Super Saturday in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, and V.I.

February 9, 2008

It almost seems like a letdown after having 43 contests across the country on Tuesday — the biggest primary/caucus day in American political history — but this weekend should be pretty interesting as well. Especially given the stalemate on the Democratic side in the wake Super Tuesday, the rest of the contests in February might very give one of the leading candidates some edge or momentum through the spring.

So, what’s on tap? Four contests today, and one tomorrow.

* Louisiana primary — 56 pledged delegates available

Barack Obama is considered the favorite going into today’s primary, thanks in large part to the state’s large African-American population, Obama’s performance in the region earlier this week, and the campaign’s fairly aggressive advertising in the state this week. It is a closed primary — independents cannot vote — and the polls will close at 9 pm ET.

* Nebraska caucuses — 24 pledged delegates available

Given Obama’s performance in Plains State caucuses on Tuesday (North Dakota and Kansas), and his support from Sen. Ben Nelson and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey, Obama is considered the favorite here, as well. The caucuses operate largely the same way as in Iowa, though caucusing began as early as 11 am ET, and will end as late as 9:30 pm ET.

* Washington state caucuses — 78 pledged delegates available

This should be the most competitive contest of the day, with the party establishment split between Obama and Hillary Clinton (Clinton picked up the support of the state’s two Democratic senators, but Obama won the backing of the Democratic governor). The Washington SEIU endorsement may give Obama a slight edge. As for independents, voters sign a party declaration same day as the caucuses. Caucusing begins at 4:00 pm ET.

* Virgin Islands territorial convention — 3 pledged delegates available

I’m afraid I don’t know anything about what to expect here. I can say, however, that there are actually 6 pledged delegates, who will be seated at the national convention, but their votes only count for half.

* Maine caucuses — 24 pledged delegates available

Like Washington, watch for this one to be competitive tomorrow. The Clinton campaign has been working fairly hard in Maine, and believes it has the edge, especially given her support from Gov. John Baldacci and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. Eric Kleefeld added, “There aren’t that many students, the population is largely white and working class, and so far Hillary has won two out of three of the New England states to have voted so far. Obama will probably work for a good showing in the liberal bastion of Portland, as well as the swing area of Bangor, in order to keep it close.” Caucuses begin as early as 1:00 pm ET, and results should start to come in around 6:00 pm ET.

Of course, I should note that Republicans hold contests in Kansas, Louisiana, and Washington state today, but given the circumstances, no one seems to care.

I’ll have a full report later on the results, so be sure to check back in.

Ahhh, the Washington caucus. Takes me back to 1992 when I attended and gave my support to Paul Tsongas; there weren’t a lot of us, but we were solidly in his camp and could not be swayed. I still wasn’t sure about that Bill Clinton guy, though there were many of his supporters trying to wrangle us his way (sound familiar?). There was just something about BC I didn’t quite trust. I still have a mixed reaction to him as a matter of fact… even though overall it’s positive.

Kind of wish I still lived in Washington State because I’d go again in a heartbeat.

  • Question I have entering the day’s activities:

    1. how many delegates does Obama pick up today?
    2. how much of a lead does Obama need entering Ohio, PA and Texas (my guess would be 60 delegates)?
    3. how much of a pledged delegate lead does Obama need at the end of the primary process in order to feel safe against the Clintons stealing the nomination on the Super Delegate front?

    Thanks for your intelligent responses.

  • I too had my first caucus experience in Washington — and it was a long time ago. I went supporting George McGovern in 1972, doing what I could to bring the Vietnam War to a close (times haven’t changed that much, I guess). There were only seven of us there, as broad participation in caucuses was a relatively new thing, and McGovern was our favorite (I was picked as an alternate to the county convention). Four years later, I went to a caucus that had 50 people, and I don’t remember whom I supported, although Jimmy Carter was one of those competing.

    And, like Hannah, if I were living in Washington I’d be there today. I saw that Sen. Obama drew 20K people to the Coliseum yesterday — it’s great to see that kind of enthusiasm present in the political process.

