Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Obama is taking on McCain despite what Clinton says

JOHN IBBITSON

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:26 PM EDT 11/05/08

Barring a cataclysm, Illinois Senator is the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. M Samra from Canada writes: Lets start the Veep watch...

    I think its Obama - Wesley Clark or Obama - Richardson...
  2. Matt Stiles from Vancouver, Canada writes: Wow, can't wait to see a debate between two people who come from nearly identical political backgrounds. That would sure be enlightening.

    Here's my prediction: The debate would devolve into a mudslinging contest, where both would go to unbelievable lengths to avoid any conversation of substance or relevance.

    In related news, another candidate for the Republican party, Ron Paul, has just published a New York Times #1 Bestseller. He has more campaign funding than McCain, and is gathering upset delegates all over the place. Yet the media hasn't said a peep.

    Thank god for democracy, eh?
  3. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: Webb, Biden, Richardson...

    Webb is probably the guy to destroy any lingering GOP/McCain pull.

    (Edwards just screwed himself by weaseling on Clinton's race-baiting recently so he's out)
  4. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Having pronounced Clinton's campaign over at least five times now, our misogynist media is unlikely to recover much credibility anytime soon, if Hillary Clinton's campaign survives even one more day. It reminds me of the 1970s joke about female success that threatened men. Question: What's behind every successful woman? Answer: The man who tried to stop her. As she has the best platform, has won the Democratic strongholds and the support of the largest block of U.S. voters, she is 13% behind Obama in a field of 4049 to more than 4253 votes, with 21% or more delegates yet to vote. Hillary can certainly continue, even though the chomping-at-the-bit male media now, somewhat desperately, hopes otherwise. Go Hillary!
  5. Rachel .. commenting from Hollywood North, Canada writes: The race to the white house is really for the Democrats to win or lose. They have the huge advantage of an unpopular Republican president, a hot grinding war, a soft economy due to high gas price and subprime fiasco; huge fund raising advantages.

    There will be detours along the road. The many baggages of Clinton v Obama had brought out; the choice by republicans to put forward McCain, a big independent voter, strong leader and media favorite.

    The contest should be close, down to a few swings in battleground states. May be choice of VP will be important, but it will more be how they handle themselves and what image they project to the public.
  6. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: A lot of the polls have mccain beating Shrillary or Hussein Obama.
  7. martha stewart from Canada writes: McCain will win. Sad but true.

    Things are going down the tubes in the US. They are getting scared. Fear will help McCain and his supporters will ensure that it becomes fear on the lowest and most instinctive level.

    There will be nothing 'noble' about this election fight.

    We shouldn't get too smug in Canada. Look at the losers we have to choose from.

  8. martha stewart from Canada writes: On the other hand, if what Matt stiles just posted above about Ron paul would unfold as hoped, that could change things! He could be McCain's Perot and hand the election to Obama.

    But I wish Paul would just win period... but wishing is just wishing. The Establishment does not like the truth he tells.
  9. Rachel .. commenting from Hollywood North, Canada writes: dick brown from missy, Canada writes: A lot of the polls have mccain beating Shrillary or Hussein Obama.

    ------------------

    Most polls show leads for Hillary and Obama. There seems to be a large differences between various polls. It is probably due to the degree the polling station adjust the result to reflect what they believe are the registered voter percentage breakdowns.

    For example, if half of the polled responding to vote for McCain, the polling result will show Democrat with lead, since there is a larger pool of registered Democrat. It is how each polling organisation set the ratio and how much they compensate by.
  10. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Hillary blew it. She and her entourage truly believed that the nomination, and the presidency, would be a slam-dunk. If it wasn't for Obama, it probably would have been.

    Obama is smarter, more eloquent, and better in every way for the times.

    There is nothing misogynistic about that. Except that, in the fantasy world or the paranoid feminist, misogyny is the excuse for every female failure.
    .
  11. mighty conan from Calgary, Canada writes: Let's hope the Clinton's slither back into the darkness where they belong. She has done more damage to the political process that anyone I can remember in ages.
  12. Mike M from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Having pronounced Clinton's campaign over at least five times now, our misogynist media is unlikely to recover much credibility anytime soon, if Hillary Clinton's campaign survives even one more day. It reminds me of the 1970s joke about female success that threatened men. Question: What's behind every successful woman? Answer: The man who tried to stop her. As she has the best platform, has won the Democratic strongholds and the support of the largest block of U.S. voters, she is 13% behind Obama in a field of 4049 to more than 4253 votes, with 21% or more delegates yet to vote. Hillary can certainly continue, even though the chomping-at-the-bit male media now, somewhat desperately, hopes otherwise. Go Hillary!
    =============================================
    Yes, Emma you must be really proud of your candidate now that she's played the race card.
  13. Tobin Manley from The Bronx, NYC, United States writes: martha stewart informs me that I'm 'scared', that's odd, I'm quite enjoying myself.
    The millions who've attended Obama rallies are an invigorated lot, I've seen it up close, all ages and colors.
    He may not win, but just a year ago a lot of cynics said 'America is not ready to have a black nominee for president'.
    Well, being well aware of the history of civil rights struggles in the States, I say we've already won have the battle.
  14. Tobin Manley from The Bronx, NYC, United States writes: sorry, half the battle, though have the battle works nicely too
  15. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: 'Barring a cataclysm that no one even wants to imagine...'

