Ron Paul on Obama

Barack Obama Becomes The Democratic "Presumptive" Nominee

Barack Obama wins Montana and loses South Dakota to Hillary Clinton, but still gains enough delegates to mathematically clinch the Democratic Nomination. Man, this is going to get interesting. McCain vs Obama. Its on.

Thank god for third parties.

Obama's Comments on the Council on Foreign Relations and One World Government

Wow. Gee I'm convinced now. I tell you what, Barack sure does sound a bit nervous and rattled when trying to answer this excellent question about his association with the Council on Foreign Relations and the prospect of a North American Union, etc.
From Raw Story:

Did Clinton camp make Obama "blacker"?

Wired Politics
Daily Kos

Oh, no! She Di'unt! Oh yes, she de'ud! Oh, no! She Di'unt!

I just report 'em, folks.

Beware: This is only the beginning of the ridiculous behavior.

Guy Stabs In-Law over Clinton/Obama Argument

Yep, here it is. The party of "non-violence". Apparently a heated exchange between in-laws over the merits of a Clinton or Obama administration proved too much to handle. It seems this Clinton supporter likes knives..

Obama: The "Cover Band" Candidate

Damn Barack, You just got called out bigtime with your own words. Looks like your response to the extremely valid point that all you have to offer is "just words" helped to prove that your detractors have a point on this one. In your speech the other day in Wisconsin, when responding to the "just words" accusation, you decided to lift a speech, or part of it at least, from Deval Patrick. I mean, this is so obvious it hurts.



ooh..but there's more:

Obama, Japan

In case you needed one, and I find I do, here's another great reason to vote for Barack Obama...

Konnichiwa, bitches.

Clinton's Ass Hat

From TPM via First Read:

Political Genius Walking Among Us

A quote from Mark Penn that should go over extremely well:
"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”
--Josh Marshall

Well, I am certainly relieved I live in a significant state. Don’t really know what to say to those millions of other people who voted in the other 20+ states Obama won. I guess you’ll need to move to one of the 10 Hillary has won, if you’d like to be significant. This according to her chief campaign ass hat Mark Penn. Lovely.

Day One

We hear the phrase "ready on day one" from the Clinton camp, as much as Obama spouts his "change" mantra(s), but one can argue that Obama will bring some form of change. However, the way Clinton has run her campaign, her readiness is very questionable.

Judging from Clinton’s complete lack of foresight (I'm inevitable) or plan B (pretty much everything that happened after Iowa) plus her arrogance (I'm inevitable again) and what now seems like a healthy form of denial (she doesn't even comment on her recent HUGE losses), I don’t think it’s her. In fact, this kind of sounds like our current train wreck of a president, doesn't it?

Youth, Youth Vote, Wasted on Young

People who know me (all 4 of you) know how skeptical I am about Obama-mania, Hill-arrhea, Democratic "inevitability", and how Hope, Love, and The Youth Vote conquers all. It sounds nice and feels self-satisfying, but it didn't work in 2004 even though like now we were targeted by campaigns, mobilized, angry, eager for change, and running against a total turd sandwich.

To further pump people up and tell themselves and each other how great and inevitable and young and hip they are, along comes DKos to discuss the Youth Vote, and pooh-pooh any skeptics such as myself that the Youth Vote may not turn out like it did in 1972, or, 1992, or 2004.

Meteor Blades may need to review his/her history here because, Democrats lost 2 out of 3 of those elections he claimed were so dominated by the Youth Voting tsunami.

Sorry to be a downer here, and even more sorry to use a sports analogy, but weren't the Patriots talking about how inevitable their ascendency was?

Why This Edwards Booster Voted for Obama

This morning I woke up and walked to my polling station and there I cast my vote for Barack Obama. I had the opportunity to vote for Edwards, who was still on the ballot, but I chose not to. Since Edwards suspended his campaign, I've been forced to do some hard thinking about who I would support in his absence.

One of the issues Edwards championed was universal health care. He came out early with a bold plan that set the bar for the other candidates. Clinton's plan is nearly the same as Edwards's, while Obama's leaves a little something to be desired (as I've blogged about before). So, strictly in terms of healthcare policy, I'd prefer Clinton. But of course, in politics, policy is only a piece of the puzzle. And in thinking about this, I realized that healthcare is actually a good lens through which to view the broader issues at stake.

