BS: Primaries

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:45 AM

Nice one Kevin!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:45 AM

Look people, I'm not the one to argue against, I won't vote for either Obama or Hilary. And I'm not saying I'm right about anything--in fact I've said repeatedly I could be wrong about my assessment of the situation.

But I did spend a lot of years working for the Democrats and their party, I pay attention to politics, and I listen to what people who hold different opinions to me say.

There is a real echo chamber effect here at Mudcat, where the vast majority of posters are not only vehemently anti-Bush to the point they believe all Republicans are evil--not just bad politicians, but evil (which I don't agree with), but they are also highly partisan Democrats that follow the Democratic party establishment, and tend not to think very independently. I get the same reaction in my work place, which is a similar sort of demographic to Mudcat, except the racial makeup there is roughly half African American and Asian American, and about 3/4 women.

Some people I spoke with this week, when asking me who I was going to caucus for, became angry when I told them I was an independent and didn't caucus. They insisted I could caucus if I wanted to, and why wasn't I going to caucus? I explained to them I don't caucus because I don't wish to participate in party politics. That upset them too.

People are really pressured to conform to the two party system.

Now, that said, please believe I have no investment emotionally, as many of you and my work colleagues have, in who wins the Democratic nomination. I am simply making observations based upon my personal experience and knowledge like everyone else.

But because I have not participated in party politics or been invested in "my party's candidate" or "the lesser of two evils" voting choices for two decades now, my way of thinking and perceiving the political landscape doesn't reflect a conventional Democrat or even the mindset of a voter who has been opposed to the Republican side more than the Democratic side on the issues.

And look, I'm really sorry your boy didn't have a landslide victory the way some thought he would, and I'm really sorry you haven't figured out yet that the Democratic Leadership Council, along with Big Money and Big Media are backing Obama. While at one time, Clinton was the establishment candidate with all those things behind her, the one and only reason why Obama is being touted as having The Big Mo, is because the DLC (Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, et al), Big Money and Big Media are handing it to Obama.

Now that is quite an interesting shift in the political landscape. There are a lot of Somebodies (we don't know who, but the way the endorsements by members of the DLC in the past month revealed all) have decided, for whatever reason, they don't want Clinton.

This is a huge shift of the power at the top of the Democratic party, and I think it is because the Clintons had been amassing more power than some traditionally "most powerful" players in the Democratic party. And that their legacy would overshadow the Camelot/Kennedy legacy. Hence the Kennedy full court press.

I don't think, at the top of the party, it is about Clinton being a woman. I think it is about the Clintons amassing more power than the DLC wants to give them.

As to the Big Money, that had been going to Clinton for years, and now has suddenly shifted to Obama. That, I don't think has anything to do with race or gender. I think it has to do with who is the more conservative politically of the two (Obama), and who is easiest to manipulate (again, Obama as he doesn't have the depth and breadth of power and connections nationally and internationally that Clinton does).

Finally, Big Media hates Clinton, always has, and the coverage of her is prejudiced in the same way it was against Kucinich and Edwards, and Huckabee on the Republican side. But in the case of Big Media, it is about sexism, and fighting very hard to keep a woman out of the White House, IMO. There are other factors, but it is mainly that one.

My analysis, which has been forced to shift and change as the establishment moved it's might to back Obama over Clinton, is really very recent, as are the developments in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:16 AM

Yes, I believe Republicans are evil.

I believe that UK conservatives are evil too.

Anyone whose primary objective is to steal from the poor to give to the rich is evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:27 AM

And I have a problem with that sort of absolutist/black & white thinking. Nothing in politics, or life, is that simple. Nothing.

To me, there is still hope there are enough non-Reagan/Bush Republicans (and there is still a little less than 1/3 of the Republican elected politicians nationally who aren't Reagan/Bush Repubs, and many more at local levels) left to take back their party.

I do view the Reagan/Bush Repubs as evil. But I also view the Democratic Leadership Council and conservative Democrats as evil too.

One party doesn't have a lock on being evil. There is plenty of corruption and amorality going around the political spectrum, on both sides of the fence in the US, and among all the parties in the UK/Ireland. Evil and corruptability isn't partisan--it is quite democratic, in fact.

So to me, when I see someone trying to reduce politics to this absolutist formula of us good them bad, I consider the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM

Most of us vote with their wallet. I'm no different. The republican party has never done a damn thing for me or any other working man. That's basically why I am a democrat.
McCain is a war monger, anti choice, and he is now in favor of Bush's windfall for the upper class. He also failed to show up for the vote on the stimulus vote which would benefit the middle class. The class that the republicans have been working to eliminate.