    The 'elephant in the room' isn't it? The closest that the mainstream press comes to addressing this issue are the frequent references comparing Obama to King and Bobby Kennedy.

    Now that Obama's nomination is virtually assured the nut-bars will start to come out of the woodwork. I suppose that's why the media avoids the topic altogether...the consequences of it would probably make 1967 look like a walk in the park. Truly scary.
  16. Grey Areas from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: 'Having pronounced Clinton's campaign over at least five times now, our misogynist media is unlikely to recover much credibility anytime soon, if Hillary Clinton's campaign survives even one more day. It reminds me of the 1970s joke about female success that threatened men.'

    Plleease. Your point might be credible if 'our misogynist media' wasn't correct all five times. No matter how great her policies are or how electable she may be, the math has simply been against her for a long time now. That is exactly how the G&M has laid it out each time: math. Huckabee got a similar treatment. Stop slandering the media.
  17. siren call from Canada writes: Harvey Mushman, some media aren't ignoring the elephant in the room:

    Gwynne Dyer: Healthcare Obama's likely preferred cure for US ills
    May 12, 2008
    By Gwynne Dyer

    On the assumption that President Barack Obama survives for a full four-year term - for it is generally assumed that, as the first African-American President, he will face a higher than average risk of assassination - what changes will he bring to the United States and the world?
  18. charlie brown from Canada writes: To Rachel who wrote: The race to the white house is really for the Democrats to win or lose. Um. Yes. Rachel.
  19. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Why doesn't McCain just say 'Boo!' and then watch the Democrats scatter ? Obviously it's a technique that works.

    Seems like he's wasting a lot of time, energy, and money on all of this 'campaign stuff,' when uttering that single syllable will result in victory; oh, well . . . .

    In any case, expect a McCain presidency, because it's going to happen.

    Cheers.
  20. Dan H from Alta, Canada writes: This video pretty much explains the situation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwTCzjE-3TM
  21. Might makes right? from Toronto, Canada writes: The USA is certainly ready for a black president. Neil Young, Canada's most famous exported oracle, was right.

    It's about time. And it's time for the US to become a respected world leader again. Hopefully Obama will lead them in the right direction. With Hillary or McCain, it would be more of the same crap we've been seeing in the past few decades.
  22. g c from Canada writes: On the topic of VPs, I think Richardson would be a good choice.
  23. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Hi Mike M. Tell it to the 50,000 to 90,000 Africans Bill Clinton's foundation has saved, the 12M Americans he raised out of poverty, most of which were no doubt African-American, and the 43M who will have access to timely healthcare and whose children will have access to any college or university they have the marks to enter, when Hillary is president. In an overly sensitive competition where her every word is judged while Obama gets a pass, her word choice was not ideal, but she has had to battle a misogynist media, not offend Obama, endure the endless insults of his battalions of online sock pupperts in every online media in the US, Canada and Britain and she still has taken the Democratic strongholds plus attracted the support of the largest voting block in the coming election. Obama has not done this and his 15 million supporters from smaller factions will get knocked out by McCain even if they double or triple in size. Hillary has consistently outdistanced McCain by more than Obama in every poll. Like it or not, she's the one. I daresay African-Americans will benefit considerably more with Clinton as president than they will with the inexperienced Obama who does not have the Clinton penchant for pulling people up. I doubt he could win, but if he miraculously did, with his lack of experience he likely could not implement his programs, flawed as they are. Hillary as Pres. and Obama as VP works best for everyone, including African Americans, and Obama, who will eventually have a solid shot at being president, if he learns policy and implementation as I predict he will, but not this time.
  24. sudhir jain from Calgary, Canada writes: Will barak Obama be as popular when Republicans start calling him Hassan Obama? or worse Hassan Mobarak Obama? Remember, Republicans have never hesitated from aiming low blows.
  25. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Might makes right: Take off the rose coloured glasses. Middle class white America will not be voting for change when the economy is in the dumpers. They will vote for the man who can take charge and it won't be a rookie senator without a plan.
  26. Grey Areas from Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne writes: 'while Obama gets a pass'

    It is difficult to be convinced by your arguments when you throw gems like this out.
  27. globefan Eh from Canada writes: Richardson would provide foreign diplomacy skills..enough already with the Generals, even one as progressive as Wes Clarke.

    Let diplomacy prevail..the world needs the US to work with it not police it.
  28. siren call from Canada writes: Dan H from Alta, Canada writes: This video pretty much explains the situation:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwTCzjE-3TM
    ....................................

    What situation does it explain?

