OT--Could Obama Be The First Black President?

[Ms_M]

I definitely think it is possible for Obama to win. Stranger things have happened.

[mikemarrs]

National convention delegates are those individuals authorized by the national and state parties to attend the parties' national conventions and cast votes for the candidates running for the respective party's nomination for President. Each national party apportions a specific number of delegate votes to the various states and territories, based on state population and complex calculations of party strength and support in recent elections.

Current Unofficial 2008 Delegate Totals:

The Democratic national convention in August 2008 will include approximately 4,416 Democratic delegate votes (and approximately 4,436 actual delegates, since some territories are allowed to split delegate votes into 'half delegates'). A simple majority, or 2,209 as of now, is required for the nomination.

The Republican national convention in September 2008 will include approximately 2,517 delegates. A simple majority, or 1,259 as of now, is required for the nomination.


01/03/08 Iowa Caucus Obama 16 Clinton 15 Edwards 14

Upcoming Democratic Primaries Date State Event Delegates at Stake
01/08/08 N.H. Primary 27
01/15/08 Mich. Primary 153
01/19/08 Nev. Caucus 32
01/26/08 S.C. Primary 55
01/29/08 Fla. Primary 202
02/05/08 Ala. Primary 62
02/05/08 Alaska Caucus 18
02/05/08 Ariz. Primary 63
02/05/08 Ark. Primary 47
02/05/08 Calif. Primary 439
Date State Event Delegates at Stake
02/05/08 Colo. Caucus 64
02/05/08 Conn. Primary 62
02/05/08 Del. Primary 23
02/05/08 Ga. Primary 104
02/05/08 Idaho Caucus 23
02/05/08 Ill. Primary 187
02/05/08 Kan. Caucus 40
02/05/08 Mass. Primary 120
02/05/08 Minn. Caucus 87
02/05/08 Mo. Primary 87
Date State Event Delegates at Stake
02/05/08 N.D. Caucus 22
02/05/08 N.J. Primary 126
02/05/08 N.M. Primary 36
02/05/08 N.Y. Primary 287
02/05/08 Okla. Primary 47
02/05/08 Tenn. Primary 84
02/05/08 Utah Primary 29
02/09/08 La. Primary 71
02/09/08 Neb. Caucus 31
02/10/08 Maine Caucus 35
Date State Event Delegates at Stake
02/12/08 D.C. Primary 38
02/12/08 Md. Primary 101
02/12/08 Va. Primary 98
02/19/08 Hawaii Caucus 28
02/19/08 Wash. Caucus 95
02/19/08 Wis. Primary 87
03/04/08 Ohio Primary 159
03/04/08 R.I. Primary 32
03/04/08 Texas Primary 232
03/04/08 Vt. Primary 21
Date State Event Delegates at Stake
03/08/08 Wyo. Caucus 19
03/11/08 Miss. Primary 42
04/22/08 Pa. Primary 179
05/06/08 Ind. Primary 80
05/06/08 N.C. Primary 108
05/13/08 W.Va. Primary 39
05/20/08 Ky. Primary 57
05/20/08 Ore. Primary 58
06/03/08 Mont. Primary 21
06/03/08 S.D. Primary 21


Pledged delegates are 'bound' to vote for a specific presidential preference at the national convention, for at least the first ballot. Usually they are 'bound' by the results of the state's presidential primary, or by the preferences of those attending their caucus/state convention system.

For both parties, about 81 percent of the delegates to the conventions will be pledged.

National Convention Delegate Types

There are 2 basic types of pledged delegates; district level and At Large. District level delegates are almost always associated with congressional districts (occasionally with state senate districts or with artificial 'delegate districts').

At Large delegates are considered statewide delegates.