Our Senator Collins has announced that Rep. Tom Allen, who is running against her for "her" Senate seat has taken money from Move On. That's probably true, but I hope he will counter with, she took $70,000 from the drug industry in her last re election campaign. We all know what has happened to the price of drugs. This is another example of why should I vote for a republican?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:16 AM

GG:

That may the most ratioanl and communicative post you've made here. Thanks for the interesting perspective.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

Superb post, GG. Very interesting.

Yes the DLC may have felt that the Clintons were becoming too powerful. There is always infighting and jockeying for advantage within these political power groups.

Kendall, I think it's true that most people vote "with their wallet", but I don't think I do. My main concern is usually foreign policy...meaning I want to see the Iraq War ended, no war with Iran or anyone else, no permanent American bases in Iraq, and the troops brought home.

Not because of my wallet. Because of powerful moral reasons of right and wrong in international law. That's more important to me than having a few more dollars in my wallet, I can assure you.

Now, after that pressing matter...yes, then I also have concerns about domestic issues, the economy, etc...but for me the so-called "War on Terror" is the primary matter of concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 01:13 PM

Of no importance, but the outcome in New Mexico still uncertain. The provisional ballots (those cast by people at the wrong polling place, etc.) will be counted this week. There are enough of them to change the result, which gave the nod to Clinton by a whisker.

CNN has a nice summary chart of declared delegate counts for each state that has held its primaries-caucuses. They update if there are any changes (superdelegates are not tied). The pledged totals remain Clinton 823 and Obama 741. Some of the splits are interesting (reflecting, as they do,the district votes rather than total popular vote).

Election scorecard

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:14 PM

An excerpt from The Audacity of Hope:

"No blinding insights emerged from these months of conversation. If anything, what struck me was just how modest people's hopes were, and how much of what they believed seemed to hold constant across race, region, religion, and class. Most of them thought that anybody willing to work should be able to find a job that paid a living wage. They figured that people shouldn't have to file for bankruptcy because they got sick. They believed that every child should have a genuinely good education–that it shouldn't just be a bunch of talk–and that those same children should be able to go to college even if their parents weren't rich. They wanted to be safe, from criminals and from terrorists; they wanted clean air, clean water, and time with their kids. And when they got old, they wanted to be able to retire with some dignity and respect.

"That was about it. It wasn't much. And although they understood that how they did in life depended mostly on their own efforts–although they didn't expect government to solve all their problems, and certainly didn't like seeing their tax dollars wasted–they figured that government should help.

"I told them that they were right: government couldn't solve all their problems. But with a slight change in priorities we could make sure every child had a decent shot at life and meet the challenges we faced as a nation. More often than not, folks would nod in agreement and ask how they could get involved. And by the time I was back on the road, with a map on the passenger's seat, on my way to my next stop, I knew once again just why I'd gone into politics.

"I felt like working harder than I'd ever worked in my life.

"This book grows directly out of those conversations on the campaign trail. Not only did my encounters with voters confirm the fundamental decency of the American people, they also reminded me that at the core of the American experience are a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes our improbable experiment in democracy work. These values and ideals find expression not just in the marble slabs of monuments or in the recitation of history books. They remain alive in the hearts and minds of most Americans–and can inspire us to pride, duty, and sacrifice.

"I recognize the risks of talking this way. In an era of globalization and dizzying technological change, cutthroat politics and unremitting culture wars, we don't even seem to possess a shared language with which to discuss our ideals, much less the tools to arrive at some rough consensus about how, as a nation, we might work together to bring those ideals about. Most of us are wise to the ways of admen, pollsters, speechwriters, and pundits. We know how high-flying words can be deployed in the service of cynical aims, and how the noblest sentiments can be subverted in the name of power, expedience, greed, or intolerance. Even the standard high school history textbook notes the degree to which, from its very inception, the reality of American life has strayed from its myths. In such a climate, any assertion of shared ideals or common values might seem hopelessly naive, if not downright dangerous–an attempt to gloss over serious differences over policy and performance or, worse, a means of muffling the complaints of those who feel ill served by our current institutional arrangements.

