• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Presidential election may be up for grabs

Under certain circumstances meeting with an enemy might become necessary. With Obama though he may actually view those countries we now regard as enemies as friends. He has had very friendly contacts with persons who are definitely pro-Islamist if not actually terrorists.In Chicago he actually worked for Bill Ayres who himself as a domestic terrorist and helped Obama politically and socially with introductions with islamists and others.Probably wouldnt raise an eyebrow for a Senator but for one who wants to become President wont cut it with the great unwashed in flyover country.Obama has tried to distance himself from Professor Rashid Khalidi who the Obama's were friendly with on a social basis and actually helped funnel money to Khalidi's anti-israel foundation. I have said from the outset that Obama is a marxist in philosophy if nothing else.Recent calls from democrats to nationalize segments of our economy like oil and healthcare is just a start.With Obama in the White House and democrats running the house and senate Canada or Australia may actually look good.Personally though I dont think Obama is electable,but we have 6 fun months ahead of us and quite possibly Hillary might yet get the nomination.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57231
 
tomahawk6 said:
With Obama in the White House and democrats running the house and senate Canada or Australia may actually look good.

Uh yeah, actually Canada is quite a livable country. We even have sidewalks now!  ;)

I agree with you about Sen. Obama's political leanings and I don't think he's been entirely frank about them during the Democratic campaign. There are a lot of things that he hasn't been upfront about, starting back with Rev. Wright. The man just doesn't seem trustworthy to me (I know, I know, what politician does...)

Have a good Memorial Day Weekend!  :cheers:
 
I suspect part of the difficulty for the Republicans is they seem unable to articulate what they really stand for. "Compassionate Conservatism" and "Big Government Conservatism" are internally inconsistent formulations, to say the least. How much (if any) of this sort of thinking preveils in the upper echelons of the Republican party is open to question:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150049025115903.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated
By FRED D. THOMPSON
May 23, 2008; Page A13

Recent congressional losses, President George W. Bush's unpopularity, and bleak generic ballot poll numbers have conservatives fearing the "liberalization" of America – a move toward secularization, the growth of government, stagnation, mediocrity and loss of freedom.

Yet there is still a way to revive the conservative cause. Doing so will require avoiding the traps of pessimism or election-year quick fixes. Conservatives need to stand back for a moment and think about our philosophical first principles.

Conservatives value the lessons of history and respect faith and tradition. They are skeptical of mass movements, perfect solutions and what often passes for "progress." At the same time, they recognize that change is inevitable. They also know that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things and is meant to be free in an unfettered market of ideas, not subjugated by a too-powerful government.

These were the principles relied upon by our Founding Fathers, and which paved the way for a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among its branches, and further diffused its power through a system of federalism. These principles led to a market economy, the primacy of the rule of law and the abolition of slavery. They also helped to establish liberal trade policies and to meld idealism and realism in our foreign and military policies.

The power of conservative principles is borne out in the most strong, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. In the U.S., basic constitutional government has been preserved, foreign tyrannies have been defeated, our failed welfare system was reformed, and the confiscatory income tax rates of a few decades ago have been substantially reduced. This may be why the party where most conservatives reside, the Republican Party, has won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.

Still, a lot of the issues that litter the political battlefield today put conservatives on the defensive. What are we going to do to fix the economy, the housing market, health-care costs and education? Some conservatives try to avoid philosophical confrontation with liberals, often urging solutions that would expand the government while rationalizing that the expansion would be at a slightly slower rate.

This strategy simply has not worked. Conservatives should stay true to their principles and remember:

- Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. There are no short-term fixes without longer term consequences.

- In a free and dynamic country with social mobility, there will be great opportunity but also economic disparity, especially if the country has liberal immigration policies and a high divorce rate.

- An education system cannot overcome the breakdown of the family, and the social fabric that surrounds children daily.

- Free markets, not an expanding and more powerful government, are the solution to today's problems. Many of these problems, such as health-care costs, energy dependency and the subprime mortgage crisis, were caused in large part by government policies.

It's not that conservatives today no longer believe in the validity of these principles. They just find it difficult to stand strong when the political winds are blowing so hard against them. To be sure, standing by conservative principles does not always guarantee success at the ballot box – it did for Ronald Reagan, but not for Barry Goldwater. But abandoning these principles doesn't ensure victory either. Circumstances often play the deciding role. Is there any doubt that the Carter administration's misery index and the Iranian hostage crises allowed Reagan to prevail in 1980?