Democratic Pledged Delegates: For the Democrats, these 2 categories of delegates are always pledged; they are the defined as the state's "base delegation" and are pledged by definition. The Democrats have a third type of pledged delegate; pledged party leaders and elected officials (PLEO) which is a separate group equal to 15% "Add on" to the "base delegation". PLEO delegates are typically big city mayors, legislative leaders, county party officials, etc. District, At Large and PLEO delegates together comprise the Democratic pledged delegation for a state. District level delegates are pledged or bound by the results of the primary or caucus in the particular districts, while At Large delegates are bound by statewide primary votes or state convention preferences.

Democratic pledged delegate allocation is standardized by the Democratic National Committee. District level delegates are allocated proportionally to Presidential candidates based on the presidential primary vote (or caucus/convention preferences) in that district. At Large and PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the Presidential primary vote (or caucus/convention preferences) statewide. In all cases, Democratic presidential candidates must receive 15% of the vote to qualify for delegate allocation in a jurisdiction.

Republican Pledged Delegates:

For the Republicans, delegate types are more amorphous. Some state Republican parties treat all their pledged delegates as At Large (New Hampshire), some treat them all as district delegates (Rhode Island), and some use both district and At Large designations.

Republican delegate allocation of pledged delegates is not standardized. Some states award all their delegates "winner take all" to the presidential candidate with the most statewide presidential primary votes (New York and New Jersey). Others award 3 district delegates to the winner of the particular CD, and award the At large delegates to the statewide winner (GA, OK). Others directly elect delegate candidates on the presidential primary ballot, with the delegate candidate receiving the most votes going to the national convention, either pledged to specific presidential candidates (Illinois) or as unpledged delegates (Pennsylvania). Other states use some version of district or statewide proportional allocation, with specific rules varying significantly.

In some circumstances, pledged delegates are 'released' from their pledge to support a specific candidate. For the Democrats, At Large and PLEO delegate spots awarded to candidate A are released if candidate A withdraws from the Presidential race before the delegates themselves are selected. If the delegates are selected, candidate A keeps those delegate votes in spite of his/her withdrawal. Democratic district delegates are not released; even if candidate A withdraws after winning district delegates in New Jersey, those delegates remain bound to candidate A for one ballot at the national convention.

For the Republicans, pledged delegates can be released from their pledge by the withdrawn candidate, depending on state party rules.

To track pledged delegates, the Associated Press determines each state party's delegate allocation method, programmatically applies that method to the vote on primary or caucus night as appropriate. These totals are then examined in Washington D.C. and edited for consistency and completeness before being distributed to AP members and customers.

Unpledged Delegates, or Superdelegates

Unpledged delegates are by definition "free agents" who are unbound by any prior Presidential primary or caucus results in the states. Their votes at the national convention are completely at their own discretion.

The Democrats base the number of unpledged delegates which are apportioned to a state on 5 calculations: the # of state Democratic National Committee members; the number of Democratic Members of Congress; Democratic Governors; "distinguished Party leaders" (such as former Presidents or VP's, former Senate leaders or House Speakers from the state, etc); and finally an "add-on" group of unpledged delegate spots based on the state's DNC member votes. Because the first 4 categories of unpledged Democratic delegates are generally high profile elected officials, they are often called the "Super delegates". For the Democrats, these delegates are always free agents, able to vote for whoever they wish at the national convention.

The Republicans again are more decentralized and less standard in their usage of unpledged delegates. Some states consider all of their delegates to be unpledged (Pennsylvania), while other states designate their At large delegation as unpledged (Illinois). Others have no unpledged delegates; the entire delegation is considered pledged (Connecticut).

Unpledged delegates should not be confused with "Uncommitted" delegates. The latter are usually pledged delegates who are bound to vote "uncommitted" at the national convention because the Presidential preference "uncommitted" did well enough in the Presidential primary or convention to qualify for pledged delegates. In other words, "uncommitted" is much like a Presidential candidate who won pledged delegates.

To determine the non-binding preferences of unpledged delegates, the Associated Press calls and interviews them, and tracks their preferences.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Charlie Gibson is the star of this night for sure. Guy asked good questions and didn't back down when candidates avoided them.