    Frankly, it's painful and I would think the Obama campaign would disavow it big time.
  29. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: siren...thanks...I hadn't seen that. Dyer stated it much better than I.

    I think McCain is going to win anyhow...and will be unstoppable if he can get Rice on the ticket as his running mate...but I would really have a tough time not voting for Obama.
  30. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    The US 2008 Election will be decided in Teheran, just as 1980 Election was.

    Iran is ascendant in ME and holds Iraq card. Oil $125 and rising.

    Mullahs see Republicans as realists who take a stand, but seing the writing on the wall, come around.

    Nixon reversed on China. Then Ford ended Viet-nam War. Then Candidate Reagan convinced Iranians not to release hostages until after 1980 Elections, dooming Carter. Later he made peace with the Evil Empire Gorbachev.

    To Mullahs Democrats are ideologs, and infiltrated by Zionist Lobby.

    Expect surprizes in October.
  31. Dr Demento from Canada writes: Black man or a woman - what to do; what to do???
  32. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Syed: There will be no surprises in 'November.' It'll be McCain in a landslide!
  33. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: sudhir jain from Calgary, Canada writes: Will barak Obama be as popular when Republicans start calling him Hassan Obama? or worse Hassan Mobarak Obama? Remember, Republicans have never hesitated from aiming low blows.

    ---------------

    Yes, it would be a real travesty if they actually called him by his real name.

    Nevertheless, Hussein Obama seems to think he can carry all 57 states. LOL.

    http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/09/obama-wants-to-be-president-of-57-states/

    And he will have to do it without Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. He resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas.

    Lovely.
  34. Andrew Toth from Oliver, BC, Canada writes: Obama, certainly can speak well in public. It doesn't seem to matter the size of audience either. He appears to be very calm when speaking, very gifted in that regard. Most certainly could be the next President of the United States of America. Each tell I have seen the man speak, he is calm and seems very polite and well informed on the issues. He reminds me of Mr. Robert Kennedy is many ways when he travelled the USA and spoke while campaigning. I don't know much about McCain except many people express the view point that he 'wants the war' were ever it is or will be to go on and keep going on. That makes me feel the Obama is more the moderate, although I don't believe him to be a push over on the world stage. I think he could engage 'Putin' very well on any issue, Obama certainly is intelligent. Much like Bobby, it appears to me. A real American, when the USA needs it. Good luck Mr. Obama.
  35. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Popeye Dillon: Greetings

    ' .... Syed: There will be no surprises in 'November.' ....

    Maybe not. But I said surprizes in 'October'.

  36. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: No one was crying about the 'misogynist media' when Hillary was on top. Suddenly it's an issue? That's typical feminist extra-thick crap.

    The reality is that Hillary lost to a better candidate, but now we are seeing that Hillary and her supporters are incredibly poor sports. She played, she lost. And she lost in spite of her overwhelming advantages at the beginning. That's undoubtedly hard to accept. Too bad.

    Thankfully, in the real-world a candidate is not going to win just because she's a woman. And that's a good thing.

    The US is ready for a female President, but not Hillary. That too is a good thing.
    .
  37. H Chu from Canada writes:
    Give it up Hillary and show a little class and for the good of the country and not just your selfish desires...
  38. Tim Bryson from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes: I don't get it when people suggest it'll be McCain in a landslide. On what grounds? Experience? Such experience wouldn't let him get Sunnis and Shi'ites mixed up the way he did with the 'Al Qaida in Iraq' story. Such experience wouldn't let him go near Pastor Hagee. Look at the policies. What does McCain suggest America do about Iraq ('We'll stay 100 years if we have to.')? About Iran (bombs away...what'll that do to the price of oil)? About the ongoing $450 billion deficit, the $9 trillion debt, the hollowing out of America's manufacturing core, the trade deficit, America's dependence on foreign oil, which also represents a huge transfer of wealth and sovereignty offshore. What does McCain's position on warrentless wiretapping, on Gitmo, on the use of torture. I know he co-sponsered a bill that gave expanded and clearer definitions of torture, but, as commander-in chief, would he abide by that and other laws that check his power, or would he continue with the assault on civil liberties and separation of powers that have been a tragic hallmark of the Bush/Chenney clique? This country is in need of a change. The Bush/Chenny clique has dragged the US into the trash heap. Anybody who can't see that is living in la-la land. Again, beyond some vague claim to experience, what will McCain do to right this shinking ship? I'm all ears.
  39. Jim Mohagan from toronto, Canada writes: OMG, it's another American Instant Coronation live on CNN. They love this stuff. American politics has become the biggest reality show going, running 24/7 all year long. BO will be crowned the new American Uberidol. Funny, ever since they rebelled against the Crown they've been looking for a Divine Leader. Good luck.
  40. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Tim Bryson, There is nothing to 'get' about a McCain Landslide... That's just blathering without substance in the hope of getting a rise out of people.