In this unpredictable world, conservatives should adhere to their fundamental ideals. These ideals have brought our country much success, and may well win the day again. Conservatives must have faith that, more often than not, Americans will make the sacrifices necessary to preserve national security and prosperity.

A political party that adheres to conservative principles should have continuing success – especially if its leadership believes in those principles and is able to articulate them.

Mr. Thompson, a former U.S. senator from Tennessee, was a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
 
If the GOP is having a hard time defining itself, I think a lot of the problem is the ongoing internal party debate between social conservatives and libertarians. The rise of the religious right over the last twenty five years has changed the Republican Party. The GOP of today is not the GOP of the Goldwater era. The religious right has its own agenda and has been steadily gaining in power within the Republican ranks, this has resulted in policies such as faith based initiatives which blur the line between Church and State. This is something new for the Republicans and until they settle this internal debate between activist social conservatives and true libertarian conservatives, their party platform will not be as clear cut as it should be going into a presidential election.
 
There has been a tug of war of sorts between conservatives and the so called moderate wings of the party.Bush obviously hasnt been a conservative with his big domestic spending programs.McCain except for his national defense stance is closer to the liberal democrats than he is to the conservatives of his own party.With McCain leading the GOP he is pulling the party to the left which is why the GOP is having a crisis and explains why disaffected democrats dont have a hard time voting for McCain. Its going to be an interesting election with McCain trying to win without conservative's and Obama trying to win without the working man.
 
Richie said:
Should the president ever meet with enemies?"

Well Nixon met with Mao when China was still pretty much one of the United States' enemies during the Cold War, although the US back then was only taking advantage of the huge schism that developed between Moscow and Beijing over who led the Communist world; China back then mainly decided to ally with the US since they both viewed the USSR as a greater threat than each other. While W. Bush himself did not ever meet with the heads of state of any of America's current enemies, there have been lower-level State Dept. talks with both Libya and North Korea that eventually led the former to open up to the world when Qaddafi had previously isolated that country and the latter to supposedly come clean about its nuclear program, partially through the 6-party talks. My point is that Democratic administrations do not have the monopoly of meeting with their enemies, even though the most recent meeting between a Democratic figure and an enemy occurred when former Pres. Carter met with Hamas; IIRC, he even met with Fidel Castro not too long ago as well, although in both cases he was not acting as an official representative of the US government.

Regardless, whichever party LOSES this coming US election will inevitably have a civil war within their own ranks, as the below article states:

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24794971/

Todd: Civil war waiting for losing '08 party?
What happens to the Dems, Republicans should their candidates lose in '08

By Chuck Todd
Political Director
NBC News
updated 12:44 p.m. PT, Fri., May. 23, 2008
WASHINGTON - Nothing salves a party's wounds like winning and nothing picks a party's scab faster than losing.

With the likely nominations of Barack Obama by the Democrats and John McCain by the Republicans, one of these two parties is headed for a 2009 crack-up that could prove as messy as any party civil war in recent history.

Of the two parties, the frontrunner for this crack-up is the GOP. Well, this is the case at least for now, since they are the underdog in this election.

McCain is a godsend to Republicans in some ways because he's uniquely competitive in a year that's clearly as anti-Republican as, perhaps, 1974. But it's still an uphill fight for him.

One can already picture how the infighting will begin.

McCain-loss scenario
For example, let's assume McCain is defeated because the GOP trailed Democrats in the enthusiasm quotient.

Expect the loudest critics to be movement conservatives.

They'll claim that McCain was doomed from the start because he failed to win the hearts and minds of conservatives during his primary run.

And because conservatives were letdown by primary results, they never came around for him in the general election.

These folks will make their point by claiming the follwing: McCain won the Republican nomination without the significant support of any movement or social conservatives.


Think about his primary wins which set the stage for wrapping up the nomination.

They occurred in New Hampshire (where he was buoyed by an influx of independents), South Carolina (where social conservatives split their support three ways between, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney) and Florida (where moderate Gov. Charlie Crist threw his considerable political muscle behind turning out casual — translation: moderate — Republicans).

He didn't win a single important primary where he proved he could win over social conservatives.

Huckabee to blame?
McCain's folks will argue that the presence of Huckabee prevented McCain from being given an opportunity to prove that he could woo social conservatives.

But, facts are facts, and McCain won this nomination without conservatives.

