Presidential candidate Barack Obama has won 11 straight victories over his last remaining rival for the Democratic nomination, fellow senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton is hoping for wins in Ohio and Texas next week. But what if she fails to win next week? That is a scenario that appears increasingly likely, with polls showing Obama with a slight lead in Texas and rapidly gaining ground on Clinton in Ohio.
For some time now voters have been hearing that the race between Clinton and Obama could continue right up until this summer's Democratic convention. That is good news for voters in states that vote late in the primary calendar.
But an elongated primary season might not be in the best interests of the Democratic Party, regardless of the outcome. Waging a six month long primary battle will only hurt eventual Democratic nominee's chances in Novemeber. Right now the Democratic candidates are wasting time, energy, and money that would be better spent campaigning against their real opponent, Republican nominee John McCain. Plus, the longer the fight between Clinton and Obama goes on, the more bitter it becomes.
The Clinton campaign is already stooping to new lows in negative campaigning. Clinton recently compared Obama's foreign policy experience to that of George W. Bush before he became president in 2000 - which is to say non-existent. She quipped that Obama would need a "foriegn policy manual" to handle crisis and emergencies abroad.
Clinton also sought to define Obama's message of change as naive this week.
"None of the problems we face will be easily solved," she said. "Now I could stand up here and say, 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.'"
"Maybe I've just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."
After the March 4 contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont there will be few states up for grabs until the month of May. The rest of the primary calendar for the Democrats looks like this:
March 8 - Wyoming
March 11 - Mississippi
April 22 - Pennsylvania
May - Indian, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia
June - Montana, South Dakota
After Mississippi there will be more than month long period of before the next primary in Pennsylvania. That is a month that Obama could spend fundraising and preparing for the showdown with John McCain, if Hillary Clinton exits the race soon. Or it could be a month of negative campaigning between Clinton and Obama, wasted resources, and free time for John McCain to begin convincing American voters that he is the right man for the job.
Of course Clinton still has to lose in Ohio and Texas. She may very well win in both states. That scenario would result in the same sort situation though - an elongated primary season that hurts the Democratic nominee and benenfits John McCain.
What do you think about this year's battle between Clinton and Obama?
Has the race been too long?
Should Clinton drop out if she fails to win Texas and Ohio?
How could the battle between Clinton and Obama impact the outcome of the general election in November?
David Anderson is a political correspondent for Gather.com. You can read all of David's past correspondent articles by clicking here
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 125
I think this year's battle between Clinton and Obama is actually
a battle between the anti-war and progressive/moderates and
moderates and independents will not vote for inexperience and
ambiguous change couched in an unconditional withdrawal from
Iraq and what is turning out to be an empty image. Health care
if the number one issue, and I know Clinton has a slightly better
plan and is more likely to get it passed.
The last time we voted for someone with a short hidden record
we got Bush ... but then we voted him in again. Let's forget the
vengeance on the country and forgo the 8 years of a Democratic
Bush and just go back to normal.
of looking like a b* and going negative, but in a smart way.
Obama is being shifty and needs to define himself, or stop
trying to fool all of the people all of the time as Lincoln
said.
Seems to me that would be about exactly the same as Bill's experience going in as well!
Honestly, I could take any of the three over this idiot who is supposedly leading the country at the moment (shame on the American people for electing him! TWICE!)
I don't know how anyone can say Clinton has any more experience than Obama; they're both senators; she was the president's wife; she was the governor's wife. So what!?
She's got some serious skeletons in her closet ("Whitewater"), which are going to be dragged out if she gets the Democratic nomination.
The last is cause for great speculation as many of these votors have to be republican crops overs. Exit polls have some seeing an inevitable democratic victory in November and are choosing their lesser of two evils candidate now. Others are trying to help the candidate they perceive as easier to beat in November and some just want to exercise what may be their last chance to vote against Hillary.
Delegate allocation favors Obama. Precincts with a strong history of voting democratic get to choose more delegates and those are expected to be Obama precincts.