Gibson: "All of you candidates were pretty much dead wrong about the surge in Iraq. Anyone here want to come out now and say it"

I'm paraphrasing of course, but when Hillary tried to stand by her attack on Petraeus by claiming tonight she said something different than what she really said to him, Gibson wouldn't let her. Good for him.

Gibson was slumming. I don't like the Clintons, but here, Hillary was right on the money. There has been NO politically concilliation as a result of the surge - which was the main point of it to begin with.

[conversationpc]

Gibson was slumming. I don't like the Clintons, but here, Hillary was right on the money. There has been NO politically concilliation as a result of the surge - which was the main point of it to begin with.

I love how the libs keep changing the terms on this one. The MAIN point of the surge was to reduce the violence so that larger areas of Iraq could be more easily controlled and allowed to return back to some kind of semblance of order. This has happened. It has been successful. However, one of the side benefits of the reduced violence was to increase the chances of political success. That certainly hasn't happened.

[mikemarrs]

my best friend has been in iraq since 2003.has a five year old daughter he hasn't got to see growing up.i'll be glad when the troops are able to come home.let iraq figure their own issues out.we've been there long enough.those people are ready to come home......

[The_Noble_Cause]

I love how the libs keep changing the terms on this one. The MAIN point of the surge was to reduce the violence so that larger areas of Iraq could be more easily controlled and allowed to return back to some kind of semblance of order. This has happened. It has been successful. However, one of the side benefits of the reduced violence was to increase the chances of political success. That certainly hasn't happened.

Sustainable “control” and “order” can only be brought about when and ONLY when there is a fully functioning unity government. Political progress is not some trivial “side effect”, it’s our ticket out of there.

In as far as America’s continued involvement is concerned, reduced violence in the face of ZERO political gains means very little. Our soldiers are still dying, just at a slower rate.

[Enigma869]

Looks like Ms. Hillary is starting to fade faster than a box of Oreos in my kitchen cupboard! She came into NH with a 4% lead over Obama, and after last night's debate, she is now trailing him by 10% in NH, according to the latest polls! That's quite a nosedive in 24 hours!


John from Boston

[Mikey B]

I'm thinking Bill is not Hillary's ace in the hole anymore..........

[conversationpc]

I love how the libs keep changing the terms on this one. The MAIN point of the surge was to reduce the violence so that larger areas of Iraq could be more easily controlled and allowed to return back to some kind of semblance of order. This has happened. It has been successful. However, one of the side benefits of the reduced violence was to increase the chances of political success. That certainly hasn't happened.

Sustainable “control” and “order” can only be brought about when and ONLY when there is a fully functioning unity government. Political progress is not some trivial “side effect”, it’s our ticket out of there.

In as far as America’s continued involvement is concerned, reduced violence in the face of ZERO political gains means very little. Our soldiers are still dying, just at a slower rate.

Nicely attempted diversion but the argument was about the main goal of the troop surge, which was to reduce violence.

[Rockindeano]

Looks like Ms. Hillary is starting to fade faster than a box of Oreos in my kitchen cupboard! She came into NH with a 4% lead over Obama, and after last night's debate, she is now trailing him by 10% in NH, according to the latest polls! That's quite a nosedive in 24 hours!


John from Boston

You're smart but where politics is concerned, you aren't too bright. Obama's win in Iowa is worth about 7 points in NH.

Let's break this down shall we. Clinton wasn't even going to compete in Iowa. She did anyway and basically tied for 2nd. She will do well in NH. You need to look at the next ten states, of which every one but SC she has 30 point leads. I am not in the least concerned.

Bill Clinton is the number one democrat but in a time where she is running on "change" he really can't be used."

I still think she will win, but she may struggle a bit.

