree on the delegate analysis. But yes, the gola is for the best candidate to beat the GOP. If you look at the metric that fuels elections, money, McCain is doing a horrible job of raising funds. There's a story on Bloomberg stating that many of the Bush donors are rejecting McCain are donating to the Dems in far larger amounts this election.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anDWekGuCW8E&refer=worldwide

    I think//hope the November election is going to be a wholesale rejection of the GOP at every level of government
  64. Gary Thomson from Canada writes: I think many supporters of the "Obama Enlightenment to Come" are forgetting how little domestic power an American president actually has. FDR was able to pull off what he did because of the Great Depression which led to a large batch reformers being elected to Congress from all over the country and, of at least equal importance, the near election of a huge batch of even more radical types. Obama will not have the kind of support for change in Congress that FDR had. Nor will he be able to play the "better me now than them later" card Roosevelt had. And while we are at it, let's get a little real. Obama is a Democrat and I, like most Canadians, would support him against any Republican. But don't let Obama's rhetoric go to your head. What are these great changes that his supporters are heralding? His actual positions on issues hardly differ from Clinton. Neither of them will be able to force anything by the presumably Democratic, but not liberal, Congress. The real issue is electability and which long shut out group gets to crash the club first, women or blacks.
  65. Jim Saxon from Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Canada writes: I think many supporters of the "Obama Enlightenment to Come" are forgetting how little domestic power an American president actually has.
    _____________________________________________________
    I will have to disagree - you have not been following American Theatre closely to make a statement like that. Iraq was and still is Bush's war. The disastrous economic policies are Bush's and the power to veto any bill proposed by Congress is his as well. In fact, he with his 49 Repub senators has brought everything to a standstill. And the most important power of all - the power to appoint clowns to the most important posts in administration and Victorian Judges to the Supreme Court.

    It is true that Canadians are more politically active than Americans - cross over to the South and people really do not care what is going on except when it's their own primary - and then they listen to 10 second soundbites more than the whole package - no wonder Clindone has done so well. This is the theatre that we love to watch - it has all the elements of a comedy - along with a happy ending for the good guy.
  66. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: E. Biggs from Canada writes: "McCain is a maverick and votes against his own party and Bush too often which is why he is not the most popular of the Republican bunch but he has the nomination and they will all stand behind him." ______________


    E. Biggs, I have a question for you, as you live part of the time in Arizona: Have you seen or read media coverage there in which McCain explained why he voted against his own party? Were some of these votes attributed to earmarks contained within the bills? I ask, because some of Arizona's congressional delegation (Jeff Flake, for example) are vigorous in their opposition to earmarks in legislation, and McCain has spoken out against them as well. As you know, members of both political partiies engage in the practice. Earmarks were used long before 2006, when the Dems took control of the House. One of the most famous earmarks was the one that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) got inserted into an unrelated bill to buy the "Bridge to Nowhere". Just wondering if that could be a clue as to why McCain is unpopular in some quarters within the GOP.
  67. Gary Thomson from Canada writes: Jim Saxon(12:40): LIMITED PRESIDENTIAL DOMESTIC POWER! Congress passes the budgets and must approve all appointments to senior posts, including the Supreme Court. Reagan, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. were all forced to appoint relative moderates to the Supreme Court because they all had to get along with a Democrat Congress. Same as Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress, for the most part. Bush Jr. had a Republican Congress, or a very weak Democrat Congress that the Republicans could filibuster, and that's how he was able to load the High Court. You claim that my position is a result of me not following American politics closely yet your arguments support my stated view regardin the limits of an American president's domestic power. Finally, I think your views of American voters, the cause of Hillary's still strong support and your feelings of superiority of the Canadian voter are extremely subjective gounded firmly in your personal prejudices rather than reality my friend.
  68. Gail Thomas from Canada writes: So he's picking up steam. I always thought his "hot air" speech preaches were already full of steam. Pretty hot for all those comrades out there wanting to destroy the "free" society for more big government control.
  69. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Gary: . . . ADD: Most Americans supported the last several appointments to the US Supreme Court, since most Americans are conservative (esp. as compared with Canadians). Liberals emphasize "rights," and conservatives emphasize that "rights" are unimportant and may be ignored if there is any threat of terrorism, realistic or not, near or remote.