"My argument, however, is that we have no choice. You don't need a poll to know that the vast majority of Americans–Republican, Democrat, and independent–are weary of the dead zone that politics has become, in which narrow interests vie for advantage and ideological minorities seek to impose their own versions of absolute truth. Whether we're from red states or blue states, we feel in our gut the lack of honesty, rigor, and common sense in our policy debates, and dislike what appears to be a continuous menu of false or cramped choices. Religious or secular, black, white, or brown, we sense– correctly– that the nation's most significant challenges are being ignored, and that if we don't change course soon, we may be the first generation in a very long time that leaves behind a weaker and more fractured America than the one we inherited. Perhaps more than any other time in our recent history, we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans.

"That's the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life. This isn't to say that I know exactly how to do it. I don't. Although I discuss in each chapter a number of our most pressing policy challenges, and suggest in broad strokes the path I believe we should follow, my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete. I offer no unifying theory of American government, nor do these pages provide a manifesto for action, complete with charts and graphs, timetables and ten-point plans.

"Instead what I offer is something more modest: personal reflections on those values and ideals that have led me to public life, some thoughts on the ways that our current political discourse unnecessarily divides us, and my own best assessment–based on my experience as a senator and lawyer, husband and father, Christian and skeptic–of the ways we can ground our politics in the notion of a common good."

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:38 PM

For insight into Hillary, read "Living History," which she wrote about four years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:06 PM

Thanks, Q. I just finished reading 11 pages of her book- googling 'Living History excerpt'. Very interesting.

I haven't said it here but I do tell my real-life friends that I could support Clinton if something should happen to Obama. She is a bright, articulate, aware person with flaws but also with great potential.

The main thing that worries me about her is something that I have rarely seen discussed: Will the next president of the United States be willing to abrogate and repudiate the unprecedented power that the Bush Administration has established as its norm.

I think that Obama may. I'm not sure about Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:23 PM

Women are a minority both in the workplace and in government.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:28 PM

LH in this particular election I agree. My disgust of the war is topmost with me. However,generally, the economy is more important. We are on the verge of bankruptcy, we are going into a recession, and we are being bled dry by this illegal war.
In my opinion, a vote for McCain is a vote for another 4 years of Bush. No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Azizi
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:28 PM

Regarding African Americans voting for Senator Barack Obama, I agree with Oprah Winfrey's comments at the UCLA rally. Oprah said that people were "trying to play me small by saying that I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's Black. Don't play me small. I'm not voting for Obama because he's Black. I'm voting for him because he's brillant."

-snip-

In other words, qualifications and positions trump race.

And for those who are unfamiliar with this saying "play me small" means "to belittle" a person.

Here's a link to a YouTube video of that Oprah Winfrey speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfzFmYoZajY

[The video isn't great quality, but the sound is good]

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:41 PM

And eveyone should listen to Oprah because... er because...
Damn!
I knew it when I came in here!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:57 PM

If, as seems likely, McCain wins the Republican nomination I hope he chooses Huckabee as his running mate. :)

Azizi, I like what you say, and I like what Oprah says. From time to time she is belittled by people who are ignorant of her but my response is that she is a woman with vast experience in dealing with the human condition, she is courageous, supremely well informed, a person willing to use her resources in support of her beliefs and conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:50 PM

Well I was only joking but Wow!.
Didn't know a talk show host could have that much power over some folks.

Seems there are far more dynamics at play here than meets the eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:30 PM

I dunno, Ebbie. If McCain has Huckabee as his running mate, wins the election (not impossible, with Huck bringing in the conservative and evangelic vote), then dies (he is 71, after all), then we get Pres. Huckabee. That's far scarier to me than Pres. McCain. I'd rather consider McCain/Romney or even McCain/Lieberman.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:34 PM

McCain/Lieberman is the absolute scariest combination I could think of.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

I agree with Rig. I do NOT want Lieberman a heartbeat from the presidency. I think there is something seriously scary about him.

McCain/Huckabee is a different animal, imo. Huckabee, I understand, is a personable person (in person. ha!) and a wonderful speaker but I think he, in his views, would be vulnerable to ridicule and aghast response. I very much doubt that enough Americans, outside the South, would accept him or even take his views seriously. William Jennings Bryan comes to mind-Americans didn't accept him and that was in a much more overtly religious age.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:27 PM

The Washington State caucuses are being held this Saturday, but I am informed that all they are going to do is choose delegates for the National Convention, and since I will be unable to go (fascinating experience though I'm quite sure it would be!!) there is hardly any point in my attending my neighborhood caucus, even though I usually do.