    Here is substance: Out of 10 national polls, 8 polls put Obama ahead of McCain and 2 polls put McCain ahead of Obama.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/generalelectionmccainvsobama-225.html

    McCain may be likeable but the Republican party is not. I'll put my money on Obama.
    .
  41. Grey Areas from Canada writes:
    Tim Bryson from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes: What does McCain suggest America do about Iraq ('We'll stay 100 years if we have to.')?

    I think this out of context quote has gone too far. McCain does NOT want to continue the war at it's current level for 100 years. When people continually just throw this quote off to explain McCain's position, the level of debate on the war remains low and the complex solution to ending it remains far off. It is comparable to the media's treatment of the Wright controversy blocking meaningful debate about racism.
  42. Jim IIII from Canada writes: Cut The Crap from Canada writes:
    The US is ready for a female President, but not Hillary. That too is a good thing.

    Cut The Crap, do you really think the US is ready for Barak Hussein Obama who's Spiritual Advisor is Jeremiah Wright, a Racist and Terrorist-Supporter. If Obama makes it into the Whitehouse would he be pressured by the Blacks to sing along with Wright, 'G@d D@mn America' , or face Civil unrest as back in the 50's-60's
    Hussein is trying to distance himself from Wright but Wright keeps insisting Hussein has come home to Roost.
  43. Grey Areas from Canada writes:
    Jim IIII writes: 'If Obama makes it into the Whitehouse would he be pressured by the Blacks to sing along with Wright, 'G@d D@mn America' , or face Civil unrest as back in the 50's-60's.'

    Wow. These are some fairly bigotish remarks.
  44. A J from Calgary, Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne: Fair enough, that you are deeply committed to Clinton and have many reasons for choosing to support her.

    No doubt the Clinton campaign is making similar arguments to super-delegates.

    But the problem is that this is not the question that people are asking now, which is: is there any way for Clinton to secure the nomination?

    Can you explain for us how she can garner enough delegates to win the nomination?

    There are 217 pledged delegates to be elected in the remaining six primaries. As we've seen before, the proportionality rules for the Dems means that the delegates will probably be split more or less in half between Obama and Clinton. She cannot overtake him in pledged delegates.

    There are about 250 super-delegates. They didn't endorse her back when she was seen as the inevitable nominee, the super-duper-front-runner.

    Clinton's number of super-delegates has remained relatively stable in recent days, while Obama's numbers have increased.

    Certainly, Clinton will get some more. I believe that there are about 40 more of the add-on super-delegates to be chosen at state conventions in the next couple months. Those add-on delegates (mostly one or two per state) generally go to the candidate who won the state, so she'll get some add-ons, as will Obama. (Info about add-ons available at the Democratic Convention Watch website.)

    As I see it, John Ibbitson is right. This isn't a matter of media bias or, yikes, misogyny. This is plain old delegate math.

    If you see a way for Clinton to get enough delegates, do explain.

    But I'd like to hear more than the argument that these block-heads are bound to see reason soon and endorse the very best candidate. Give us some evidence.

    To me, it looks like she's still in the race for two reasons: to raise funds to pay down her campaign debt, and to make the case for being selected as the VP.
  45. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: M Samra from Canada writes: 'Lets start the Veep watch...

    I think its Obama - Wesley Clark or Obama - Richardson...' _____________


    Wesley Clark works for me. I believe that he was a foreign & military advisor to Obama before Obama declared his intention to run, and may still serve in an advisory capacity.


    Bill Richardson works for me too, but may not work for some of Obama's supporters. Strategically speaking, Richard is Hispanic (Mexican-American) and can bring lots of appeal and knowledge about a core constituency with which Obama has not successfully reached to this point. He's a former governor of New Mexico with broad foreign policy and administrative experience. The downside is that Richardson served in Bill Clinton's administration, and could be considered 'guilty by association' by the Billary haters. He was Bill Clinton's ambassador to the U.N., and served in Clinton's cabinet as Secretary of Energy. For me, the positives outweigh the negatives.
  46. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Matt Stiles from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'In related news, another candidate for the Republican party, Ron Paul, has just published a New York Times #1 Bestseller. He has more campaign funding than McCain, and is gathering upset delegates all over the place. Yet the media hasn't said a peep.' ____________



    Once a candidate earns the magic number of delegates required by his/her party, the number of delegates earned by party nomination rivals doesn't mean diddly squat.


    In this case, it shouldn't. Ron Paul has already stated that he won't run for president as an independent or Libertarian. He is free to do with the funds raised as he sees fit. I expect to see it go to the Libertarian Party, which is fielding former Georgia Republican congressman Bob Barr.
  47. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Jim IIII from Canada,

    I am not swayed by the politics of fear of the Right, especially when it comes to cheap attempts to use the words of a hell-fire preacher against a political opponent. It's a dead issue to everyone but the most paranoid of americans.

    As to Hussein ... a man is not made by his name, he makes his name by his own conduct.