    There is a saying down there: "REAL Americans don't NEED rights." And most Americans would agree.
  70. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Gary Thomson from Canada writes: "I am not saying that little states don't count. I'm saying that the ultimate goal is to for the Dems to defeat McCain, not nominate the first black man, or for that matter white woman, as their presidential nominee. Hillary, for all her negatives, appeals much more strongly to the swing demographic that the Dems are most likely to be able to capture. Look, I know that in the heat of the battle emotions flare, but 35% of hillary nvoters said they wouldn't vote for Obama versus 17% vice-versa." ______________ That "swing" demographic to which you refer are the so-called Reagan Democrats - white blue-collar voters. The Dems have had great difficulty keeping this group in presidential elections. They're a natural constituency for the Dems (labor), but in another sense, they're also a natural constituency for the GOP (largely conservative social values). As a bloc, they're the most fickle. They're not rich by any stretch, but they're happy to vote for any GOP candidate running on an economic platorm unfriendly to their financial interest if he/she is more "likeable" and perceived as someone they'd like to have a beer with. If that candidate can rouse them by making issues out of periperal emotion-laden "non-issues" like gay marriage, abortion or school prayer, the deal can easily be sealed. After the election, when that candidate's positions come back to kick the blue collars in the teeth, they will line up to vote for that same candidate in the next election based on some other knee-jerk distraction. This has worked for the GOP in most elections since 1980. Just because this crowd supported Hillary in the primary stage, it doesn't follow that they will vote for her in November. They have never liked her in the past. I would expect them to vote for McCain this time around, no matter which candidate (even from the original larger field) is nominated by the Dems.
  71. My Spin from Montreal, Canada writes: Gail Thomas from Canada writes: So he's picking up steam. I always thought his "hot air" speech preaches were already full of steam. Pretty hot for all those comrades out there wanting to destroy the "free" society for more big government control
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comrades? You mean like George Bush's comrade Vladimir Putin?

    "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. "

    "I was able to get a sense of his soul. "

    As for big government control, it's under the current administration that the national debt has risen from 6 to 9.5 trillion. Fiscal Conservatism is the 21st century's newest oxymoron!
  72. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Mr. Justice(1:15): Uhm, yeah, sure..., but..., now don't take this personally, I'd really appreciate it if you would refrain from publicly agreeing with me in the future.
  73. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Gary: When you're right, I feel it is sufficiently momentous an occasion to mention it, here.
  74. michael morris from Prescott, Canada writes: So if I was a Democrat, in November I would be voting for a white or black, raised poor or rich, christian or muslim, messiah or liar?
  75. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: This Obama guy is such a poor orator, almost as bad as Bush... hard to believe that he has garnered so much support. It explains a lot about the U.S. electing lousy leaders.
    ...
  76. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Cheryl Nelson(1:19): I do not disagree with any of your points. Clearly you are well informed and have thought this out and, assuming from your handle, you are American so your opinions count and mine don't. I'd be pleased to see either of them as president, it's a shame one has to lose. (On a personal level, I also admire McCain, though much more before he sold his soul to Jim Jones.) What little enthusiasm I have for Clinton over Obama is simply based on my humble outsider's view on who has the best chance in November, a knee jerk reaction to the intensity of some of the anti-Clinton crowd (both inside and outside the Democratic party as I feel it is largely class based), and my inate cynicism regarding the somewhat vague, overstated claims of change by Obama and some of his supporters.
  77. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Mr. J(1:53): Point taken. I'll circle today on my calendar:)
  78. South Paw from Canada writes: Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: This Obama guy is such a poor orator, almost as bad as Bush... hard to believe that he has garnered so much support. It explains a lot about the U.S. electing lousy leaders.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Then you've never seen this........

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo
  79. Wulfher SkullSplitter from Canada writes: Perhaps Andy Garrett you should just don your sheet already and get on out there to support the white working american, don't forget to go to church now ya hear.
  80. bob london from Canada writes: Liberal Bubbleboys/girls; Sorry to pop your world but Obama is to the RIGHT of Harper. I know it is hard to see from so far away on the left and over the NDPers.
  81. Mark H from Indy, United States writes: Mr J-

    "There is a saying down there: "REAL Americans don't NEED rights." And
    most Americans would agree. "

    Who's saying is that, exactly? Show me some evidence that most Americans agree with that - you know you can't. You've got good arguments, usually. Don't debase yourself with that kind of hyperbole.
  82. Alexander Milasin from Toronto, Canada writes: I was born and raised in a communist country, but i have never seen such promotion of the cult of personality as is happening with Obama now. Even though I support Democrats, this guy has done nothing in his legislative history to justify this capacity building. What started off with Oprah handing out free tickets to her events for Obama vote, has truned out to be such media obsession. It is disgusting! My first choice is Hillary Clinton, second choice McCain. Obama - never!!!
  83. Patrick King from Canada writes: To: Duncan Morris from Salmon Arm "All these disparaging remarks from the (former) Hillary supporters.... Any of these chaps believe they have the political acumen of a George Mcgovern? Ted Kennedy? Bill Richardson? The list goes on and on of Obama converts. Some how the quasi pundits like Patrick King and Andy Garrit have noticed something about Obama that has escaped the former Democratic Hall of famers." By an amazing coincidence, I am going to write about your so-called 'former Democratic Hall of famers' aka the losers, who are backing Obama. George McGovern, 1972 Democratic presidential nominee and the loser. He lost to Richard Nixon. Ted Kennedy is an unelectable presidential write-off. He ran in 1980, and lost to guess whom? - Jimmy Carter, who is much better not the President than be. The American people did not elect Ted Kennedy because of doubts about his character. In 1969, he was a suspect in the mysterious death of a woman who helped in Bobby Ken