Hillary sheds a tear (or two) again.

Obama is catching up on the polls but may not have enough time to win.

Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut

this presidential race is indeed getting interesting.  while Mccain has big lead in republican race, hukabee is saying , he is not quitting.  conservatives says huckbee speaks their language and that is why he won election this weekend i guess.  he was saying i did not major in maths, i majored in miracles and he believes in miracle.  i am not sure if miracles help him to get the nomination.  on the other hand, mccain is having hard time to convince conservative voters, even president bush was saying john has some convincing to do for conservative voters. 

democratic race is even more interesting, obama is winning in red states, midwest and south.  i am not sure if he can win those states in presidential election in november.  those states such as idaho, utah, colorado, northdakota, kansas are conservative area and it is not easy to win in those states by a democratic candidate.  so, my concern is, even obama is winning now, i am not sure if he gonna be a better candidate for november.  also, he only talks about changes, and its always easy to say and get things done.  i am not sure how far he will be successful should he win the nomination and november election.  i do not have voting rights though. 

*,
Obama fairs better than McCain (52-44) and the difference is better than the difference between Clinton and McCain with Clinton leading McCain(50-47, the margin of error being 3%)  in a recent survey conducted by CNN

In TIME poll as well, he leads McCain (48-41). Although the November's race is going to be a close one, at the end of the day, it's gonna turn in favor of democrats IMO-- the chances of which are more if Obama is nominated.

Captain,
Hahahaha... yeah no one's flawless and I too believe in going for picking one from what have been served to you. Sometimes I feel I am too old to be cynical hahaha. So far I am enjoying Obama curry. But Hillary Tandoori doesn't look too bad either from the look and the smell of it.

Here's Steve Kroft of CBS News interviewing Obama in '60 minutes'. Some interesting questions like Obama being just the talk machine without any substance have been asked and he's answered them tactfully.

Enjoy.

loote, these poll results mean nothing for november election.  these results will change every week or so and we have more than 8 months to go.  if poll results will remain consistent until that time, then definitely obama has upperhand.  Also,  we still dont know what would be the major issues.  i guess it also depends upon the major issues. ( economy, immigration, healthcare, iraq war ....).  even obama is leading in recent polls, i am not sure if he can keep this momentum going. 

I think that national poll means nothing especially now.  If we were to look at the national poll than Al Gore were to be president in 2000 as it is the number of electors that wins presidency not the popular vote.  Like the two previous elections, this one will come down to FL, OH and PA and whoever wins the two will win the election.  One important thing to notice here about Obama victory is that he has won most of the red state like UT, GA, ND, ID,SC etc.  Although, the turnout was pretty good for the donkeys on these states during primaries will still falls for the elephants in general.  It will be very difficult for Obama to win on FL and OH in November against McCain.  He may win PA but Hillary has better chance of winning FL and PA.  So in that scenario I think Hillary has better chance in November. 

I disagree that this election will come down to FL, OH, and PA. Obama can easily win some red states, which until now has been quite red. Obama received more votes in SC, KS, MO, ND, and CO than the total combined votes of the top two republican candidates and the total votes casted in those states bode well for the democrats. Also, VA is a purple state now, which can easily go to the democrat this general election.

Of course, if Clinton is the nominee, it could come down to those states.

*,
haha...and what makes you think that he won't be able to continue with the momentum? again it's easy to be cynical and doubtful over someone who haven't have much executive experiences. But what does experience mean, if they are not directed to make thoughtful plans and actions?

Franklin D. Roosevelt had served just as a mere Governor of NY for 3 years before he was elected as the president. What real executive experiences did he have? Same with Theodore Roosevelt. He also had served as the Governor of NY for just about a year before he became the president.

It seems to me that we, as human, have this tendency to be skeptical about a radical change--a normal change for some for that matter. Obama is an underdog no doubt but a dark horse with a lot of potential. I don't know why but I get this feeling that he's gonna be the most remarkable leader of our era. Sometimes we need to follow our instinct and experiment, a calculated experiment and I believe that Obama as a president is a good experiment for US and the world, better than having some warmonger republican and way better than having Bush.


Yeah Guest4. And if Obama manages to win Texas and Ohio or either one of them, there won't be stopping for him from there on.