    And, for what it’s worth, I’m interested in what the Republicans do today. If Huckabee could win one of the states, it would be a sign that McCain has plenty of work to do to shore up his party.

  • THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA!!!

    – the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington.
    – the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government — we do. And we are here to take it back.
    – the time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face, who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.
    – He will be a president who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American, the same way he expanded health care in Illinois, by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.
    – He will be a president who ends the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas
    – He will put a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of working Americans who deserve it.
    – He will be a president who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.
    – He will be a president who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home
    – He will restores our moral standing
    – Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.

    YES WE CAN!!!

  • I don’t get why Obama is supposed to have such an advantage in Nebraska. Hillary crushed him in neighboring Oklahoma. What’s so different in Nebraska? I’m an East Coaster who can’t tell one Midwestern state from another. Just wondering. Thanks

  • That’s great, Amy. Keeping to the issues, not the smack talk. Obama looks like a high quality candidate when you break it down like that.

    – no more fighting just to fight, get the job done.
    – tell the lobbyists that they don’t own this government
    – an honest president
    – affordable health care for all
    – no tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas
    – middle class tax cuts
    – alternative energy source research
    – end the war in iraq
    – a president who is viewed with high moral standing domestically and abroad

    I sure hope that our dream of a president like Obama can come true. He is clearly the better option. It is a shame that the establishment is so unwilling to allow a changing of the guards.

    You know, Kennedy had to fight the establishment in the 1960 Democratic Primary. Obama’s defeat of Hillary will only make him stronger for our nation’s future.

  • Because Nebraska is a Caucus and not a closed primary. Obama knows how to “pimp” his votes for caucuses.

  • … it would be a sign that McCain has plenty of work to do to shore up his party.

    Sure he does.

    But here is the thing: the reconciliation process will begin much earlier for the Republicans. John Dean feels the urgency of this fact. That’s why he will attempt to intervene before the Dem convention and bring closure. Why? Because eight weeks in NOT enough time for the reconciliation process to both heal itself and present a unified front in November.

    I’d say right now the Dems are in serious serious trouble.
    The very trench warfare that the Clintons are capable of waging (see Kevin Drum’s post: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013088.php) will only assure their defeat against a unified republican party. Especially if the republican candidate is a “big tent compromise” such as McCain. And even more especially if the Dems reconciliation process gets short-changed.

    The bottom line is this:
    The Dems NEED this thing wrapped up by the end of Feb, or mid-March at the latest.

    The bottom bottom line is this:
    The Clintons will not quit. They will pursue lawsuits in regards to MI and FL before they will throw in the towel. They are fighters remember? And we are, according to Josh Marshall and various posters, suppose to applaud their trench mentality spunk.

    Whatever.
    Or even better: Pshaw!

    I am not even a democrat, but I can very clearly what matters most to the Clintons.
    They will destroy the democrat party, and all chances of a November victory before they will call it quits.

  • [comment deleted, because this isn’t the “Zeitgeist” who always contributes under the name “Zeitgeist.” If this person wants his or her IP address renewed, he or she can email me, and I can explain the problems associated with stealing regulars’ screen-names.-CB]

  • ROTF…it ain’t funny.

    My fears are the same as yours. Looking at the math and the most plausible scenarios, I don’t see how this gets wrapped up so quickly. It looks to me like an Obama lead going into the convention and then a controversy royale over seating the MI an FL delegates. Only a convincing victory by one of the candidates on the others’ turf may change the direction of the race. Texas may be that state for Obama, Wisconsin may help Clinton break out.

    Otherwise, I see a whole lot of voting rights controversy centered on Florida yet again.

  • danimal…

    You are absolutely right. Someone has got to get a roll and seize the moment.
    Anything short of that is an open suppurating wound slouching towards November. But you know the old saw: The Dems can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Weve seen it before… and before… and before.

  • I am supporting Hillary because….

    …whether you like her or not, Hillary is qualified to become our next President.