Hillary could eek out a popular vote win here and yet make no appreciable gains in the delegate count.
I'm just watching the end of their last (?) debate and it has only strengthened my support for her.
will look for a way to vote for him, but I expect I will vote for McCain.
I think Hillary Clinton has much more experience. I also know she
is ready to implement what she knows right away. Obama is so
far away from being able to jump into a job like this.
Another thing is that Obama was a one hit wonder, the war in Iraq.
He has stolen a year of Senatorial duties from the people of Illinois
to run for President before he has finished his first term. I find that
a total lack of character and integrity.
He is now furiously talking with former Neocons like Zbigniew Brzezinski
and also talking with Colin Powell trying to figure out what he thinks
and what he will do for his platform. Hillary Clinton has had the
platform for 16 years.
Maybe I will see the ... a ... light with Obama, but I honestly do not
think there is one, but there is no way he has as much experience
maturity or understanding as Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. I
understand what his fans are saying to try prove he does, just
think it is more thin air.
She is fully expected to hold on until the convention. Heck, maybe even Edwards will stick his hat out again when that meeting of deciders comes along.
Hillary is totally unlikely to drop out.
One wildcard is John Edwards. If he is going to endorse anyone, it will have to be no later than this Saturday in order to have any affect. Any later endorsement will likely be moot.
get the nomination and win. I think that is starting to get
transferred to independents and moderates and the Dems
will lose again from being to arrogant and thoughtless
about what to present the whole country with.
33% of the sarcasm ... Obama is not finding it hard to find people
who know more than him - everyone in the government for over
3 years knows more than him and that is almost everyone.
I don' think it is bad that he is talking to people, I think it is bad
that he thinks he can be president without having years of thought
on America and her problems and some solutions other than hope
or hype.
Unlike the Republican primaries, the Dems do not do "winner take all." If they did, Obama would have wrapped it up by now. Would that be a good thing?
I don't think the contest between them is inherently a bad thing, but if they continue the mudslinging, they are only giving the Republicans a bunch of quotes to use in the final campaign. The other question is, if it gets too rough, will the supporters of the loser vote for the winner? Or cross over and vote for McCain? Or just stay home?
In the end, I am hopeful that the loser will do the honorable thing and throw his/'her support to the winner, and even campaign for them. The alternative to a Dem victory is a president who wants to escalate the War, who is adamantly opposed to women's right to choose, and who wants to appoint more Supreme Court justices like Scalia, Roberts and Alito. That outcome is totally unacceptable to me...and I hope to most Democrats.
I don't know why I'm even commenting on this -- I'd rather keep Bush than elect any of these 3 knuckleheads.
She should not drop out unless and until, she has lost Texas and Ohio! The more time that she continues in the contest, the more that Obama will be forced to deal with problems that the Republicans are going to attack him with after the convention. In fact, they are doing it already.
Obama has not been vetted for this position. How is he going to defend his churches characteristics? We need to hear that before he is nominated. How about the so called slumlord affiliation? Another we need to hear from him on.
The remaining voters need all the information they can get in picking the candidate and Hillary remaining in the race will help bring out the information that is needed.
Hillary, on the other hand, is totally vetted. The Republicans and Ken Star spent eighty million dollars trying to come up with something, anything on the Clintons and they were both exonerated! The Republicans can and will rehash it ad nauseoum in the campaign, but the surprise factor isn't there.
Hillary is prepared to serve as president on day one. She is the only candidate who meets this criteria. Do people hate her? Of course some do! But most of them will hate any Democrat who takes office.
I actually think that left to her own wisdom Hillary would have gotten out of the race some time ago. Unfortunately it's Bill who is most passionate about regaining the White House and it looks like he's taken the win at all cost mentality.
While the current situation suggests Obama is ahead, lets remember that he and Clinton are both polarizing candidates ... and it is not clear which could win a general election (polls not withstanding).