To their credit, McCain's camps recognizes that this evangelical enthusiasm gap is a problem. And that's why they rushed out the endorsements of Pastors Hagee and Parsley.

They were looking to prove their social conservative bona fides. But as we now know, the campaign did a poor job vetting these guys and they've since had to throw both pastors under the proverbial bus.

In fact, I'd argue the clumsy way this whole Hagee/Parsley thing turned out shows just how inexperienced McCain is when it comes to wooing this crucial part of the Republican electorate.

Don't be surprised, by the way, if the McCain camp ends up leaning toward picking a southern "evangelical acceptable" running mate because of how things stand now.


They want to vote against Obama, but do they really want to vote for McCain?

But this crack-up with the GOP won't just include conservatives pointing fingers. Moderates and pro-business conservatives will blame "talk radio conservatives" for making the party look xenophobic during the immigration debate, in turn, driving away Hispanic voters.

If Obama can somehow manage to win two or more western states (like Colorado and New Mexico), it will give this argument more credence.

These infighting episodes that political parties go through aren't called civil wars for nothing, so trust that the finger-pointing will be all over the place.

Obviously, a McCain loss would also be coupled with a potential GOP slaughter on the House and Senate level, creating all sorts of new factions trying to blame one Republican constituency for the loss.

In short, the GOP infighting under this McCain-loss scenario would be ideological in nature and very ugly.


There will be lots of folks trying to clean up the mess, including people like Romney and Huckabee — two candidates who both lost the nomination to McCain.

This is what makes McCain's running mate choice fascinating, because a running mate on a losing ticket might end up sharing the blame. He or she then might not be trusted to help lead the party in the future.

Think about that, Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee as you both vie to be on that national ticket.

Now, let's turn to the Democrats, a loss by potential nominee Obama would arguably be more catastrophic to the short-term future of the Democrats than a McCain loss would be for the GOP.

Why? Because the Democrats are supposed to win.

Obama-loss scenario
If Obama loses, then it's because he lost it somehow. Maybe it'll be because he's too easily painted as an elitest. Maybe it'll be because he doesn't seem up to the job. Or maybe it'll simply be a function of racism.

But whatever the reason, losing is not an option and an Obama loss would bring out the long knives inside the party walls.

But unlike the Republicans, a Democratic loss won't be blamed on ideology.

Instead, the warring factions will consist of two groups.

First is the old Clinton guard who will argue that the party got too idealistic and didn't go back to its core FDR roots.

In addition, the Clinton guard will argue that Obama alienated too many women as well as Jewish voters and that'll explain why he didn't win Florida and, perhaps, lost Pennsylvania.

However, that won't be the end of the finger-pointing. Obama partisans will whip around and point the finger right back at the Clintons and claim she stayed in the race too long, race-baited and created an environment that was too toxic for an Obama victory.


Too divisive to win?
This bitterness between the Clinton and Obama factions will be very personal and very bitter, opening up the possibility for a third faction to develop, one that will argue that Clinton and Obama were both too divisive to win.

This group could, ironically, be led by folks like Al Gore and John Edwards, two other failed presidential candidates in their own right.


Bottom line on the Democrats: an Obama loss would create a nasty, personal fight inside the party that the media will obsess about because the characters are so television friendly.

Media catnip
The Clintons, and now Obama, have become catnip for the media and a divisive “he said, they said” fight about how the Democrats lost the unloseable election will actually mask likely gains for the party on the House and Senate level.

One thing both parties should realize about 2008: neither an Obama loss nor a McCain victory should mask the underlying dynamics of what's going on right now. And that's two things: the Republican Party will still have a brand problem in 2009, and the Democrats will still have the upper-hand at creating a bigger tent majority.

Obama and McCain are now symbols for their respective parties.

The result of this presidential election could amplify the good for the Democrats if Obama wins and amplify the negative for the Republicans should McCain lose.

Of course, the upside for Republicans in the McCain-wins scenario is that they’ll have time to fix the GOP’s brand outside of the media glare.


That's because the media will be salivating over the epic Clinton v. Obama blame game battle well into 2009.


© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
 
CougarDaddy said:
Well Nixon met with Mao when China was still pretty much one of the United States' enemies during the Cold War,...