    Hillary has a record we can count on:
    Hillary has worked on getting children access to healthcare. She will continue that effort for every uninsured American.
    Hillary has a detailed understanding of our defense needs and a realistic plan to get us out of Iraq.
    Hillary has a progressive, bi-partisan and effective Senate record.
    More importantly, Hillary has 8 years of White House experience. And believe me — Hillary did not stand on the side lines.
    Most importantly, when it is time to campaign against the Republicans, the campaign will not be easy. Hillary is tested; the Clintons are winners.

    I firmly believe that if you really listen to Hillary, you will hear detailed, realistic plans on we can change America. Hillary will inspire you and you’ll come to like Hillary.

    The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president of the United States.

  • Uh, ROTFLM, you say you’re not a Democrat in post #8, and you refer to the DEMOCRATIC party as the “democrat party”. See below.

    “They will destroy the democrat party, and all chances of a November victory before they will call it quits.”

    While your sentiments about the Clintons might be true, please refer to their political party (and most of the commenter’, as well) correctly as the “Democratic” party.

    It’s a mark of respect to call things by their right name. Thanks.

  • I worried about the silver tongued orator charming us with style for a brief time too, but have decided that Obama walks the walk he talks.

    I went to his website and read his positions on issues. And listened to the way he thought about the major issues and his goals. I read about his experience and experiences. In the end I had no choice but to go with him because I have deduced that he is a once in a lifetime candidate.

    I think that Hillary is a trooper…a good craftsman. But Obama is a leader…and a master craftsman. With Hillary on the Hill to take care of the nuts & bolts in Congress we should have lift off and a return of America for all Americans.

  • Stan says: More importantly, Hillary has 8 years of White House experience. And believe me — Hillary did not stand on the side lines.

    Well, she certainly had White House experience — so does Laura Bush. We don’t really know what her role was as First Lady besides health care reform, though, do we?

    If she was running things (besides health care reform), then we should know what/when/results. It should be out in the open and open to debate and questioning. If she wasn’t, then she doesn’t have the experience and shouldn’t be using it as a selling point.

    Will Bill be taking this same active role you portray Hillary having had? I voted for him twice and would have done so again, were it *legal.* The dynasty issue is a problem for me though. The dual spousal presidency is just as big an issue.

    I’d feel better if his role were spelled out now and I trusted that it would remain the way it was stated.

  • It’s a mark of respect to call things by their right name. Thanks.

    This was never an issue for me even when I was a member of the D’s.
    I know I am supposed to get my panties in a bunch when Bush says Democrat instead of Democratic. Or vice versa. Can never remember which. Because quite frankly I don’t care to devote neurons to it. For me it is silly distinction. If you let people get under your skin for saying one instead of the other you’ve got serious partisan issues. I suspect most people don’t draw any super hard distinction between the two phrases. And, of course, when I use one instead of the other, I do so without code or innuendo.

    Although I am not a too hard a case on this.
    Here is how to win me over to your distinction:

    At one of these primaries take an exit poll and ask the D’s exiting if the correct usage is democratic party or democrat party. I think most wee folk, like me, don’t give a hang. And the results will be about 50-50.

    If you can show me the opposite… that I am insulting average wee folk… then I will devote the neurons to the distinction. Until then… I use the two words interchangeably with no malice intended.

    Lastly, if you want to argue, prig-like, that it is “proper usage” that’s fine. But if so, in this I am a hard case. I believe that the English language belongs as much to me as it does to anyone else. Indeed I believe most prigs are “conservatives” who try and hold a false line against the evolution of the language. History will sweep them aside. It always doesn. The language is alive and admits to no control.

    In other words, when Dick Cavett pokes fun at Romney for saying:

    “My brother here is older than me.”

    I think Cavett is showing learned ignorance. Romney’s language is perfectly fine. The distinction between “I” and “me” is one that matters not at all to we wee folk. We understand exactly what Romney is saying. And for us there is no dissonance. Cavett’s distinction is disingenuous. Worse, it is a distinction that provides those with a will to waste neurons on such trivial things an air of false superiority.

    nuf said.