    Obama's supporters understand these things. After all, most of them have a college education.
    .
  48. steve lang from Canada writes: Regarding the fear that Pesident Obama would be assasinated as implicated by Gwyn Dyer, comedian Dave chappelle has pointed out that the best insurance policy against assasination for the first black president, is a mexican-american vice president...:) Seeing as how Micheal Moore hasn't been killed yet and he doesn't even have secret service security, i think that american citizens should rest easy voting their conscience for Barak Obama as president without worrying that they are signing his death sentence...Sheesh:)
  49. martha stewart from Canada writes: The most important VP question is who will McCain choose.

    Some one mentioned Condi Rice as a winning choice. I just don't see that. Other than being loyal to Bush she has accomplished absolutely nothing except stand up to Rummy a little - and that won't help her win the all important warmonger/Rapture vote.

    If McCain picks a rabid NeoCon or Lieberman, we're in deep doo doo.
  50. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Tobin Manley from The Bronx, NYC, United States writes: martha stewart informs me that I'm 'scared', that's odd, I'm quite enjoying myself. The millions who've attended Obama rallies are an invigorated lot, I've seen it up close, all ages and colors. He may not win, but just a year ago a lot of cynics said 'America is not ready to have a black nominee for president'. Well, being well aware of the history of civil rights struggles in the States, I say we've already won have the battle. _________ We have not had a leader in the U.S. with Obama's charisma, oratorical skill, intellect and ability to inspire those around him since 1968, when both Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. Until Obama, most black aspirants for president have seen the world through the lens of race, rather than see issues that transcend race. This quality is not universal among black office-seekers and leaders. I wouldn't dare say that Colin Powell sees the world in the same way Jesse Jackson does. Obama's world view is one of transcendance, and that's what makes him appealing. I'd say that three quarters of the battle has been won. Obama didn't enter the race with the sole goal of becoming the first black president, or first black candidate with broad appeal. His other goal was to change the tone of political dialogue from spin, attack and innuendo to an open discussion of the most important issues. In this, he succeeded brilliantly. The imminent demise of Hillary Clinton's campaign effort is proof. Obama was most successful when he spun the dialogue back to issues; Hillary started to flounder when she sent the attack dogs after Obama. Even if he doesn't win the presidency, he has altered the course of political conversation in a more positive direction and added another footnote to his name in history.
  51. A J from Calgary, Canada writes: CNN reported on a new group of evangelicals for Obama.

    Back in February, when Huckabee was still in the race for the Republicans, the Christian Post reported on a Christian poll of support for the various candidates.

    The most popular was Huckabee, at 45%.
    Second was Obama, at 26.3%, up 8% within a week.
    Third was Clinton at 19.6% (stable from the week before).
    Bottom: McCain at 9.1%.

    I have no idea whether this poll truly captures the views of Christian voters, but the results surprised me.

    Not all conservative Christians go for Obama, but those who do--and who participate in blogs that I've read--say that they think he has run a clean, honest, campaign. They like his unity message. And, actually, a lot of them like the way he responded to the Rev. Wright controversy.

    Some people have said that they liked what they saw of Obama on the Compassion Forum on CNN. Obama and Clinton participated; McCain didn't.

    Why the low numbers for McCain? Again, just anecdotal--but some people say that they cannot support him because they think he is immoral. (I haven't seen specific arguments about why.) And some suggest he has pandered to the church communities to gain their support, without genuinely believing what he says to them.

    I was a little surprised by all of this, as I'm accustomed to thinking of conservative Christians as Republican voters. But it seems clear that at least some of those voters are considering the Democratic nominee for this election.

    The Christian Post poll is here:
    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080215/31196ChristianPoll:McCainLessPopularthanObama,Clinton.htm
  52. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Like many other people, I am also looking forward to reading Dr. Ron Paul's NYT Bestseller.

    Maybe the G&M could do a book review....

    Oh wait, does Dr. Paul actually exist yet, G&M?

    Cheers.
  53. Antonio San from Canada writes: Looks like Its going to be Obama-Canada on the ticket...
  54. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: The US 2008 Election will be decided in Teheran, just as 1980 Election was. Iran is ascendant in ME and holds Iraq card. Oil $125 and rising. Mullahs see Republicans as realists who take a stand, but seing the writing on the wall, come around. Nixon reversed on China. Then Ford ended Viet-nam War. Then Candidate Reagan convinced Iranians not to release hostages until after 1980 Elections, dooming Carter. Later he made peace with the Evil Empire Gorbachev. To Mullahs Democrats are ideologs, and infiltrated by Zionist Lobby. Expect surprizes in October. ______________ Good evening Syed! I can see where some of the Iranian mullahs' views on the two main U.S. parties are coming from, but I'm puzzled by part of the viewpoint. *Both* parties are extremely pro-Israel, not just the Dems. The GOP has pro-Zionist nutbars within their ranks as well; some are quite prominent within the Neo-Cons. How then, do they explain the presence of 'Christian Zionists' within the Republican base? And how do they account for this gem: since the 1970s, Democrats have largely stood for cutbacks in military spending and 'carry a big stick' rhetoric, while Republicans (George H.W. Bush excepted) tend to favor ratcheting it up? After all, only a few months ago, McCain was singing 'Bomb Iran' to a Beach Boys tune. Do they really think the GOP will let them off the hook forever, and that the Democrats are not as willing now to employ the big stick?
  55. martha stewart from Canada writes: Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Tobin Manley from The Bronx, NYC, United States writes: martha stewart informs me that I'm 'scared', that's odd, I'm quite enjoying myself.