The primary here is on February 19th, and I have already received my ballot in the mail. Obviously they were printed some time ago, and several of the candidates on the ballot have since dropped out. Dennis Kucinich is still listed. Since this is a primary and not for the whole pot, I think I'll check his box. So I can still make a statement, but unless a whole batch of people do the same thing, it'll be sort of a hollow gesture.

When the national election comes along in November, it's all sliced-and-diced by then. We get what they want to give us.

Damned hard to change a system when it would have to be changed by those who benefit the most from it as it is.

Ptui!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:39 PM

"Damned hard to change a system when it would have to be changed by those who benefit the most from it as it is."

Yup. That is the problem, in a nutshell, and it is always so in any established political order. That's why fundamental change usually can only come in the wake of a revolution...or a national defeat of gigantic proportions in time of war...or some great social emergency, like the Great Depression.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:01 PM

Well, at the rate we're going, we may very well get there. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:29 PM

Of course Oprah don't vote race, Azizi. You don't either. And I'm sure the other 92% of African Americans who voted for Obama last Tuesday didn't even give Obama's race a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:55 PM

McGrath - Very funny.

Women are a minority in the political arena.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:21 PM

It is fortunate that Azizi is well equipped to fight her own battles especially against someone so well known. psst, Azizi. You need anyone in your corner?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:32 PM

I'm waiting to see who Dr. Phil endorses.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:43 PM

Little known fact--when Oprah made her first appearance in SC w/Obama in December, his poll numbers among black women jumped 12%, literally overnight.

There truly is an Oprah voter this year, bizarre as it seems to many.

The Oprah voters are African American women who likely would have gone for Clinton. But then this dreamboat came floating down Oprah's river of money. He was all Harvard Law, shiny and new, and almost as pretty as his trophy wife, who publicly got away with bitch slapping Hilary for not being able to keep her man at home.

Well, you know that's true! You got no business being in the White House when you can't keep your own house! (The Gospel According to Michelle)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:48 PM

Can't believe that she said that and he's still in the race.
You're joking, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:55 PM

GUEST,Guest's main schtick is just to yank someone's chain. Offers only gloom and doom. Has nothing to suggest. In internet parlance, I believe that's called a "troll."

Best ignored.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:05 PM

Nope, no joke. It's on You Tube, taken from a local Chicago newscast.

If you go to You Tube & put "Obama vs Hilary" not only will you be able to view the charming "Move Bitch" anthem, but you can also search for "Michelle Obama takes a shot at Hilary Clinton" to see how the girl "gets back to her roots".


"Roots" Michelle

"Move Bitch"

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:24 PM

Guest, Guest: Not to worry. There are some here who, when their opinions are challenged, resort to name calling. Think yourself lucky that as a guest, you will not be subjected to the PM's that the rest of us receive. I among others have congratulated you on your unbiased & informative perspective.
However. this thread seems ready to self destruct at the hands of these three so I will be leaving before the cat calling gets too personal and would advise you to follow suit.
I will check out the "You Tube" link but must say that her statement, if she made it, sounds a little too contrived to be "Off the cuff".
Thanks again. I am always interested in foreign politics and it is nice to hear informed opinions from within.
Cheers!
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:28 PM

Yeah Jim, it's time to move on. Any thread over 100 posts just generates heat in the dark.

Check out the videos though. Gotta love You Tube!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:31 PM

What's this "Bypass" thing though?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:00 AM

Oprah's involvement makes it harder to vote for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:44 AM

Oops.

My bad for posting the link with Bypass, I forgot I was using it. It is the web anonymizer I use.

I dunno, the Oprah Factor (tm) at least allows for some comic relief.

Here is what Roseanne had to say about it:

"Oprah has given us Swartzenegger [sic] and Dr. Phil," Roseanne writes. "If that was not offensive enough to decent thinking people, now she brings us Obama."

Roseanne also "tells" Winfrey, "You are a closeted republican and chose Barak [sic] Obama because you do not like other women who actually stand for something to working American Women besides glamour, angels, Hollywood and dieting!"

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM

Well, we have heard from Roseanne and Winfrey. Is Ann Coulter gonna be quoted next?

It is possible that some folks voted based on race, just as it seems some folks here are seemingly willing to vote based on gender. However, that aside, what rationales are there for seeing Hillary as a better candidate than Obama?

(Please don't anyone toss in the term, viable. That has currency only in rhetoric, imo.)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

She's a better dancer?