    Cavett NYT’s piece:
    http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/a-night-at-the-primaries/index.html?ex=1360126800&en=2ad7af35f790e68d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

  • ROTFL, I’ve become a little more priggish on the usage of “democrat party” rather than “democratic party” than I would be normally about something, because of the Republican use of “democrat party” as part of general sneering at us. I find it distasteful when I hear Bush or another Republican use the term.

    That’s why I was a little shocked to see it used on this site. If you meant no respect by your usage, then I “absolve” you of any fault.

    You’ve always made very good points in your posts and I guess that’s why I was a little surprised to find you use.

  • For all those sneering at the usage of “Democrat” party instead of “Democratic” party, ask yourself one question.

    Are you a Democrat or are you a Democratic?

  • I don’t get why Obama is supposed to have such an advantage in Nebraska. Hillary crushed him in neighboring Oklahoma. What’s so different in Nebraska? I’m an East Coaster who can’t tell one Midwestern state from another.

    That last line is true, as Nebraska doesn’t share a border with Oklahoma. Kansas does, though, and Obama won there by a large margin.

    Kansas and Nebraska have more in common than either does with Oklahoma, which is more of a northern echo of Texas.

  • For all those sneering at the usage of “Democrat” party instead of “Democratic” party, ask yourself one question.

    Are you a Democrat or are you a Democratic?

    Just because I’m a Democrat (noun) doesn’t mean the name isn’t the Democratic (adjective) Party.

    Should we start calling it the United States of American?

  • I’m with TR, it’s the DemocratIC party. I’ve lived mostly north of the Mason-Dixon line, and never heard much of the “democrat” party until the Republicans kicked off their big hate-fest back in the 80’s, and it gradually became a common insult in Republican media (Limbaugh, etc.), then was picked up by people like G. Bush who used it in the same way. Geofffey Nunberg and other linguists have written about the usage in the past.

    Amusing formulation as Oklahoma “more of a northern echo of Texas.” I have family from there, spent time in Tulsa as a youngster and will likely inherit a number of farmland acres outside of Blackwell someday, and to be fair I’d say that Oklahoma is considerably more interesting (in many ways) than northern Texas.

    I agree as well with Jen, especially re the dynasty and dual spousal presidency issues: it’s been an issue for me from the first I heard that Mrs. Clinton might run for the presidency someday.

    I also concur re the ‘experience’ meme: I can imagine that Bill Clinton had lots of political advisors, and if he turned to his wife for advice as well, that’s fine. But being a presidential advisor is quite different from being president, I believe– the prez has not only to listen to others and make the decision, but he/she has to lobby people (Congress, high-level bureaucrats, etc.) to do the things they want, look below the surface of things and assess people’s motives and flexibility, balance competing factions within the executive bureaucracy and the party, put forward the public face for the administration’s policies, negotiate with the opposition, etc. Jen’s right: if the Clinton’s want to make a case that the First Lady was a policy maker and significant executive for 8 years of his administration, then they should open up the White House records and prove their case. Maybe somewhere that info is available, but I haven’t seen it posted on her website or anywhere else I can find.

  • Jen @ 15

    If you’re really interested in what Hillary did while she was in the White House and how it was perceived by those who were there, read Joe Wilson’s article on some of her International experiences at Huffpost

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html

    Basically Wilson says that she was there, she participated and she was an asset. Don’t compare her to Laura Bush unless you know something. I’m tired of people talking about the Clintons as though they are in any way comparable to the Bushies. It’s an insult.

  • Just returned from my local DemocratIC caucus (Seattle). [Are you a diplomat or a diplomatic?].
    Impressions:
    It was chaotic, but as this was my first caucus, I cannot judge how it compared to previous years. But, when the caucus chair inquired how many people in the room were attending his/her first caucus about half the hands in the room went up. The person more or less running things in my precinct was an Obama supporter and I think that this may have mildly influenced the “discussion / convince the undecideds) phase of the procedings. The larger problems were (1) unfamiliarity with / lack of clarity of the rules and the fact that it was impossible for the everyone in my precinct to hear what people were saying to either describe the process or advocate for a candidate.