True, but as Krauthammer states in his WP article, that meeting occurred only after the Americans had obtained certain preconditions leading up to "Nixon in China". Summits never decide anything, they just put the stamp of approval on what has been hammered out by the diplomats and bureaucrats from both sides.
Obama seems to think that he can just waltz on over to Iran, North Korea et al and solve all of the "misunderstandings" between these regimes and the USA. As I said, Obama is out of his league when it comes to foreign affairs and I have no doubt that the folks in the State Department are shuddering at the thought of his winning the White House.

On a different note, I definitely agree with you about the aftermath of this election: whichever party loses will have some nasty house cleaning to do!
 
Jimmy Carter was out of his depth as well. Recently he made comments revealing the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal and suggested that the US should give nuclear fuel to Iran. For a guy thats supposed to be a chritian he sure is anti-Israel and quite cozy with terrorists[PLO/Hamas] and their patron Iran.
 
Aren't there laws in place that would prohibit a former President from divulging state secrets or information that he obtained while in office?

Perhaps Washington is using Carter as an informal go-between to see what Hamas is up to and by extension what Iran and Syria are up to in regards to Israel.

As far as the current crop of Presidential candidates goes (assuming Obama gets the Democratic ticket) McCain would be a far better choice in my view both because he has a better understanding of foreign relations and also because Democratic Presidents have usually been protectionist and that would be bad for Canada's export based economy. A Republican win would be best for both our nations.
 
Jimmy Carter was out of his depth as well. Recently he made comments revealing the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal and suggested that the US should give nuclear fuel to Iran. For a guy thats supposed to be a chritian he sure is anti-Israel and quite cozy with terrorists[PLO/Hamas] and their patron Iran.

Maybe He's kinda like Lawrence of Arabia, someone tried to help the particpants see the situation as something other than a zero-sum game. Hmm, Fomer  USA CINC, seems to have some experience.

Seems kinda Christian to me.

 
Seems Obama was a little confused...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/

Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.

Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.

Speaking in Las Cruces, N.M., on Monday, the Democratic presidential candidate said he did not serve, but comes from a family that did sacrifice for the nation. He was speaking about the many members of the military who suffer post traumatic stress disorder and should be given better care.

“I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” he said.

However, a quick check on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Web site shows that Soviet forces were the first to approach Auschwitz, which was in Poland.
 
Obama effectively clinches the nomination. Now will this mean that Hillary Clinton will finally shut her mouth?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp

AP tally: Obama effectively clinches nomination
By DAVID ESPO and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writers
1 minute ago



Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, ending a grueling marathon to become the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.

The tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 16 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The 46-year-old first-term senator will face John McCain in the fall campaign to become the 44th president. The Arizona senator campaigned in Memphis, Tenn., during the day, and had no immediate reaction to Obama's victory.

Clinton stood ready to concede that her rival had amassed the delegates needed to triumph, according to officials in her campaign. They stressed that the New York senator did not intend to suspend or end her candidacy in a speech Tuesday night in New York. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge her plans.

Obama's triumph was fashioned on prodigious fundraising, meticulous organizing and his theme of change aimed at an electorate opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the economy — all harnessed to his own innate gifts as a campaigner.

With her husband's two-White House terms as a backdrop, Clinton campaigned for months as the candidate of experience, a former first lady and second-term senator ready, she said, to take over on Day One.

But after a year on the campaign trail, Obama won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and the freshman senator became something of an overnight political phenomenon.

"We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and independents, to stand up and say we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come," he said that night in Des Moines.

A video produced by Will I. Am and built around Obama's "Yes, we can" rallying cry quickly went viral. It drew its one millionth hit within a few days of being posted.

As the strongest female presidential candidate in history, Clinton drew large, enthusiastic audiences. Yet Obama's were bigger still. One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage; a crowd of 75,000 turned out in Portland, Ore., the weekend before the state's May 20 primary.

The former first lady countered Obama's Iowa victory with an upset five days later in New Hampshire that set the stage for a campaign marathon as competitive as any in the last generation.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," she told supporters who had saved her candidacy from an early demise.

In defeat, Obama's aides concluded they had committed a cardinal sin of New Hampshire politics, forsaking small, intimate events in favor of speeches to large audiences inviting them to ratify Iowa's choice.

It was not a mistake they made again — which helped explain Obama's later outings to bowling alleys, backyard basketball hoops and American Legion halls in the heartland.