[Rockindeano]

I love how the libs keep changing the terms on this one. The MAIN point of the surge was to reduce the violence so that larger areas of Iraq could be more easily controlled and allowed to return back to some kind of semblance of order. This has happened. It has been successful. However, one of the side benefits of the reduced violence was to increase the chances of political success. That certainly hasn't happened.

Sustainable “control” and “order” can only be brought about when and ONLY when there is a fully functioning unity government. Political progress is not some trivial “side effect”, it’s our ticket out of there.

In as far as America’s continued involvement is concerned, reduced violence in the face of ZERO political gains means very little. Our soldiers are still dying, just at a slower rate.

Nicely attempted diversion but the argument was about the main goal of the troop surge, which was to reduce violence.

LMAO. Any president with a fucking brain would have went in there with a troop count to destroy, not mingle with. To McCain's credit, he always advocated that strategey. Yet Bush stuck with the dumbest son of a bitch to ever hold a cabinet post, Donny Rumsfeld. That joker ran so fast out of DC when the DEMS smoked them, he looked like a flash.

Dave, you are the one who is diverging off topic.

[conversationpc]

LMAO. Any president with a fucking brain would have went in there with a troop count to destroy, not mingle with. To McCain's credit, he always advocated that strategey. Yet Bush stuck with the dumbest son of a bitch to ever hold a cabinet post, Donny Rumsfeld. That joker ran so fast out of DC when the DEMS smoked them, he looked like a flash.

Dave, you are the one who is diverging off topic.

Sorry, you are wrong. The discussion was about what the main goal of the troop surge was. Pay better attention next time.

[mikemarrs]

New Hampshire could produce any number of new storylines in this already captivating US presidential campaign, but the Clinton campaign is hoping for a remake.

Call it "Comeback Kid 2" or - more accurately, perhaps - "Bride of the Comeback Kid", a repeat of Bill Clinton's 1992 rebound from a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses. His second place in New Hampshire earned him that self-penned "Comeback Kid" nickname, and set him en route to the Democratic Party's nomination.

But the circumstances are very different. Sixteen years ago, the clear winner in Iowa was the local senator, Tom Harkin. His participation created a lop-sided and unrepresentative result.

This time, victory went to Senator Barack Obama, who has raised as much money as Senator Hillary Clinton, has developed a nationwide organisation and - as the reaction to his Iowa victory has underlined - has outstripped her in excitement and momentum.

Young voters

Mrs Clinton has acknowledged where she went wrong and is trying to reach out to the younger voters, who largely supported her younger rival in Iowa. But have the few days between the contests been enough to change perceptions; to convince a party that seems in the mood for change, that she is the best agent to achieve it?

New Hampshire, of course, isn't Iowa, a state that the Clinton campaign apparently considered bypassing at one point. The Clintons have deeper roots in the Granite State.

But those ties are being tested by Mr Obama's momentum and by a narrative which says that the New Hampshire primary could be decisive; that a second Obama victory could seal the deal.

It won't - the Clinton campaign has too much money and too much of a nationwide organisation. But, if the Illinois Senator were to gain a second, convincing win, the nervousness on display in the Clinton camp would surely intensify.

And what of John Edwards? Although the former North Carolina Senator beat Mrs Clinton into third place in Iowa, he had invested most of his money and effort in that state. His populist, anti-corporate message does not play as well in New Hampshire, so he is relying on the issue of electability.

In the post-Iowa Democratic debate, he linked himself to Mr Obama as a representative of change, but he's unlikely to finish higher than third.

McCain's up-and-down campaign

The Republicans have their own "comeback kid" - although you would hesitate to apply the term "kid" to the 71-year-old Arizona Senator John McCain. Comeback, though, is a word that fits his roller-coaster campaign perfectly.

He plunged from front-runner to also-ran over the summer, only to see his numbers rise in recent weeks, to the point where he now leads in the New Hampshire polls.

The 2000 New Hampshire primary, in which he defeated George W Bush by 18 points, was the high-water mark of the Vietnam war hero's political career. Another victory would cement his return to the status of serious contender for the Republican nomination.