    Happy for you Tobin.

    Cheryl, I agree that Obama has changed everything, sort of. But I still do not expect him to beat McCain - the war hero!!! If all else fails some external event will spook the voters. And the Wall Streeters are all braying that Obama is bad for the stock market and everybody is already spooked by that. Fear trumps hope every time, especially with the media we have now.

    Wonder how many thousand times they'll play the Rev Wright clips? Or show B HUSSEIN Obama in the Muslim looking outfit? Or say that Hamas likes him? Or whatever.

    And what can they throw at McCain? That he's too old? Great way to alienate all the senior voters. Iraq? Gee, it seems to have disappeared from the media. McCain's even talking the climate change talk now.

    So sad. Sheesh.
  56. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada:

    You're starting to sound a bit like John Adams when he said:

    'Democracy.... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soons wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide...'

    Bummer!

    Here's the quote that I prefer:

    'In the kingdom of consumption the citizen is king. A democratic monarchy: equality before consumption, fraternity in consumption and freedom through consumption.'

    - Raoul Vaneigen

    Now, cheer up for Gawd's sake because AFIFBs thrive on depressing posts...

    Cheers.
  57. Joe Lazar from madison, WI, United States writes: Actually, the poll I read last night has:
    Obama 47.8
    McCain 43.8
    And I think, myself, that Obama will be our next president, because
    a.) Young support like no candidate has ever had
    b.) Democratic Party ready to take over for Bush
  58. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    I wonder if Clinton's lead in WV results from the same tactics that Joe Kennedy used to win it for JFK in 1960.When she drops out of the race I hope Bubba will disappear from the horizon too.No doubt there will still be enough gullible Canadians who will pay $ to hear him spout his usual Shtick up here.

    McCain is too old and same,same Bush to win against Obama.
  59. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    It would appear Mr. Miller has taken to posting under different names to puke up the Ron Paul issue yet again.

    Go away, fool - you bore me.

    BTW, Emma - you are way out to lunch on this one.
  60. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes:
    The race to the White House is just warming up!
  61. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes "Yes, it would be a real travesty if they actually called him by his real name."

    Speaking of real names, Michael Johannson from Vancouver--so what are you doing in the Oil Sands? Hmmm. Well, the facts are, MJ, you are pretty lame to pretend that "Hussein" isn't meant to be denigrating. Should we start calling McCain, John Sidney McCain the Third? It just doesn't sound very plebian, even if it happens to be his real name. Even kind of sounds, well, somewhat "senior", if you know what I mean. Anyways, so far I have to hand it to McCain. He seems genuinely looking to battle over the issues. Frankly, it's the uneducated, unscrupulous types (like you, even!) that really make the democratic process so disheartening. The important thing that matters is who wins, right? Not HOW one wins. Great moral lessons for our children, from the so-called moral leaders of our generation. Honestly, if the right can't even figure out what "moral leadership" should mean....
  62. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: It's sad to see Ms. Clinton losing what little class she had in the past.
  63. NWT Knifer from Yellowknife, Canada writes: McCain is the only true leader here. He is going to make sure every nation on this globe has religious freedom. And he is going to enforce it. Soon Christians in Mecca will be building Churches that will be far greater thaN what ever the ilsams have in that city.
  64. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Emma Hawthorne continues to peddle her tripe. I swear, this person is utterly clueless about the US, yet incessantly writes like some authority.

    "I daresay African-Americans will benefit considerably more with Clinton as president than the inexperienced Obama..." Too bad those African-Americans are making their own choice and not listening to the smug Canadian who knows what's better for them. Hillary Clinton couldn't EVEN BRING HER OWN PARTY TOGETHER on health care reform!

    Bill Clinton lifted 12 million out of poverty? Are you talking about welfare reform? Welfare reform pushed by the Republican controlled Congress? The 6 years of Republican controlled Congress that was part of his 8 year tenure? How about the 2 year Democrat controlled Congress that was part of his tenure that utterly failed at health care reform? Does anyone have a clue about the relevance (huge) of Congress?

    Cheryl Nelson

    "Bill Richardson works for me too ... he's a former governor of New Mexico ... "

    He IS the Governor of New Mexico. Sheesh!
  65. Mike M from Sheunacadie N.S., Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Hi Mike M. Tell it to the 50,000 to 90,000 Africans Bill Clinton's foundation has saved, the 12M Americans he raised out of poverty, most of which were no doubt African-American, and the 43M who will have access to timely healthcare and whose children will have access to any college or university.....
    =============================================
    Yes Emma, too bad they've squandered whatever legacy Bill Clinton had.........rather than accept the role as first family of the Democratic Party they have decided in their take no prisoners approach that the party pariahs is a role they prefer.
  66. NA E from Buckhorn, Canada writes: "Barring a cataclysm that no one even wants to imagine, Illinois Senator Barack Obama is now the presumptive presidential nominee for the Democratic Party."