LT
Those old days of electing president without prior experience are over. With the world challenging the US in every form possible, the benefit to the citizen if they elect someone with experience is being able to handle it wisely and successfully. Let me ask you, if you were to hire an employee (lets's say the board of the company is getting a new CEO in this case), would you go for someone with instinct or look at the resume and hire a experience one. There's always exception in any filed, no doubt about it. But most practical decision is to go with someone experience, isn't it? So what is so different about electing the president? Don't get me wrong, Obama might be brilliant if elected but there's no fact to support it, except for the hype he's getting with "Change" and "Yes We Can" mantra. And there's nothing radical change that is going to happen if he gets elected. What exactly did you mean "Radical"? It's too vague.
My 2 cents

Yawn, this is beginning to resemble one of those long drawn out political talkathons on cable.

Wake me up when February ends.

BTW, Loote how about Cafe O ? LOL!

Ten Things Hillary can do to survive February

Have a good one all.

The 35 years of experience that Clinton often touts on and off the campaign trail while disparaging Obama as an inexperienced candidate with just 2 years on the US Senate is at best laughable. This should be "the biggest fairy tale" we have ever heard of.

Clinton is 60 now. 35 years ago, when she was 25, she was still in law school. Of course, that might have been one of her transformative years in life, but how does that really count as an experience? And even if she counts her time in law school as experience, why not count Obama's time in law school as well?

Included in that 35 years of experience is  6 years of expereince sitting on the board of Wal-Mart, which she rarely mentions.

Then there is 8 years of her experience in the White House, which the public doesn't exactly know what her role was. How can she pull 8 years of experience from those years when the public don't know what exactly she did. Her role during those 8 years is as mysterious as her claim of 35 years of experience is. Why not make the archives public sooner than 2010??

Ok..you would think that with 30 years of experience, in 2003 in the run-up to the vote to authorize the Iraq war, she would make a good judgment in one of the biggest test of her life! So, much for her experience!

And then she goes on to dismiss Obama's 8 years on the state senate as if that was some kind of part time job, which should not count for any experience. His time spent organizing community isn't the "right" kind of experience (her implication). Give me a break!!

Clinton, definitely, has solid experience but nothing far superior than that of Obama. Obama has spent more time in the elected office than Clinton, so to speak.

Agree Guest4. What experience is she talking about? The fact of the matter is neither she nor Obama is experienced, let's face it.

Bob,
Obama has little experience in governing but if you don't count Hillary's experience as First Lady--which you should not since she was NOT elected to that position and the meddling she did, did come out pretty badly--she doesn't have much more. Perhaps a couple more years in the senate and that's it.

What's more, Hillary gave us the experience of working in an administration that failed to deliver a health care plan, lost the congress to the republicans, gave us free trade without fair trade and enabled or at least could not stop Al Qaeda from growing stronger . LOL! That's the most part of what she has, and what her supporters think she has as "experience".

"We've been here for longer", what longer? There were many companies before Google but Google is there at the top and performing!


Captain,
LOL! After tomorrow (which I am hoping is going to be another clean sweep for Obama), I too am going to hit the sack for the rest of the Feb..hahaha...so I will be there with you :P

I believe it may be worth reading as well.... here we go

Obama Will Win Nomination

February 11, 2008 2:30 PM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

To get right to the point, I believe Barack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination setting the table for a great race for the fall.

Here's why:

In doing the math on delegates, it looks highly likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead when all this is finished by June. Even if Hillary wins some big states along the way, Obama will score enough delegates to keep his count moving.

The super delegates (those 796 party folks who can decide on their own who to vote for and change their mind along the way) will be in an unenviable position when all is said and done. They will be getting unbelievable pressure, especially by the Clintons and their establishment backing, to "pledge" to one or the other.

But here is the deal: how does a party who has protested and screamed and yelled about counting all the votes, that the popular vote matters most, that an election was stolen by the Supreme Court in 2000, go against the votes and participation by voters in the Primary process???

The answer is: I think it's impossible for the Democratic party establishment to go against voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

It would be an untenable position for the super delegates to award the nomination to a candidate who is behind in the pledged delegate count. And if that was to happen, then the November election becomes a very difficult prospect in motivating voters who backed Obama in the nomination process. And since he seems to be the only one inspiring new voters to the polls, it is hard to dampen that enthusiasm.