As was the case in Iowa, the Republican who stands to lose the most in New Hampshire is Mitt Romney. A local - he was governor of neighbouring Massachusetts - he's been the long-time leader in the polls, until the candidate campaigning under the slogan "The Mac is back" had his recent electoral surge.

The Romney team insists that a defeat in New Hampshire wouldn't be the end of their well-funded campaign, but squandering a second lead in as many states would not look good.

The winner in Iowa, Mike Huckabee, seems unlikely to repeat his success. New Hampshire has far fewer of the Evangelical voters, who were instrumental to his earlier victory. Third place is probably the best he can hope for. But his impressive communication skills and inclusive message, touching on poverty and social justice, could see him broadening his appeal.

And there is another factor, which could harm Mr McCain. New Hampshire has a large number of registered independents, who can vote in either party's primary. In 2000, many of them supported Mr McCain but, according to the polls, in 2008, most are likely to vote in the Democratic primary.

Of the other Republicans, rumours were swirling before Iowa that former Senator Fred Thompson would quit, if he had a poor showing.

He did enough to stay in what remains a very open race, and a good performance in New Hampshire could serve as a launch pad to the Southern primaries, where he is expected to fare better.

New Hampshire's independent streak - the state's motto is "Live free or die" - suggests that it could also be a good night for the wild card in the Republican pack: the anti-war, libertarian Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul. His unconventional message has not only gained him a big and youthful internet following, and some very impressive fund-raising figures, but 10% of the vote in Iowa.

And what of Rudy Giuliani? He's done more campaigning in New Hampshire than in Iowa, but he's not seen as a serious contender. The real test for him and his "late state strategy" will come towards the end of the month in Florida, but another single-digit finish would remove more of the sheen from a campaign, which has had a rocky few weeks.

[mikemarrs]

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama rocketed to a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire one day before their showdown in the state's presidential primary, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Monday.

more stories like thisRepublican Sen. John McCain of Arizona also began to pull away from rival Mitt Romney, opening a five-point lead on the Massachusetts governor as what had been tight races in both parties began to open up.

This is the first of the rolling New Hampshire polls taken entirely after last week's caucuses in Iowa, where Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee scored breakthrough wins that left Clinton and Romney reeling.

Obama, an Illinois senator bidding to make history as the first black U.S. president, gained 11 points on Clinton to lead the one-time Democratic front-runner 39 percent to 29 percent. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was third with 19 percent.

"This is a breathtaking movement in Obama's direction," said pollster John Zogby. "It's a surge for Obama and movement away from Clinton."

He said the rush toward Obama was even more pronounced in the one day of polling after Saturday's Democratic debate in Manchester, where Clinton went on the attack against Obama and drew a rebuke from Edwards.

"It's almost Iowa redux," Zogby said. "In the closing days in Iowa we saw Clinton losing her strong support among women, liberals and Democrats, and it's happening again."

He said Obama had a big and growing lead among independents and held the edge among young voters, moderates and union members.

The rolling poll of 844 likely Democratic voters and 834 likely Republican voters was taken Friday through Sunday. It has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.

NEXT BATTLEGROUND

New Hampshire's primary on Tuesday is the next battleground in the state-by-state process of choosing Republican and Democratic candidates for November's election to replace President George W. Bush.

The pressure is on Clinton and Romney to revive their campaigns after disappointing showings in Iowa, and a second consecutive loss for either could doom their comebacks.

Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady, finished third in Iowa. Romney, who at one time led polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, finished second.

McCain sailed past Romney in the new poll to open a five-point lead at 34 percent to 29 percent. Huckabee, a Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, dropped back slightly to 10 percent, barely holding third place over former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 9 percent.

"It was a big day for McCain," Zogby said. "He maintains a very big lead among independents, but his problem is that he won't draw as many independents as he did in 2000."