Clinton conceded nothing, memorably knocking back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey at a bar in Indiana, recalling that her grandfather had taught her to use a shotgun, and driving in a pickup to a gas station in South Bend, Ind., to emphasize her support for a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

As other rivals quickly fell away in winter, the strongest black candidate in history and the strongest female White House contender traded victories on Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 series of primaries and caucuses across 21 states and American Samoa that once seemed likely to settle the nomination.

But Clinton had a problem that Obama exploited, and he scored a coup she could not answer.

Pressed for cash, the former first lady ran noncompetitive campaigns in several Super Tuesday caucus states, allowing her rival to run up his delegate totals.

At the same time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., endorsed the young senator in terms that summoned memories of his slain brothers while seeking to turn the page on the Clinton era.

In a reference that likened former President Clinton to Harry Truman: "There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party."

Merely by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama exceeded expectations.

But he did more than survive, emerging with a lead in delegates that he never relinquished, and proceeded to run off a string of 11 straight victories.

Clinton saved her candidacy once more with primary victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, beginning a stretch in which she won primaries in six of the final nine states on the calendar, as well as in Puerto Rico.

It was a strong run, providing glimpses of what might have been for the one-time front-runner.

But by then Obama was well on his way to victory, Clinton and her allies stressed the popular vote instead of delegates. Yet he seemed to emerge from each loss with residual strength.

Obama's bigger-than-expected victory in North Carolina on May 6 offset his narrow defeat in Indiana the same day. Four days later, he overtook Clinton's lead among superdelegates, the party leaders she had hoped would award her the nomination on the basis of a strong showing in swing states.

Obama lost West Virginia by a whopping 67 percent to 26 percent on May 13. Yet he won an endorsement the following day from former presidential rival and one-time North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton administered another drubbing in Kentucky a week later. This time, Obama countered with a victory in Oregon, and turned up that night in Iowa to say he had won a majority of all the delegates available in 56 primaries and caucuses on the calendar.

There were moments of anger, notably in a finger-wagging debate in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

And Bill Clinton was a constant presence and an occasional irritant for Obama. The former president angered several black politicians when he seemed to diminish Obama's South Carolina triumph by noting that Jesse Jackson had also won the state.

Obama's frustration showed at the Jan. 21 debate, when he accused the former president in absentia of uttering a series of distortions.

"I'm here. He's not," the former first lady snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.

There were relatively few policy differences. Clinton accused Obama of backing a health care plan that would leave millions out, and the two clashed repeatedly over trade.

Yet race, religion, region and gender became political fault lines as the two campaigned from coast to coast.

Along the way, Obama showed an ability to weather the inevitable controversies, most notably one caused by the incendiary rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At first, Obama said he could not break with his longtime spiritual adviser. Then, when Wright spoke out anew, Obama reversed course and denounced him strongly.

Clinton struggled with self-inflicted wounds. Most prominently, she claimed to have come under sniper fire as first lady more than a decade earlier while paying a visit to Bosnia.

Instead, videotapes showed her receiving a gift of flowers from a young girl who greeted her plane.

___

Associated Press Writers Nedra Pickler and Beth Fouhy in Washington, Stephen Majors in Columbus, Ohio, Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., and Libby Quaid in Memphis, Tenn.
 
CougarDaddy said:
Obama effectively clinches the nomination. Now will this mean that Hillary Clinton will finally shut her mouth?

Should she?
 
Kirkhill said:
Should she?

Not if she's picked as his running mate for VP
blah.gif
 
Kirkhill said:
Oooh the paiinn.
:rofl:

Anyways...now here's a source which confirms that OBAMA did win the nomination, not just an unofficial tally as above.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_...s0IPHZC_Mdh24cA

By TOM RAUM and NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writers
10 minutes ago

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Cheered by a roaring crowd, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois laid claim to the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night, taking a historic step toward his once-improbable goal of becoming the nation's first black president. Hillary Rodham Clinton maneuvered for the vice presidential spot on his fall ticket without conceding her own defeat.

"America, this is our moment," the 46-year-old senator and one-time community organizer said in his first appearance as the Democratic nominee-in-waiting. "This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past."

Clinton praised Obama warmly in an appearance before supporters in New York, although she neither acknowledged his victory in their grueling marathon nor offered a concession of any sort.

Instead, she said she was committed to a unified party, and said she would spend the next few days determining "how to move forward with the best interests of our country and our party guiding my way."

Obama's victory set up a five-month campaign with Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a race between a first-term Senate opponent of the Iraq War and a 71-year-old Vietnam prisoner of war and staunch supporter of the current U.S. military mission.