Obama's healthcare plan is essentially the same plan that the "liberal utopianist" Bill Bradley proposed in 2000 when he ran against Al Gore--the same plan for which he was pilloried by Al Gore for going too far. Of course, those were different times. And it is reassuring to realize that the healthcare plan being critiqued today as insufficiently progressive is the same plan that was too progressive eight years ago. That's progress!

But of course, the President doesn't make laws, the President executes laws. It Congress who writes the laws, so when it comes to healthcare, whether Clinton or Obama are president, their policy proposals are only proposals, and it is the law that comes out of congress that they'll have to decide to sign or veto. And this brings me to my larger point: what kind of congress are we likely to see if Clinton is the nominee, and what kind of congress might we see if Obama is the nominee?

We all know how polarizing Hillary Clinton is. And we all know how many enemies the Clinton's have. One thing that seems clear to me is that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will unite a fractured republican party against her. She may win the Presidency, but it will be yet another close election, and it will cost the democrats scores of downticket seats as republicans, who's entrhusiasm has been lackluster in the primaries, will suck it up and go vote not only for the republican nominee (who will be McCain), but also for all the republicans running in theri district. I expect that if Clinton gets the nomination, Democratic gains in congress will be squelched. Further, I predict that she, like her husband, will lose democratic seats in congress in the 2010 midterm elections of her first term. If Hillary Clinton is working with a weak Democratic majority, or worse, a republicasn majority, we can be assured of several, more years of vitriol and acrimony with less than progressive outcomes.

And of course, if it's Clinton vs. McCain, the distinctions between them are minimal. And in a general, McCain will move to the left and Clinton will move to the right, further blurring the distinctions. I believe this scenario favors McCain as the anti-dynastic candidate.

What we know about Obama as a candidate is that he's energized the youth vote like no other candidate in my lifetime, which is a huge thing. These are people who might never have voted before, and Obama is bringing them into the Democratic tent, and most are likely to stay there. We also know Obama has appeal across party lines. Of course we remember Reagan Democrats, that bloc of voters who helped Ronnie into office in '80, and into a landslide in '84--effectively setting up the kind of republican party that would elect Bush in 88, and after losing the White House in 92, they would take back congress in 94...they would elect Bush in 2000, and take congress in 2002. Of course, many in the republican party viewed Reagan with suspicion. He had been, after all, an FDR Democrat. But it was his broad appeal that allowed him to build the party that has effectively set the agenda in this country for 26 of the last 28 years.

I believe that Obama can do the same thing for Democrats that Reagan did for Republicans. Obama at the top of the ticket agains McCain is a much clearer choice--youth vs. age, the party of change vs. party in power, a vote against the war vs. 100more years in Iraq. I believe Obama will have no trouble winning that matchup. And the wave of enthusiasm that would accompany Obama when compared to the suppressed republican turnout due to conservative suspicion of McCain will mean big gains for the downticket democratic races. With an Obama candidacy we can expect solid democratic majorities in Congress which will hold or grow in 2010 midterms, and the very real possibility that President Obama will be give a healthcare plan to sign into law that more closely resembles Edwards' plan than his own.

On foreign policy, Obama IS the best candidate. Clinton is a hawk. McCain is a hawk. Romney wants to double the size of Guantanamo. Only Obama has had the courage to say that we would engage the world like an adult, which is to say he'd use diplomacy rather than preemption. We know that much of the animosity the rest of the world feels towards the US is directed at our boastful neo-imperialism. Obama would soften that image with genuine global citizenship.

Obama is not the perfect progressive candidate in terms of domestic policy. I have many reservations about him on several issues. But I believe he is the candidate who will galvanize the Democratic Party and lay the foundation of a new progessive era and a better America.

Whgo else supports Obama?
Janet Napolitano, Governer of Arizona -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Kathleen Sibelius , Governor of Kansas -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Claire McCaskill, Junior Senator from Missouri -- a state G.W. Bush won twice

Hillary can win in the bluest of the blue, and so can Obama. But Obama can turn the purple states blue, and start turning some red states purple.

Obama Video

Can anyone even imagine anything like this for Clinton?

Oh, and Moneymonk, whatever your reservations about Obama, it looks like the one endorsement that matters to you has come in. Now you have to do your part to give Scarlett Jo the Big O.