McCain won the state's primary that year with help from a surge of independent support, but eventually lost the Republican nomination to Bush.

About 6 percent in each party remain undecided, according to the New Hampshire poll.

In the Democratic race, former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was in fourth place at 6 percent, ahead of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 2 percent.

In the Republican race, Texas Rep. Ron Paul was at 6 percent. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was at 3 percent and California Rep. Duncan Hunter was at 1 percent.

The rolling tracking poll will continue one more day until New Hampshire's vote on Tuesday. In a rolling poll, the most recent day's results are added while the oldest day's results are dropped in order to track changing momentum.

[Monker]

Looks like Ms. Hillary is starting to fade faster than a box of Oreos in my kitchen cupboard! She came into NH with a 4% lead over Obama, and after last night's debate, she is now trailing him by 10% in NH, according to the latest polls! That's quite a nosedive in 24 hours!


John from Boston

You're smart but where politics is concerned, you aren't too bright. Obama's win in Iowa is worth about 7 points in NH.

Let's break this down shall we. Clinton wasn't even going to compete in Iowa. She did anyway and basically tied for 2nd. She will do well in NH. You need to look at the next ten states, of which every one but SC she has 30 point leads. I am not in the least concerned.

Bill Clinton is the number one democrat but in a time where she is running on "change" he really can't be used."

I still think she will win, but she may struggle a bit.

That is the Al Gore strategy from '88. It didn't work. It won't work for Rudy. It won't work for Hillary. If she finishes a distant 2nd in NH, it's basicaly over for her. If she finishes 3rd, it IS over for her. It's a snow ball effect...and Obama benefits by beating someone who is supposed to be unbeatable - and gets a LOT of press because of it.

Hillary has not been able to find her voice. She is ahead because of name recognition. As voting time comes, people start paying attention, then the race tightens, and Obama seems to over take her. That is the pattern. A 30pt lead is way exagerated - it will never hold up.

As for not wanting to compete in Iowa...that's BS spin. She was here for a very, very long time...and lost anyway....by a large margin. The simple fact is that people saw their options and more then 2/3 of them did not choose Clinton.

Again, I think people are tired of the established politics. They want fundamental change. Hillary can not even offer that. Voting for her is like voting again for Bush. People who want something new flock to Obama. She is trying to run against that, and she can't. She has to run for 'herself'...but she doesn't seem to know how to do that and win. I don't think she can.

[Voyager]

Obama kicked ass in Iowa, and he is ahead of Clinton by nine points in New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney said: "Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee."

Hmmmmm....

[Rockindeano]

Obama kicked ass in Iowa, and he is ahead of Clinton by nine points in New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney said: "Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee."

Hmmmmm....

LOL, Mitt Romney couldn't tell what states border Massachusetts. He is toast.

[Voyager]

Clinton has a game on her hands. It's obviously not going to be a slam dunk after all.

[Monker]

Obama kicked ass in Iowa, and he is ahead of Clinton by nine points in New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney said: "Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee."

Hmmmmm....

LOL, Mitt Romney couldn't tell what states border Massachusetts. He is toast.

Ironicaly, he is basicaly in the same position as Clinton. If he loses in NH to McCain, Romney is gone. If Clinton loses badly to Obama, she is gone. Both will try for the "Super Tuesday" states...but they will be too late. Both were looked at as the front-runner "have to beat" canidates...both are on their way out of the race.

Clinton should drop out gracefully and endorse Obama...and hope he loses so she can try again in four years. She should have ran in 2000...she would have had a better chance. I simply do not believe she is the type of person people want any longer - if they ever did.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Nicely attempted diversion but the argument was about the main goal of the troop surge, which was to reduce violence.

Might want to let Conservative stalwart George Will in on that secret. As he said regarding Bush and Petraeus:

"The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- 'breathing space,' the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation."

Reduced violence was in pursuit of a larger goal a.k.a. political progress.
Benchmarks and all that, remember?