    After the first tally, 15 of 79 voters in the precinct were undecided while 46 and 18 went for Obama and Clinton, respectively. The Hillary supporters were not nearly as passionate about speaking up for her as were Obama’s supporters. Most of the Obama supporters who spoke up were under 30, although a couple of them appeared to be 50-ish. The first Clinton supporter was debated by an Obama supporter as she tried to speak. I finally asked the Precinct chairlady to allow the Clinton supporters to speak without challenge and she did. When they got their turn, the Obama folks were much more vocal and impassioned, and – I think – got more time than the Hillary folks to make their cases (although very few Clinton supporters were willing to step up). The Obama supporters were “fired up and ready to go.”

    The arguments pretty much boiled down to inspiration/vision/hope vs perspiration/knowledge of the game/toughness, with both sides claiming the ability to run better against McCain. I think the undecideds broke 9/6 for Obama. In the end, my precinct awarded 4 delegates to Obama and two to Clinton.

    The process was very civil, and Governor Gregoire showed up to give a pep talk and to allow all in attendance to cheer wildly in anticipation of the departure of George W and – most especially – Dick Cheney. Many voters in attendance brought along children – toddlers to teens – and students of the school where the caucus took place held a bake sale. It was, for me, an exhilarating way to spend a couple hours. The rain let up so I could walk to the caucus location as did many of my neighbors. I left feeling hopeful that we are inching our way back to sanity…

  • Reporting after my precinct causus in Washington State’s 43rd. District, which includes the University of Washington (take into account when seeing results below):

    Ran out of sign-up sheets. Seven precincts met in a church by campus. Voters crammed the pews, aisles and all other standing places.

    Precinct results: Obama 77; Clinton, 7; Gravel, 1; undecided 5.

    All you former Washington voters were missed!

  • I took part in my caucus in Nebraska today. I’ve been told all week by everyone how we will go to Obama because our “democratic” Senator Ben Nelson, who voted the same way Hillary Clinton did on Iraq in 2002 by the way … along with 27 other dem. Senators … endorsed him.

    ONe thing was a bit weird in that the person who was supposed to be our chair (an Obama supporter by the way) was never given the podium. Instead a very vocal man who makes his support of Obama very obvious … took the podium, asked for nominations for chair and got his own (probably from his wife) … got a second and became chair. This bothered me a bit but I could live with it.

    It was our first caucus ever and was a pretty interesting process. There were 85 people there, we divided 32 for Hillary, 43 for Obama and 10 uncommitted. I then spoke for Hillary and layed out the reasons I support her and the strengths I see in her candidacy.

    Then, the CHAIR proceeds to give the statement for the Obama group and spends almost all of his time bashing Hillary. This caught me a bit by surprise and I would have liked a rebuttle! His big statement about Obama was how “magical” he was in exciting people. We then discussed our points with a variety of people, including a person who aligned in the uncommitted group but who also spent every converstation I saw bashing Hillary. We then realigned.

    Two people had left, five refused to commit and it ended up 34 for Hillary and 44 for Obama including the uncommitted person who is now a delegate to the county committee for Obama (I consider her a plant). Hillary got 7 delegates and Obama got 8 to the county convention. Not the landslide I had been led to expect for Obama.

    It was a lesson, I thought in how, at every level — people try to maneuver in politics. I asked the “would be” chair why she wasn’t the chair and she said “I had planned on it and got railroaded I guess”. I also thought … if people are doing this here in po-dunk Nebraska … I’m sure they will always do it in Washington. A big part of Obama’s platform is how he is going to change how politics is done. I don’t see it happening no matter how much he believes he can.