Bush has insisted on "yes" persons and neo-cons. Look where that's gotten us. Obama has many people around him with years of experience in several different administrations, including Bill Clinton's administration. Hillary has .... well, Bill Clinton of NAFTA and personal integrity issues. Where she has experience is falling on her face trying to get a Universal Health Care plan past a radical right led Congress. So this time she involves the big corporate Health care icons. Not a good change.
John: What you just said should get your mouth washed out with soap. I'll repeat my oft asked and never answered question: Exactly what has Bush done in nearly eight years?
> You know I've heard the experience argument alot
> against obama, I really have, and I always come
> back with the same answer...What's Hillary done?
I think that is a fair comment, unlike most of the crap
above there.
It is a huge slap in the face to the Clinton campaign
that Hillary Clinton has not recognizes and dealt better
or at all at communicating these issues.
I a backward and ignorant way Devin is right by saying
that she doesn't seem to really want to run. But to me
that is a the reason I came to support her at all.
All the others are these alpha male egomaniacs fighting
to sway people using 8 years of pent up frustration
against Bush .... Hillary is the only one, left anyway, who
is just a normal person.
The crying incident, I don't think was staged or calculated,
if Hillary was so calculating she would be winning, the
point is she is not, she is a genuine person, and I think
people are more afraid of that than a cardboard cutout
that Barack Obama is.
First, all the candidate take money from special
interests in one way or another, they are all
competing for an image on that.
Also, the amount of money from special interests
is not enough to buy anyone if they are not already
willing to be bought.
It is particularly interesting that you condemn
Clinton on Health care since that was her
issue before it was anyone else's.
Then you talk about her advisors. I guess you do
know about Obama and Brzezinski who is the guy
who put the "new pearl harbor" phrase in the
PNAC white papers.
Face it, you Obama fanatics are even more stupid
than the "W" fanatics, but he's your man so nothing
else matters. Enjoy.
EM, your fuel contributes to global warming, I'm glad most women are fueled by a sunnier fuel than you.
I might not have been clear enough, but I cited Clinton's comparison of Obama to Bush as evidence of her switch to negative campaigning. The comparison to Bush was meant as an insult to Obama's supposed inexperience in foreign policy.
There is a lot of comparison to Obama and Bush.
Both of them are ahead based on image and polish.
I remember the same questions of experience of Bush.
Though more paper trail and history was available on
Bush at the time to know about.
Democrats are more concerned about having their
own Bush than getting back to normal.
The whole change for change's sake things is silly.
If anyone had a brain they would remember that
Bush was the change, and to get back to normal
is not change, it is return to some kind of status
quo, not gambling on a wacko to make everything
perfect.
Remember George Bush set the country off on two
objectives, the ownership society, which Obama has
never mentioned, and the war, which is has pandered
to the antiwar movement on, but just sloganeered about
so far.
All the other Demcrats tried to avoid the war, it is the
hot third rail because it cannot be discussed with
Democrats who want the whole country changed.
I think that "feeling" is fair, I think it is impossible to
do without knowing who runs the show, and also
without a plan.
For some examples, check out Obama's 64 page plan for America:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Obama's stances on many issues are considered moderate by many Democrats and independents. Many of the party's more left leaning liberals have issues with what Obama has planned for the country. For example, many want to see a single payer universal health care system established. Such a program would be managed by the government, and cover every American. Obama does not support such a plan, nor does Hillary Clinton.
My point here is that the claim that Obama's campaign is based on empty rhetoric ignores the detailed plans that he has made public, and enumerated on numerous occasions. Nor are Obama's plans for the country particularly idealistic or overly liberal in nature.
Fight for OH and TX, then bow out because it will be more clear to see that she cant win (neither of them can win outright, her less likely). I will vote for her if she wins. She is capable but her campaign staff is imcompetent.
Its a good article and I gave you a ten for expression and Spin,
But the reality is beginning to emerge that while the Senator is a fine man, and with some seasoning will make a great president.