So the bottom line is: Obama wins the plurality of pledged delegates, then the super delegates really have to go along with what the voters want. Otherwise, what kind of authenticity would the Democratic party have if it is not about counting the votes and it becomes the decision of the Democratic version of the Supreme Court???

Obama wins; then faces John McCain in the general election in an epic generational battle between two candidates who are calling the country to a sense of common interest and who are both about bringing the country together across party lines.

Now that would be a campaign worth the price of admission. 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/matthewdowd/2008/02/opinion-obama-w.html 

It could well come to a situation where neither Hillary nor Obama will have the majority of the pledged delegates. I have a feeling that Obama will turn the table in his favor by surprise wins in TX and Ohio . If that's not possible and even if we go by the worst case scenario, I think he will still come in top in terms of the number of pledged delegates at the end of it but Hillary will have more of the Superdelegates than obama--at least 50 plus (?).So what would those elected officials and party members do? Should they pick up one whom they support by majority or should they follow the voice of majority of people?

It's a tough call but I would say if Democrats, as a party, are thinking of a long term plan of doing well against the Republicans (which is already in shape in terms of who they want to nominate as the candidate for Presidency), they should think seriously about garnering support from independent and swing voters in their favor (remember Florida '00 ?) and for that they have to follow the sentiment of the people who, for the most part and as the current stats show, are in favor of Obama--the man with the momentum :D

Obama has the momentum

Feb 11th 2008
From Economist.com

Barack Obama piles up victories

AFTER fighting Hillary Clinton to a draw on Super Tuesday, Barack Obama might now feel that he is on a roll. Over the weekend he racked up four more states—to Mrs Clinton’s none—and he looks set to pick up more on Tuesday February 12th. Mr Obama’s train is picking up speed.

The states that voted at the weekend were as different as they could be. Maine in the north-east combines blue-blooded coastal money (George Bush’s parents live there) with poorer farming and factory communities in the interior. Louisiana is a southern state where blacks make up a big chunk of the Democratic primary electorate. Washington state in the north-west is famous for its progressive politics. And Nebraska, smack in the middle of the country, is lily-white corn-farming country like Iowa, the first state to go for Mr Obama in 2008.

All plumped for Mr Obama on Saturday and Sunday. He won 57-36 in Louisiana, which held a traditional primary, a striking result for Mr Obama. In Maine (a 60-40 victory), Washington and Nebraska (victories by 36 and 35 percentage points respectively) the contest was in the form of a caucus. These victories, while also impressive, were less surprising: his strong organisation and the enthusiasm of his followers help him to perform well in the caucus format, where getting voters to turn out for a long meeting is perhaps the biggest challenge.

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, unsurprisingly, played down the results, pointing to Mr Obama’s bigger efforts in those states. But he is also expected to do well in the “Potomac primary” on Tuesday, when votes are held in the adjacent states of Virginia and Maryland, as well as Washington, DC (which lies between them). The demographics look favourable to him, as do polls (although they show some widely different results, and Mrs Clinton should not be counted out).

Mrs Clinton is acting sanguine; she has won most of the biggest states so far (New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey), and likes her chances in two more, Ohio and Texas, on March 4th. The campaign, however, has shown signs of strain: late in January she was forced to lend her campaign $5m (although she quickly recouped it in a strong fundraising week). And on Sunday afternoon her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, stepped down. The campaign denied that this was a shake-up, citing the long campaign’s tolls on staff members’ families.

As both campaigns survey the remaining states to vote, an ugly possibility hoves into view. It may well be that neither candidate is able to win enough so-called “pledged” delegates in the state primaries to secure the nomination. Such delegates, once chosen by primaries, must vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the August nominating convention. But if neither candidate wins a majority of them, the “superdelegates” then act as tie-breakers. Superdelegates are the country’s Democratic governors, Democratic members of Congress, and high-ranking party members of the Democratic Party. They can, in theory, lend their support to anyone they choose at this summer’s convention. But some have been making promises, and more to Mrs Clinton than to Mr Obama.