CNN Calls Florida for McCain, and Clinton Celebrates Zero Delegates

It looks as though McMaverick has pulled one out in Florida. Terrific! The fact that his campaign is still underfunded and in debt, not to mention the fact that a big chucnk of conservative America doesn't trust him, means that we're likely to see a lot of folks close ranks around Romney's well-funded campaign on Super Tuesday...one more step towards a brokered convention.

Also, it looks as though 9iu11ani is angling for the job of Attorney General in a McCain administrations, because word on the street is he;ll be dropping out by wednesday and endorsing McMaverick. Seeing as a McMaverick / Giuliani ticket would be the kiss of death for a republican party built on a fracturing base of values voters and movement conservatives, I can't imagine McMav would be dumb enough to pick 9iu11ani as VP, and that leaves AG.

Heckuva campaign, Rudy! Heckuva campaign.

Also, it looks as though Hillary Clinton is celebrating her win in Florida....a win that nets her exactly zero (0) delegates, which is also, coincidentally, the number of Florida delegates won by Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Ouch! Democratic Debate Gets Nasty

Its about time if you ask me. The only problem here is this. Hillary is so obviously using a page out of the ol' Karl Rove book and Obama can't just break the whole "I'm not going to run that kind of campaign" thing. He should have been ready with a list of the ten most fucked up things that the Clintons have pulled and laid it down in one massive blow. But, of course he did no such thing. Though he did manage to get a jab in about Hillary being "a corporate lawyer on the board at Walmart", which was funny. And the only one who came out looking "good" was Edwards...and by "good" I mean not as ridiculous as Obama and Hillary. Check it out....from Raw Story:

Tip of the Hat: Only Sayin'

If you want to escape the feverish pace of the election horse race and take a little time to sit and read some funny, thoughtful, and well-written commentary on our American Culture, look no further than Only Sayin'. Our Cowardice-Based Foreign Policy is an essay tackling just that in which Powder Monkey begins to sketch some intriguing ideas about American Imperialism. Also, Republicans Are Chickens is an open letter to Senator Obama begging him to cut to the chase. Finally, digging into the archives, I know George Bush shows us that we ALL know George Bush, and we hate that sonofabitch.

I'm still making my way through the archives when I have the time and brainpower, but it's definitely worth your time to check some of these pieces out.

Thanks to everyone at Only Sayin' for doing your thing.

November Prediction

Before things get too settled, I want to go out on a limb and pull a prediction from my well-lubed asshole.

Behold the Candidates for the 2008 General Election

Hillary Clinton / Wes Clark

vs.

John McCain / Joe Lieberman

vs.

Michael Bloomberg / Barack Obama

And I suppose there's the outside chance that we'll have Ron Paul running as well, but I don't know who he might pick for VP.

I'm now re-inserting this fist sized crystal ball back into my ass.

Oooh...ouhhh....Ahhhh.

New Hampshire Primary

In response to The Arm's latest post, I just wanted to throw out a few reasons why New Hampshire turned out the way it did, and I don't think it's because it was rigged.

1) Clinton's own internal polling showed her 11 points behind and she was prepared for a defeat. They even cancelled the big hall they'd reserved for election night and moved the event to a smaller venue.

2) NH is an open primary and you needn't be a democrat to vote in the democratic primary, nor need you be a replublican to vote in the republican primary. So the following theories apply:

--If Obama and McCain were competing for the independant vote and the polls showed Obama with a double-digit lead, the Indies decided Obama didn't need their support and chose instead to support McCain and defeat Romeny and Huckabeee.

or

--Republicans were so disenchanted with their candidates they realized that the only way they can win in November is if the Democratic candidate is the polarizing and widely reviled Hillary Clinton. They chose to vote FOR Clinton instead of tussling in a futile republican primmary (as I've written before: We're going to have a brokered Republican Convention...no one will win the nomination outright).

3) And then there's the possibility of the "Bradley Effect". Basically this theory posits that people when polled will say they'll vote for an African American, but when the time comes to vote, and no one is watching or judging them (as in a caucus), they can't bring themselves to vote for a black man.