Group hug!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:02 AM

Being female and a little on the feminist side I would be delighted to see a woman as president. However, from what I have seen of her, I do not like Hilary and do not think - in my own opinion - that she will be the best president. I also think that she could set back the womens cause quite considerably if she did get in.

My opinion has been formed over many years - didn't warm to her when Bill was president.

Being white I do not have an axe to grind about a 'black' president. I am ashamed that, in the day and age, there are still so many people who put race before all other considerations. From what I have seen and heard my own opinion is that Obama would be a good choice as president, definitely preferable to me, if I could vote, over the other candidates still in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:10 AM

Omigodomigod a Mudcat woman who admits to being "a little on the feminist side"? Sounds like I need to move on over to that girlfriends tweezin' twatties thread.

You are looking at this lot, and trying to decide who would make the president? Well, picking any of them is easier than worrying our pretty littles heads, innit?

Personally, I think we need some cozy time in our pink fuzzie jammies, drinkin Ghiardelli cocoa, and sangin some pages out of the "I've Got a Crush on Obama" songbook.

And on "being white". Omigodomigod. Congrats on that home girl! You are one lucky star.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:44 AM

GG - go boil your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:10 AM

Which one?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: PoppaGator
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 12:24 PM

Louisiana primary tomorow.

I thought it might be all over after Mardi Gras, er, oops, I mean, Super Tuesday ~ and for the Republican side, apparently, it IS all over. But we soggy, bedraggled, despised, and forgotten flood victims will apparently have something to say about the still-up-for-grabs Democratic race.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 12:43 PM

SUggest y'all double down on Obama's side if you want some compassion in the Administration next time 'round, there, Poppa! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:50 PM

Clinton is the only one proposing universal health care. Obama supports some extention of the same old, which leaves millions still outside the doctor's office, and continued pressure on charity wards.
Clinton, if she wins the nomination, might be able to convince congressional members that universal health care is cheapest in the long run.

The next Congress will still be closely divided. Obama is defensive when opposed and whether he can form coalitions is doubtful.

McCain's proposal to cut the business tax by 10% looks good to small business men, and he will get a large share of their votes in an election.

McCain has removed the roadblocks to his run for candidacy and has a good chance of holding the White House for the Republicans. He will be crowned by acclamation at the Convention and likely will have Huckabee as running mate.

'Change,' the catchword, sounds good, but will be slow and restricted regardless of who wins the Democratic Convention, and providing their candidate wins the election.

Them's my views at present (not quite as changable as the weather, but subject to wind shifts).

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 02:11 PM

Q-
Clinton's health care proposal is apt to set up a treasure chest for private insurers--who haven't been performing particularly well as is, except financially.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM

Washington Governor to Endorse Obama
By Jeff Zeleny


SEATTLE – At a rally here later today, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire intends to announce her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, adding another governor to the ranks of his supporters.

The decision places her at odds with the state's two senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both of whom have endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the eve of the caucuses here, the governor conceded, it was a difficult choice to make.

"Lots of people said, 'Just stay out of it,'" Ms. Gregoire said in an interview with David Ammons, a political reporter for The Associated Press in Olympia. "But all of my friends are going to caucus on Saturday and will be asked to make up their mind, so why shouldn't I? It was time for me to make up my mind."

Endorsements, as the results on Super Tuesday indicated, don't always mean that the beneficiary will carry the state. (Mr. Obama, for example, lost Arizona and Massachusetts, both states where he was endorsed by governors and senators.) But as the Democratic nominating fight devolves into a madcap chase for delegates, suddenly the endorsements from elected officials could matter a lot more.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:14 PM

Endorsements are a mixed blessing- often the endorser has as many detractors as supporters- Oprah and Teddy Boy being two who are poison to many.
Swartzenegger, on the other hand, is on a roll in California, but next year? he might lose the magic.

Can't comment on the Washington governor's endorsement, dunno know anything about the political climate there. If it is anything like British Columbia on the other side of the border, it can be a wildcard.
To vote in the Washington caucus, voters must sign a declaration pledging allegiance to the party. Will this depress the vote?
Independents will stay home or have to lie. Half of registered supporters expected to turn out, acc. to WA Sec. of State.
Pollsters are picking Obama, saying the caucus format favors him.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:29 PM

GG-

Or GG-clone-

You're losing credability here fast on this thread, and it has a lot to do with your lack of empathy with anyone's reasoned decisions other than your own. I have to agree that you're achieving classic troll status.

Charley Noble