    OVerall, I’m glad to have been part of the democratic process in a way I have never been before. Nebraska usually votes in May when nothing matters and we always, always go Republican in November. It is the first time I have felt like I at least had a say in the presidential race.

    By the way, I am a scientist and magic means nothing to me, I prefer evidence every time.

    Also, our Hillary supporters were evenly split men and women and varied in age from 17 to 93.

  • Michelle Obama was in Lincoln Nebraska yesterday and I heard her radio broadcast. She is giving Barack foreign relations experience for living three years in Indonesia as a child … but we can’t give Hillary some policy experience for being an advisor to the president for eight years. Humm?

  • but we can’t give Hillary some policy experience for being an advisor to the president for eight years. Humm?

    Yes, by all means you can. Go ahead. Make a positive case for your candidate. We’re all ears.

    And Michelle Obama is allowed to say that living abroad counts as foreign policy experience.

    We’re listening, waiting to be persuaded by an actual argument.

    Just try to make your case without whining.

  • Like Hillary said, “it took one Clinton to clean up the White House after a Bush and it will take another Clinton to clean up after the other Bush”. The Clinton’s back in the White House is a no brainer. Our economy was strong, our deficit was in a surplus and unemployment was at its lowest. Who doesn’t want that again? I don’t care that people are saying “Billary”. If you ask me Bill Clinton being the “first man” of the White House would be great. He is more experienced than Obamas wife would be as “first lady” and could get more accomplished. We need experience in the White House. My vote was for Hillary, not because I am a female and want the first female President, but because I want the strong economy that we used to have.

  • Jen–

    If you’re interested in more info re what Hillary Clinton did as First Lady from 1992-2000, you can find lots of partisan articles and books, like the HuffPost from Joe Wilson that g8rgrl referenced, but I’d recommend Carl Bernstein’s recent biography of Mrs. Clinton. Bernstein is hardly an ‘outsider’ in the DC sense, but he’s a lot more knowledgeable and objective than Wilson, who is a long-time Clinton ally. For something much shorter and focused, I’d recommend Caitlin Flanagan’s article in the November issue of the Atlantic– you can find it in the archives of their website. Long live Socks.

    As for the Joe Wilson posting, once you parse away the personal invective against Senator Obama, which makes up most of what Wilson wrote, his critique primarily revolves around a couple of diplomatic trips to Africa during the Clinton administration, and he praises Hilary Clinton for participating and convincing Bill Clinton that Africa was important. With typical modesty, Wilson writes of this journey “It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa,” which might be news to Bush & Cheney et al. Wilson states that several of Senator Obama’s current advisors were also involved in these trips, and he chides them for being dishonest in not affirming his view of the essential importance of Mrs. Clinton. Possibly the notion that they have different opinions from his never crossed his mind.

    There’s other inadvertent comedy in Wilson’s post (e.g., the University of Chicago DOES NOT reside in Springfield, Illinois, much to the relief of UC’s faculty [although Springfield’s actually a very nice place!]). Wilson’s political ‘ear’ is so acute that “In fact, I never heard of Barack Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election,” which suggests that Wilson was not in attendance during the Democratic Convention of 2004, or possibly out of the country, or maybe not even on planet Earth. Wilson does let everyone know that he’s a pretty important person in Washington, D.C., was at the center when the great battle over the Iraq War resolutions were fought, and never saw Barack Obama anywhere. I suspect that he’s never met or spoken with Barack Obama, either.

    In the end, I still have to wonder, if Senator Clinton is so great at foreign policy, why did she ‘green light’ the worse policy disaster of our generation?

  • Washington State Caucus report: Attendance was very high. The precinct captain said he’d seen nothing like it in 40 years. Our precinct went 59-41 for Obama. We’re very deep in SW Washington just across the Columbia River and east of Portland about 20 miles.

  • I’m amazed that “competitive” ends up being a 2-1 margin of win for Barack. The voters really like him, and it’s not just in Washington…

  • Marian– I applaud you for making the effort to go out and do the caucus, sounds like things across the state were not terribly well-organized, which is too bad. I attended the Iowa Caucus in 2004 and enjoyed it quite a lot, especially to meet so many other Democrats who were passionate about putting in a new President and a better government. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Nebraska voted Democratic in 2008?