And both men seemed eager to begin.

McCain spoke first, in New Orleans, and he accused his younger rival of voting "to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job" in Iraq." Americans, he added, should be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who has not traveled to Iraq yet "says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang."

McCain agreed with Obama that the presidential race would focus on change. "But the choice is between the right change and the wrong change, between going forward and going backward," he said.

Obama responded quickly, pausing in his own speech long enough to praise Clinton for "her strength, her courage and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight."

As for his general election rival, he said, "It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year. It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs. ... And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave young men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians."

In a symbolic move, Obama spoke in the same hall where McCain will accept the Republican nomination at his party's convention in September. Campaign officials, citing the local fire marshal, put the crowd at 17,000 inside the eXcel Energy Center, plus another 15,000 outside.

McCain addressed a smaller crowd by design, an estimated 600 in his audience and another 600 outside.

One campaign began as another was ending.

Clinton won South Dakota on the final night of the primary season; Obama took Montana.

He later called Clinton to congratulate her on her victory. When she called back, Obama reiterated his offer to sit down at a time convenient for her, according to his spokesman, Robert Gibbs. He said there were no plans for a meeting on Wednesday.

Only 31 delegates were at stake in the two states on the night's ballot, the final few among the thousands that once drew Obama, Clinton and six other Democratic candidates into the campaign to replace Bush and become the nation's 44th president.

Obama sealed his nomination, according to The Associated Press tally, based on primary elections, state Democratic caucuses and support from party "superdelegates." It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination at the convention in Denver this summer, and Obama had 2,154 by the AP count.

There were more on the way, including Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, whom party officials said would make an endorsement on Wednesday.

Additionally, party leaders readied a statement urging uncommitted superdelegates in Congress and among the ranks of governors to state their preference by Friday. Several officials said that while they wanted to unify the party quickly, they were also determined not to appear to push Clinton out of the race, particularly since she will be returning to the Senate once her presidential bid is over.

Obama, a first-term senator who was virtually unknown on the national stage four years ago, defeated Clinton, the former first lady and one-time campaign front-runner, in a 17-month marathon for the Democratic nomination.

His victory had been widely assumed for weeks. But Clinton's declaration of interest in becoming his ticketmate was wholly unexpected.

She expressed it in a conference call with her state's congressional delegation after Rep. Nydia Velazquez, predicted Obama would have great difficulty winning the support of Hispanics and other voting blocs unless the former first lady was on the ticket.

"I am open to it" if it would help the party's prospects in November, Clinton replied, according to participants who spoke on condition of anonymity because the call was private.

Clinton's comments raised anew the prospect of what many Democrats have called a "Dream Ticket" that would put a black man and a woman on the same ballot, but Obama's aides were noncommittal. "We're not in the presidential phase here. We're going to close out the nominating fight and then we'll consider that," David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist, told reporters aboard the candidate's plane en route to Minnesota.

McCain's criticism of Obama referred to a vote last year in which the Illinois senator came out against legislation paying for the Iraq war because it did not include a timetable for withdrawing troops. At the time, Obama said the funding would give President Bush "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Obama previously had opposed a deadline for troop withdrawal, but shifted position under pressure from the Democratic Party's liberal wing as he maneuvered for support in advance of the primaries.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, responded tartly. "While John McCain has a record of occasional independence from his party in the past, last year he chose to embrace 95% of George Bush's agenda, including his failed economic policies and his failed policy in Iraq. No matter how hard he tries to spin it otherwise, that kind of record is simply not the change the American people are looking for or deserve."

The young Illinois senator's success amounted to a victory of hope over experience, earned across an enervating 56 primaries and caucuses that tested the political skills and human endurance of all involved.

Obama stood for change. Clinton was the candidate of experience, ready, she said, to serve in the Oval Office from Day One.

Together, they drew record turnouts in primary after primary — more than 34 million voters in all, independents and Republicans as well as Democrats.

Yet the race between a black man and a woman exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.

Obama drew strength from blacks, and from the younger, more liberal and wealthier voters in many states. Clinton was preferred by older, more downscale voters, and women, of course.

Personality issues rose and receded through the campaign:

Clinton's husband, the former president, campaigned tirelessly for her but sometimes became an issue himself, to her detriment.

And Obama struggled to minimize the damage caused by the incendiary rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an issue likely to be raised anew by Republicans in the fall campaign.