4) Clinton's moment choking up was the first time she came across as human. I have to admit, when I saw that video, I found I had sympathy for the woman, something I didn't think was possible. If it could have that effect on me, just imagine the kind of effect it had on people who don't have a vast storehouse of negative feelings about Hillary.

Finally, Ron Paul's finish was almost exactly where he finished in Iowa. I expect he's got aroun 8-10% support in the country. Very vocal and well-financed support, yes, but not a majority, and not a ceiling he's likely to crack. 9iu11ani's improved numbers might have more to do with Paul being excluded form the Fox debates, and not a neo-con conspiracy with diebold. Ron Paul still has a big roll to play in this election, because at a brokered convention, if he's got 8-10% of the delegates, he'll be in a position to make some serious demands.

Iowa's Independents Went For Obama and Paul

So it looks like the independent voters in Iowa picked Obama on the Democrat side and Ron Paul on the Republican side.
This is pretty big news for Ron Paul. Seeing as how New Hampshire is loaded with Independents, this can only be seen as a good sign for his prospects in the primary state. Its pretty telling what the Republican party has become in the eyes of most Americans when alot of conservative leaning independents are either switching over to the Democratic party to vote for Obama or going with the insurgent campaign of Ron Paul. Either way it looks like the GOP needs a long hard look in the mirror. Andrew Sullivan sums this up well in this blurb in The Atlantic:
They went for Obama and ... Ron Paul respectively. Among independents, Clinton came a poor third: 17 percent to Obama's 41. And McCain lost out to Paul: 23 percent to 29. The men with the most support among independents - the people you need to win a general election - are the most despised by the Republican base. In they end, the Republicans poisoned themselves. Maybe they'll begin to recognize how far they've fallen.

Post Iowa Anal (ysis)

DEMOCRATS:

Despite the numerous traditional media reports of a "come from behind win" for Obama, I was not surprised. I was surprised by the margin of his victory, but the conventional wisdom had long been that the higher the turnout and the more new caucus goers there were, the better Obama would do. At 212,000 caucus goers (roughly twice the Dem turnout in 2004), 56% of whom were new to the process, it's clear that Obama's ground game to mobilize young voters and to woo independants worked.

What's more, Obama is poised to to tremendously well going into New Hampshire, where independent voters are a much larger presence. After that, it's not hard to imagine that black voters in South Carolina who had been supporting Clinton will change their tune. With the compressed primary schedule, Iowa momentum for a candidate like Obama puts him at a huge advantage. Without a doubt, Hillary Clinton was the big loser in Iowa.

What of Edwards? His 2nd place finish was a fraction of a percentage point ahead of Clinton (ABC refused to call it for Edwards even with 100% precincts reporting..."it's just too close"...I attribute that less to the debacle of calling Florida for Gore in 2000 than to Network incredulity that the establishment candidate had finished third). His speech last night, and his talking points in the post caucus media are correctly (in my view) framing the 1,2,3 Obama, Edwards, Clinton, finish in Iowa as a repudiation of the status quo, and suggesting that from this point on it's a 2 man race (not so sure about that).

I do think, however, that as we move into more Democratic primaries (not Indie strongholds like NH) I think voters are more likely to have second thoughts about Clinton because of Obama's win, but they will also be asking questions about Obama's progressive bona fides and (yes, that dreaded word) electability. Edwards will be the beneficiary of Dem doubts, and I think he should not only continue pushing his populist message (which has clearly resonated, despite traditional media reporting), but also remind voters of how well he does in head to head match-ups with the republican field. On the electability question, Edwards has a valid claim to the top spot. If Nevada ends up meaning anything in this cycle, it may be the place where Edwards makes his stand, with labor at his back.

Doomsday scenario: We have a '68 flashback, and a wingnut freak terrified of a black President named assassinates Obama, then everything changes in odd ways. Clinton would pick up here "experience in troubled times" message, but as a woman, would herself have to be seen as a target. Edwards, as the heir of RFK's populist candidacy, and the other "Change" candidate in the race, would be in a position to lead the Dems from tragedy to victory. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way predicting this scenario, and certainly I'm not hoping for it, but ever since Obama entered the race, I've had the dark thought of his being assassinated by a racist wingnut at the back of my mind, and when he got Secret Service protection early in the race, my fears were only confirmed....clearly he's getting threats. It's a tremendous thing that whitebread Iowa gave Obama the win, but we're still a country with a troubling number of extremist fuck-ups.