Mr Obama will be ahead in pledged delegates by the end of this week by most counts. (The counts differ because some pledged delegates have not yet been chosen officially.) But Mrs Clinton has an edge when the superdelegates are added in. This raises the spectre of a long, difficult and expensive campaign in which Mr Obama may win among those delegates chosen by the voters, but the superdelegates put Mrs Clinton over the top. Many Democrats—especially the numerous first-time younger voters (mostly supporters of Mr Obama)—would wonder what the whole primary process was for.

The Obama camp is saying that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people. The Clinton group responds that this eliminates the point of having the superdelegates at all. The superdelegates were instituted in 1982 to give insiders more control over a party that had begun to drift too close (in their view) to the hands of ordinary activists. Perhaps the superdelegates will indeed obey the will of the people, siding with the winner in pledged delegates whatever their earlier promises. After all, the Democratic Party was traumatised by what many feel was an election stolen by George Bush in 2000. It would be odd indeed for something looking similar to happen in the party’s own choice of a candidate this year.

Did anybody vote here. What was your experience in terms of your party's rule in your state? Did anybody get F**K up like me in the primary? Beside this Cut N Paste, let's share our real problems here. I don't think it's we need to debate about this election here when it's repeated gazillion of times on the TV.

LOL! bob,
How many of us sajhaites do you think are eligible to vote? Even if they are, there's something called privacy so they wouldn't want to come here in public forum to tell all people (most of whom are juveniles and F1 visa holders) the stories of how they voted, where they voted and whom they voted for.

HAHAHA... and if you were fuc*ked up in primary, go get an attorney for yourself. LOL!

On a serious note, there are plenty of online sites where they tell you, how primaries/caucuses work in each state (in depth). See, if they let you do what you were supposed to be able to.

Cut N paste re. Do you think everyone in here have time to go visit all the news sites or follow up with the progress on the recent events? Jeez, think for everyone. C'mon, don't be too self-indulgent.

Loote,

You say, "Obama has little experience in governing but if you don't count Hillary's experience as First Lady--which you should not since she was NOT elected to that position and the meddling she did, did come out pretty badly--she doesn't have much more. Perhaps a couple more years in the senate and that's it."

A little search on google gave me this:

Received while First Lady of Arkansas:

• In 1983, Clinton was named Arkansas Woman of the Year by the Arkansas Democrat.^[1][2]

• In 1983, Clinton was named Headliner of the Year by the Arkansas Press Association.^[3]

• Around 1983 or 1984, Hillary and Bill Clinton were named Public Citizens of the Year by the Arkansas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.^[2][3]

• In 1984, Clinton was named Arkansas (Young) Mother of the Year by the Arkansas Association of American Mothers.^[1][3]

• In the mid-1980s, Clinton was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.^[3]

Received while First Lady of the United States:

• Around 1994, Hillary Clinton received the Living Legacy Award from the Women's International Center, in recognition of "her vast contributions in so many fields, especially honoring her work for women and children."^[4]

• Clinton won the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for It Takes a Village during the Grammy Awards of 1997.^[5]

• In May 1998, Clinton received the United Arab Emirates Health Foundation Prize for her work in health and social welfare, especially as it related to women, children, and families.^[6]

• In April 1999, Clinton was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund for her support of that Ukrainian organization's efforts regarding legacy effects of the Chernobyl accident.^[7]

• In June 1999, Clinton received the Mother Teresa Award, the highest honor given to civilians by Albania. This was in recognition of her humanitarian efforts following the Kosovo War and worldwide.^[8]

Received while United States Senator from New York:

• On March 26, 2004, Clinton was presented with the inaugural Nursing Health and Humanity Award from the University of Rochester School of Nursing.^[9]

• On February 13, 2005, Clinton was awarded the German Media Prize 2004. "Hillary Clinton is a model politician for millions of women around the world" who "represents in an exemplary way women's rights", the jury for the prize said.^[10]

• On February 15, 2005, Clinton was given the American Medical Women's Association's President’s Vision & Voice Award, for being an advocate for women's health and related issues.^[11]

• In May 2005, Clinton received an honorary doctorate from Agnes Scott College near Atlanta for being a "defender of human rights" and "a resolute defender of the rights of women and girls."^[12]