[Monker]

LMAO. Any president with a fucking brain would have went in there with a troop count to destroy, not mingle with. To McCain's credit, he always advocated that strategey. Yet Bush stuck with the dumbest son of a bitch to ever hold a cabinet post, Donny Rumsfeld. That joker ran so fast out of DC when the DEMS smoked them, he looked like a flash.

Were you not one who was for pulling all the troops out about a year ago? Seems to me that I said McCain was right and we should flood Iraq with troops...even if it took a soldier on every street corner...to bring some order to that country. You argued against that saying we should just pull out.

[Voyager]

I definitely think it is possible for Obama to win. Stranger things have happened.

It's actually looking very probable now.

[Rockindeano]

LMAO. Any president with a fucking brain would have went in there with a troop count to destroy, not mingle with. To McCain's credit, he always advocated that strategey. Yet Bush stuck with the dumbest son of a bitch to ever hold a cabinet post, Donny Rumsfeld. That joker ran so fast out of DC when the DEMS smoked them, he looked like a flash.

Were you not one who was for pulling all the troops out about a year ago? Seems to me that I said McCain was right and we should flood Iraq with troops...even if it took a soldier on every street corner...to bring some order to that country. You argued against that saying we should just pull out.

Yes, and I still think we should hitail it out of there.

So what, a surge is working..woohoo...how many dead? For what? No oil? No Democracy? No stabilization? But what do you conservatives care, none of you fight for the military, you just let someone else do it for you.

NOTHING good will come out of this Iraq episode, nothing.

Pull them all out now.

[Rockindeano]

I definitely think it is possible for Obama to win. Stranger things have happened.

It's actually looking very probable now.

Yep, 2 states out of 50...it's over.

[conversationpc]

Might want to let Conservative stalwart George Will in on that secret. As he said regarding Bush and Petraeus:

"The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- 'breathing space,' the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation."

Reduced violence was in pursuit of a larger goal a.k.a. political progress.
Benchmarks and all that, remember?

That's the ultimate goal, yes, however, the main and immediate purpose of the surge itself is to reduce violence. Otherwise, they don't even have the opportunity to do any of that other stuff. What is it that allows them to "buy time"? The reduction in violence, right?

[Enigma869]

LOL, Mitt Romney couldn't tell what states border Massachusetts. He is toast.

Mitt Romney has one MAJOR flaw...He's a Mormon! The Evengelical Christians elect more presidents in this country than ANY other group. I remember seeing a poll on CNN asking people how important a president's religion to them (and the question wasn't about faith...but which specific faith), and to my complete astonishment, the number was over 60%. I personally don't give a shit who the president prays to. Nothing could be less relevant in my world, but, apparently I'm in the minority there! I'll tell you something...The guy did get universal health care in Massachusetts, and it works. Everyone is buying coverage from large companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield and getting group rates for the insurance, which I've ALWAYS thought could be done in this country and never really understood why it hasn't been done!


John from Boston

[lights1961]

political season is almost as much fun as the NFL.

I am no democrat but GO BARAK!!! His speeches are amazing...
CLINTON would lead us to the path of the 90s which led us to WACO, whitewater
Vince Foster, travel gate, cattle futures and fake crying... and the path to 9/11 with appeasement all over the world, where terroist get a free pass or maybe a slap in the wrist....Oh but the economy ROCKED...

WE WILL BE IN IRAQ as long as we have been in Korea, Germany, GUAM, JAPAN,
and anywhere else.....

Iowa cacuses were great!! Loved doing them and now i volunteer for committees for this politcal season. and the one guy who can muster the courage to say we want to WIN the war instead of end the war...gets my vote.

Rick

FYI---TNC nice to see ya back dude!!!

[mikemarrs]

obama would be better than the clown we have now.[/list]

[Rip Rokken]

obama would be better than the clown we have now.

Right now, I'd rather vote for this joker...