    Glad to hear that you go for evidence every time, that’s a good policy. In that regard, since I’m new on this site, maybe you’ve written about this before, but I was wondering if you could tell my why, do you think, Senator Clinton voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force, i.e., the main resolution cited as permission when Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq? I’ve read about the so-called ‘intelligence failures,’ but the situation seemed more accurately portrayed by the British diplomat who described the intelligence being cherry-picked and twisted to fit the desired war policy. At the time, did you see that the so-called ‘evidence’ was insufficient for the war? Why didn’t Senator Clinton pick up on that, do you think? I’ve seen interviews, etc., she has given on the subject, but never found her answers convincing for why she didn’t see through Bush and Cheney.

  • There is no doubt that Sen. Clinton has a great deal of experience in politics. And she did, in fact, make 79 foreign visits during the Clinton administration. However, she never held a security clearance. This is important, because it means that she was not allowed to see the President’s daily briefings from the intelligence community nor would she have been allowed to sit in on NSC meetings.

    In fact, it could be argued that if President Clinton shared any of that information with his wife, he was in violation of several very strict laws.

    This is not to say that she’s unqualified to lead the country. It is only to make clear that she could not have been any part of the decision to use force in the Balkans, etc. Realistically, she has no more actual foreign policy experience than Sen Obama.

  • Re the caucuses: yikes! Sounds like some very undemocratic things done by supporters of both candidates. Shameful really. Are directives really coming from above (by either candidate)? Just asking. For proof, not conjecture.

    Re wrapping up the Dem nomination soon. My primary isn’t until May, so I may not even have a say into which candidate will represent my party. The primary process needs to be re-vamped to a much shorter time period.

  • I am sick of Hilliary bashing. Doesn’t anyone care that Obama has had Muslim upbringing, his mother is an atheist, and his stepfather is a Jehad Muslim? I bet he got money from some of his Muslim buddies who are now fighting and killing our military. If Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans will eat him alive. I am a bonifide Democrat, but if Obama gets the nod, I may have to vote Republican, a very first for me.

  • OhioDem:
    When I look at the statements made by Hillary Clinton in October of 2002 and the other 28 or 29 Democratic Senators that made the same vote she did, I see the same basic statement. It is a demand that the UN force Iraq to allow the inspectors to have full access to all sites for the purpose of looking for weapons (or suffer use of force). The idea that she and the rest of them should have know that Bush would ignore the response of Iraq and invade anyway is, I suppose, a logical one considering his mentality. I don’t know what was in her mind at the time. Some say she was thinking about her presidential bid and attempting to make herself look tough. So what were the other 28 Democratic Senators thinking? Were they all planning to run for president … or maybe re-election? She says now that if she knew then what she knows now she would not have voted for the authorization which suggest that she was mislead at the time. I don’t think she is stupid and I don’t think she is naive so why should would have been mislead is not something I can fathom.

    I can tell you this … Mr. Obama and I have the exact same record on our Senate voting on that issue.

  • [Are you a diplomat or a diplomatic?]. — TuiMel, @23

    As the resident foreigner and self-appointed member of the language-police, I shall answer your question: you are a diplomat (noun) and, as such, a part of the diplomatic (adjective) corps. That “body” of diplomats is charged with giving diplomatic answers to all sorts of uncomfortable questions.

    By the same rule of noun vs adjective, you are a Democrat (noun) in the Democratic(adjective) Party. Unless, of course, you’re a Republican (noun) in the Republican (adjective) party… Why this should be so, I have no idea. Could be because the English language has a propensity for making an adjective out of a noun simply by positioning two nouns together (and the first one becomes an adjective). Or it could be that 4 syllables (re-pu-bli-can) is the maximum that a Republican (noun) can handle without needing a strait-jacket.

    • Comments are closed.