Obama's triumph was fashioned on prodigious fundraising, meticulous organizing and his theme of change aimed at an electorate opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the economy — all harnessed to his own gifts as an inspirational speaker.

With her husband's two White House terms as a backdrop, Clinton campaigned for months as the candidate of experience, a former first lady and second-term senator ready to be commander in chief.

But after a year on the campaign trail, Obama won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and the freshman senator became a political phenomenon.

"We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and independents, to stand up and say we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come," he said that night of victory in Des Moines.

As the strongest female presidential candidate in history, Clinton drew large, enthusiastic audiences. Yet Obama's were bigger. One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage; a crowd of 75,000 turned out in Portland, Ore., the weekend before the state's May 20 primary.

The former first lady countered Obama's Iowa victory with an upset five days later in New Hampshire that set the stage for a campaign marathon as competitive as any in the past generation.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," she told supporters who had saved her candidacy from an early demise.

In defeat, Obama's aides concluded they had committed a cardinal sin of New Hampshire politics, forsaking small, intimate events in favor of speeches to large audiences inviting them to ratify Iowa's choice.

It was not a mistake they made again — which helped explain Obama's later outings to bowling alleys, backyard basketball courts and American Legion halls in the heartland.

Clinton conceded nothing, memorably knocking back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey at a bar in Indiana, recalling that her grandfather had taught her to use a shotgun, and driving in a pickup to a gas station in South Bend, Ind., to emphasize her support for a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

As other rivals fell away in winter, Obama and Clinton traded victories on Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 series of primaries and caucuses across 21 states and American Samoa that once seemed likely to settle the nomination.

But Clinton had a problem that Obama exploited, and he scored a coup she could not answer.

Pressed for cash, the former first lady ran noncompetitive campaigns in several Super Tuesday caucus states, allowing her rival to run up his delegate totals.

At the same time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., endorsed the young senator in terms that summoned memories of his slain brothers while seeking to turn the page on the Clinton era.

Merely by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama exceeded expectations. But he did more than survive, emerging with a lead in delegates that he never relinquished, and he proceeded to run off a string of 11 straight victories.

Clinton saved her candidacy once more with primary victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, beginning a stretch in which she won in six of the next nine states on the calendar, as well as in Puerto Rico.

It was a strong run, providing glimpses of what might have been for the one-time front-runner.
 
Obama should keep his conversations with Hillary civil... she did pick up more of the popular vote than he did... just didn't translate into delegates.  When the US goes to the urns this fall, he/she will want all democrats shooting in one direction VS a divided caucus.
 
geo said:
... she did pick up more of the popular vote than he did...

Only if you use a particularly creative branch of arithmetic - one which adds convenient, albeit imaginary numbers and then subtracts the inconvenient results from states that select delegates by caucus rather than election.
 
Speaking of creative arithmetic, both Obama and Clinton are fairly junior senators without a substantial record of legislative achievement. In her political calculations, it might be to her advantage to sit this one out, thus increasing McCain's chances. As he is likely to be a one term president, and Obama will be discredited, especially if the contest is not close, she could then win the nomination and perhaps the election in 2012.

I saw a note by someone, I can't recall where, that if she was to be nominated and then win this year's election, either a Bush or a Clinton would have been president for six or possibly seven elections in a row.
 
Clinton is an interesting character:

First, of course, she isn’t a single character, she comes as part of Billary – one of the most entertaining political phenomena in American political history;

Second, she comes with baggageWhitewater and sundry political scandals and ”stand by your man”, and, and, and ...

Third, while she has a large and loyal following she also has the highest negatives of all the candidates – people love her or, in about the same, maybe even higher numbers, hate her;

Fourth, her resumé is, despite the propaganda, spotty. How much useful policy experience does the ’first lady’, even that particular first lady, garner? 

We tend to forget that Bill Clinton was just as divisive in the ‘90s as George W. Bush is today. Putting Hillary on the ‘ticket’ might do more than anything else to unite the Republicans – even those who don’t like John McCain (and there are many on the religious right) will rally behind him rather than risk having Clinton, either Clinton, “a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

That being said, she is a formidable campaigner with a great ‘machine.’ If there were sixty states she would likely be the nominee.

On balance and because I, for reasons related to Canada’s best interests, want John McCain to win, I hope Obama puts her on the ticket but I suspect he’s smart enough not to do that.
 
Back
Top