    Why do the media always put it that way? Why can't they just say, "Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee ..."? To some ears it may sound like a suggestion, for crying out loud! STOP IT! Will ya?

    PS: Emma, yer livin' in a world of denial, girl.
  67. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes: McCain supporters continue to hold out hope -- probably falsely (I am not an Oracle).

    It seems to me that the continuing debates between Hillary and Barrack continue to hold the attention of the media -- and Senator a McCain is sort of an also ran. No one really cares about what he says -- untiul he puts his foot in it (again) -- then he becomes obvious as the "other guy" in the race.

    As long as Hillary and Barrack don't make each other too bloody, the attention will be focused on the Democrats -- and, in my opinion, they should win -- but then again, I would never have considered the American population to be so stupid as to vote in Georgie Porgie a second time.
  68. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Cheryl Nelson: Good Morning

    " .... Both parties are extremely pro-Israel, not just the Dems. The GOP has pro-Zionist nutbars within their ranks as well .."

    Democrats' pro-Israel stand is out of love, the Republicans' out of hate. The Christian Right wants Jews to go to Israel so that Armageddon can come.

    Republican anti-Iran stance is pure rhetoric, to raise price of oil where Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney money is.

    Iran benefitted under Dubya. Republicans and Mullahs have cooperated in the past. On hostages, on Iran-Contra, on every International conference for conservative values.

    Remember, Republicans also hated China. Reagan outlawed the Soviet "Evil Empire" and joked that bombing begins in "ten minutes". Did it? Gorby was welcomed later.

    Expect Republican surprises in October. Capture or death of OBL, a deal with Talibs, some action in Iraq, drop of Oil price - in short a deal with the Mullahs.

    Iran will decide on the Regime in Washington DC.
  69. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    "McCain supporters continue to hold out hope -- probably falsely ... "

    Exit polls showed only 51% of Clinton supporters in Indiana and 49% in N. Carolina said they would vote for Obama if he was the nominee.

    Get it through your head; Independent and swing voters will be the deciding factor and McCain is a viable candidate.
  70. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Syed Abbas

    Utterly clueless propaganda.
  71. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Like many other people, I am also looking forward to reading Dr. Ron Paul's NYT Bestseller. Maybe the G&M could do a book review.... Oh wait, does Dr. Paul actually exist yet, G&M?

    Morning R: Interesting that Ron Paul was one of 2 people from both Parties that was NOT a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (the folk who really run the US behind the scenes-check past Cabinets and deputy Secretaries) and also had the "Audacity" to question the
    " Official 9/11 Final Commisssion Report" that is probably the worst Conspiracy Theory to have ever been produced-makes the Warren Commisssion look like kindergarden...The US government spent close to 100 million investigating Clinton, but only 16 million on the 9/11 Commission
    .
  72. SB from Ontario from Canada writes: Like most posters I like Obama as a person and a different kind of politician for running a clean campaign. Unlike some quarters who wants us to believe otherwise with all the so called controversies which he himself had nothing to do with. In terms of quality of the candidates both both McCain and Obama are honest and have the personal integrity which Hillary definitely did not possess. As far as real issues and Canada is concerned McCain would be a far better candidate for us even though he is being labelled as Bush Clone. I somewhat agree with Syed Abbas on the few surprises this November. Republican might be the real change agent as opposed to the Democrats in this game of Politics.
  73. The Wight from Canada writes: Mary Smith:

    "Exit polls showed only 51% of Clinton supporters in Indiana and 49% in N. Carolina said they would vote for Obama if he was the nominee."

    I openly wonder at how fine a straw some people are willing to pick to promote their candidate. Roughly 1.5 million people voted in NC. Take off 5% right off the top because that's how many Republicans voted, leaving 1.4. Of that, only 42% voted for Clinton, which is 600K. Of those, 51% said they wouldn't vote for Obama, which is 300K. In May, eight full months of campaigning away in which Obama is out earning McCain 3-1, if not more.

    300K in a country of 330 million, 200 million of which are eligible to vote? That's 0.15% of the voter population. Add up the handful of votes that MIGHT go this way in the handful of states that it MIGHT happen in and you MIGHT just get a whole percent.

    And Obama already leads in direct polling by 5%. Can't forget the Diebold factor, of course, and the Supreme Court could always weigh in again, but I don't think this is anywhere near the issue you think it is. By November, those voters will mostly toe the party line, pretty much like they always do.
  74. South Paw from Montreal, Canada writes: Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada Middle class white America will not be voting for change when the economy is in the dumpers. They will vote for the man who can take charge and it won't be a rookie senator without a plan.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Don't bet your last can of spinach on that.