• On July 30, 2005, Clinton was given the Reserve Officers Association's National President's Award.^[13][14]

• In September 2005, Clinton initially accepted but later rejected honorary membership into Alpha Kappa Alpha due to its exclusive requirements which would prevent her from accepting honorary membership in other National Pan-Hellenic Council organizations.^[15]

• On October 9, 2005, Clinton was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame.^[16]

• In April 2006, Clinton was honored with the Remembrance Award from the Northeastern New York Chapter of the Alzheimer's Association.^[17]

• On June 14, 2006, Clinton received an Energy Leadership Award from the United States Energy Association's Energy Efficiency Forum, in recognition of her leadership on energy issues.^[18]

• During 2007, Clinton was awarded an honorary doctorate in medicine by Göteborg University, for being "a strong advocate for increased investment in medical research" and for "raising awareness of the increased health problems linked to obesity, poor quality food and physical inactivity."^[19]

 

I don't know about you, but for me, it seems a stellar achievement of 30 years of public service. It is laughable when you say, she doesn't have much more. Don't be an oxymoron just because you like Obama. However, I hate to say, but I agree with some of your points that experience matters but its not the only thing that matters and I like Obama too but dismissing Mrs. Clinton's life of public service doesn't suit your taste. My opinion.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_awards_and_honors

Hillary bid to nomination hinges on Ohio and Texas primaries in March 4 but I see the campaign slipping away from Hillary. I can't wait to see if Hillary can turn the table in her favor in Ohio even after being able to pick up an endorsement from a nation hero and Ohio icon John Glenn. I bet replacing Clintons campaign manager Patti Solis Dolis, the most prominent Latina in Clinton's campaign, by another close Clinton loyalist Maggie Williams is going to hurt Clintons who are banking on Latino voters for a boost in the Texas and Ohio primaries. How wise it would be on Clintons part to remove Solis Dolis, a child of Mexican immigrants, just weeks before the Texas primary where 36 percent of the population is Hispanic.

LT.
I don't think I'm the only one who voted. Privacy??? What are the chances you voted for Ron Paul if indeed you voted? You're in love with your boy, Obama.
I was trying to share experiences, was not asking for your opinion. Thanks anyway.
Geico, I think you're right. This will hurt Hillary in Texas, she might even loose it.
Thanks Nell for posting Hillary's resume.

Bob,
HAHAHA...sure! Please do share your experiences. More coming? I am all ears .

Nell,
First off, if you haven't followed all my posts in this thread, let me tell you that I am not against Hillary. I think she is quite smart and an equally, if not more, eligible candidate for president. If Obama was not around, I would support her. I will still do, if Obama loses nomination to her. In other words, she is my second favorite. If Billary were not acting like cry-babies like they have over the past few months, I would have equal support for both.

However, Hillary's campaign has been flaunting about their experience edge over Obama campaign umpteen times and this is irking me for I seriously believe it's just something which has been blown out of proportion by media and her supporters-- one of those myriads cards Billary have been playing against Obama campaign. I agree that she has contributed a lot for women and children and her stellar resume on that ground shows it all. But if you look at it closely, Obama is no less than Hillary in terms of 'executive' and 'legislative' experience. She just has a couple of year more experience than Obama as a Senator. There's nothing more than that. Hillary's superior experience over Obama is a myth. If being married to a powerful man is an experience, then Laura Bush now is no less experienced either or so is Melinda Gates. When the Clintons were in office, the US government literally ground to a halt due to bipartisan gridlock. Hillary is partisan and Obama is inclusive. You can make a guess of who is more likely to get things done for a bipartisan co-operation which is imperative to boost the plummeting economy of US.

I dont blame Hillary campaign getting lil hard on Obama.

It was Obama supporters who first started as "Obama or No one" and they are the first to complain of divided party. When Obama gets large chunk of black votes  just for his color (campaign for Black Pride),that is not the divisive politics, and at the same time when Clintons down played the same thing its crying and what else Loote???When Obama wants to see if Bill Clinton is a "Brother", well that's a people choice and when Bill Clinton says, "well Jesse Jackson won there too";its a racial politics.

To all Obama supportes up here: Please dont be like YCL. btw..It also applies to Ron Paul....