Hillary: Did she really stand at the lectern with a sign that said "Ready For Change, Ready to Lead" and talk about making this an election of "change" while flanking herself with the 42nd President of the United States and one of his Secretaries of State? Yes. She did. Bill Clinton on one side, Madelaine Albright on the other, and calling for change. That picture tells you all you need to know about Hillary's vision for change.

REPUBLICANS:

This one's easy: The Huckster, Fuckabee, Huckabee got his evangelical Christian victory. Big Whoop. He's toast in New Hampshire.

The real winners in Iowa were McCain and Ron Paul. Huckabee might have won, but it's anomolous. Romney proved vulnerable, and will continue to fade. Thompson came in 3rd, but the dude is so obviously unserious and lazy as a candidate, it's only a matter of time before he drops out, so McCain's 4th place finish might as well be 3rd. McCain's finish in Iowa despite his opposition to corn subsidies and his views on immigration (so-called by wingnuts 'amnesty') shows that increasingly the republicans (who are not blinded by their religion) are looking for a candidate who is not Huckabee and not Romney. McCain, while he may not be perfect to the republicans, is at least a known quantity.

In NH Huckabee will do poorly, and Romney and McCain will duke it out for the top spot. McCain won NH in 2000, and his message resonates with indie leaning folks. Even if he doesn't get the top spot, he'll be poised to begin a comeback, and the media loves a comeback kid, especially when it's their buddy, McMaverick. I still predict McCain will be the candidate in the general.

Ron Paul got 10%, ahead of 9iu11ani's 4%. He's headed into NH where he'll likely have solid indie support from the 'live free or die' crowd. AND, we get to watch Fox News squirm and see if they invite him to the NH debate that they'd excluded him from...a debate to which 4% 9iu11ani has already been invited. I don't think Paul will win NH (as one Crinch Pinner privately predicted), but he'll continue to do well, and will increasingly become a factor, especially if this whole mess leads to a brokered convention, where Paul would have the chance to pick the candidate by awarding his delegates to another candidate, and negotiating for a place in the administration. Ron Paul will be more than a "insurgent phenomenon" in this race. He will be very important. And I'll repeat my prediction that 9iu11ani will drop out for "health reasons."

Tuesday in NH is only a few days away!

What the Fuck? Obama Edition

Obama advertising on Drudge? WTF? Why? What's up with Obama running to the RIGHT of every other Dem Candidate? What's up with him parroting Right-wing talking points about Social Security? What's up with slamming Gore and Kerry? What's up with him dissing Paul Krugman and defending demonstrably insufficient healthcare plan?

And what's up with that meeting with Bloomberg?

Here's The Swan's Prediction: If Obama gets the Democratic Nomination, he's going to take his whole Centrist message to the max and pick Bloomberg (and his billion dollar coffers) for his VP candidate. If Obama can't seal the deal with the Dems, Bloomberg will run Indie and pick Obama for VP. You heard it here first folks.

I had hope for Obama. I really did, but more and more I can't fathom what the fuck he's thinking. If he's progressive in any way, he sure doesn't show it. If he's as enamored of the status quo as he seems to be, then he certainly doesn't deserve a single Democratic vote. I've had my frustrations with Obama in the past, but at this point I'm actively worried about what an Obama presidencey would look like. Since the '94 Contract with America, and especially since the Supremes appointed Bush President in 2000, the 'center' in this country ahs been pushed ridiculously to the right. At this point, being a centrist is tantamount to being a 1992 era Republican, and that era's republican was Bush Sr.

No sir. John Edwards ALL THE WAY.

As TekBoss says in his diary:

Voting for John Edwards does not bring hope for victory. Voting for John Edwards IS the victory.

UPDATE:

The Blogs are throbbing with frustration over Obama. 4 of 5 Reccomneded Diaries on MyDD right now all deal with Obama's tack to the right:

A Paucity of Hope (A "Mendacity of Hope"?)

The Blogosphere Weighs In On Obama's Gore/Kerry Comment

Please, Sen. Obama, stop making it so hard [UPDATED]

Obama vs. The Democratic Party

And all of these diaries link to lots of other posts and articles that paint an increasingly worrisome picture of the junior Senator from Illinois.