    I suggest you read this. George Will is no friend of the Democratic Party. He has a series of interesting questions that need answering by John McSame.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/136308
  75. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    The Wright

    First of all, I am an Independent voter and am still undecided.

    Secondly, a Gallup poll in March showed 28% of Clinton backers would vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee and 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain if Clinton was the nominee.

    Thirdly, you speak of 'how fine a straw" and then use a 200 million figure to calculate; knock off AT LEAST 60 million.

    Lastly, "those voters will mostly toe the party line, pretty much like they always do." Haven't you ever heard of 'swing states'?
  76. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    I forgot to add:

    It's called the Electoral College. Obama winning in the DEMOCRAT PRIMARY in states that more often as a whole vote 'red' adds up to zilch.
  77. South Paw from Montreal, Canada writes: Apparantly Obama can't win white voters. I guess that the folks in Iowa, Maine, Wisconsin, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Vermont where voters gave him a victory in these races.

    And to think that states like California, New York and other traditionally Dem states will turn GOP after eight years when the economy is on its knees and the nation wants out of a war is ridiculous to contemplate.

    Watch the polling over the next few months. If the Dems are anywhere near 50% in August/September , it's going to be a rout in November, IMO.
  78. kevin o'connor from Canada writes: The Obama-Nation is on the rise! I like Edwards or Webb for VEEP. People on this board who say McCain is a viable candidate are correct in the sense that he might stop the republican party from getting Goldwatered in November. Mondale-ed. But as much as identity is played up on this board or in the media (US and otherwise) the main factors in this election are unchangeable and all against McCain. He is from the party of power that has presided over a disastrous war, an anemic expansion and now a tanking economy, and that has had 2 terms in the white house. It's hard to win that 3rd term; and BHO is no dukakis.
    This elections narrative will be about change, and BHO is proposing major change. McCain is not. BHO's colour, as distasteful as this discussion is, will hurt with the racists, most of whom wouldn't vote for a dem anyway, and help with african americans and people who see it as the physical manifestation of change (a skin deep analysis; his policies are the real change), most of whom would vote for a Dem anyways.
    Independents aren't nearly racist enough to vote against Obama en masse, but they sure are mad enough at the direction of their country under Bush to vote for change, for Obama.
    McCain's personal qualities and appeal to the center of the country will perhaps save the republicans from an historic defeat, but it will still be a heavy one.
    The Obama-Nation is on the rise!
  79. Common sense is BACK! from Canada writes: .

    Why can't Canada have a choice of worthwhile politicians??? Obama, Clinton, McCain - those are all real leaders.
  80. bob london from Canada writes: Mr. Wolfson and Terry McAuliffe remind me of Cdn Liberal back office supporters. Flogging a dead horse and a dead message.
  81. The Wight from Canada writes: Mary Smith:

    "Secondly, a Gallup poll in March showed 28% of Clinton backers would vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee and 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain if Clinton was the nominee."

    Emphasis mine.

    Polls done in March mean jack in November. You yourself saw the polls slide up and down in the space of only a couple of weeks during the Democratic primaries as the vote in certain states neared. Think that poll in March means anything even two weeks after it was done? I sure don't.

    I find it odd that exit polls are 100% believable whenever it shows that McCain might gain a few swing votes here or there, but when they showed that Bush should have actually LOST the 2000 general and that there was a mysterious swing late in the vote count ... then they are unreliable at best.

    As for the voters ... there were an estimated 201.5 million eligible voters as of 2004. 130 million of those registered. Are you CERTAIN that out of those 71 million people, enough aren't going to show up to vote for the first time to completely offset these supposed gains for McCain on the back of disillusioned Hillary supporters? Only 1-2 million need to show up to do it and Obama has brought in a LOT of new Democrats to the fold. Look at how the youth is swinging to him, for example, a group that almost NEVER votes, and how many people have written to his campaign to say they are voting for the first time JUST TO VOTE FOR HIM.

    I think these disgruntled Hillites are a drip in the bucket. Most will swing to the Democrats over the next 8 months and the few that don't will be more than offset by new Democratic voters.
  82. Robert Rivers from France writes: Uhhhh... I have not met too many people from West Virgina.... but I have herd stories from those Americans who are non West Virgina and the possibility anyone who is not visibly ummm... from there, has no chance of even winning a participation ribbon at the Sunday church picnic.

    I am a little ignorant on this subject but this is based on a conversation with a friends family who only stopped for gas there once... and that was enough to have someone say something racy.
  83. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Common sense is BACK! from Canada writes:

    "Why can't Canada have a choice of worthwhile politicians??? Obama, Clinton, McCain - those are all real leaders. "

    Sorry CSiB, all three are lacking in that magical leadership area. Senator Obama is only lacking in experience. The other two Senators lack it completely - imho.

    I believe Mr Harper is definitely a better leader than all three of the candidates, but with experience Senator Obama will get better. Please don't forget the CPC will be the longest surviving minority government. You don't get that way strickly on the back of the leaderless opposition.