He is still years less experienced than Hillary, and come the convention I fully anticipate she will top the ticket, but should he manage to arrive with more delegates than her I will support him as enthusiastically and I hope his supporters would do the same
for Hillary
early on that not only would his administration avoid wrongdoing
but they would even avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. I am
not sure I remember the exact quote, but something to that effect.
I look at your Obama link and ethics is on top. Obama's stand is
just what you would expect for someone who wants to get elected,
just like Bush's was.
This is not about his pretty words or ideas. I have always liked the
transparency in government idea that he co-sponsored. This is
about my not knowing enough in time by my criteria to feel comfortable
with Obama. I rate that really highly. I also think that he is not
going to have the appeal Democrats think he does with moderates
and independents, though I am against the polls on that one.
Being a moderate I have to trust my gut on that one since the polls
have been conspicuously wrong on these kinds of important issues.
I am also not ignoring the plans he has put out there, I am saying
to me the plans look like the play second fiddle to a rabidly egotistical
demogog who has to run for President now before he has finished
his first national term in office.
I would prefer Obama to be more Liberal, if he had these plans and
this platform his whole life, demonstrably, and was not backfilling to
invent the backside cardboard view of himself now.
This is not a question of Liberal or Conservative, I am more Liberal,
and in particular would like national health care. I am not willing to
gamble the country on someone who to me is an unknown, I don't
warm up to people easily. To me this is about real. Both McCain
and Clinton are more real to me.
Then again, I pretty much avoid the commercial media totally, and
popular culture too. SNL died a long time ago for me, I don't care
who is on it to score with young kids anymore.
That said, you never know in elections. One scandals it turns upside down. That's what Hillary has going for her. Obama is so new, you just never know what turns up that nobody knew before.
Scandals aside, my preditions: March 4 will be a split Obama taking Texas and Vermont, Hillary taking Ohio and Rhode Island. She might drop out this Friday because they have internal polling (the best of any candidate). The longer she stays the less likely of an Obama/Clinton ticket and I truely believe that would be a very strong ticket. I still want her on the ticket.
Where did you get the idea I was dogging Hillary on health care? I am opposed to her taking money from big health care interests when healthcare reform is one of her main issues because it means she cannot possibly be objective. I am a strong supporter of universal health care and was defending her on this on another thread. Whatever we eventually end up with will resemble nothing either of them has talked about.
Obama is not "my man" in fact I am really sad that I found out that Hillary has such poor judgment that she would even consider listening to Maxine Waters. On the other hand I'm not quite sure why you interpreted my compliment about her missing many fewer votes this past year than either Obama or McCain as a slam. I think it's a good thing when people show up and do their jobs. Perhaps you can explain why it's a bad thing?
As for me being an Obama fanatic.....would you care to point to anywhere I give that impression or make statements to that effect? Personally I'm finding more and more that turns me off to both of them and McCain is out of the question because of his stand on the war.
Bruce, you actually consider Bush polished? Really? *shakes head* Never mind. No matter what I say at this point about that comment would make me appear impolite. Mr. Bush promises us he would be a person who would bring the country together and he's been the most divisive president thus far in my memory. He called himself a compassionate conservative without knowing the meaning of either of those words if his subsequent actions are any indication.
I honestly don't know who I will vote for come November. I'm really disappointed in both of my choices at the moment for differing reasons. The only thing I know 100% for certain without a doubt anywhere is that anything we get is going to have to be better than what we currently have.
The only people he brought together are the neocons, and the result has been absolute disaster for the country. "Compassionate Conservative" AKA "Hardball Neocon Partisan.'
The K Street Project is an example of what these people think politics is all about...i.e., Big Money, influence peddling, evangelism, and worldwide visions of grandeur. They have bankrupted the country...financially, economically, morally and politically. I have lived through a lot of Presidents and their lackeys in my seventy one years. These guys are the worst by an order of magnitude.
I live in Oregon and everyone that I know, which are many, are "not" voting for Obama.
When asked why, they'll tell you that there's just something about him, something that just isn't right, but something that they just can't put their finger on. I also feel that way. He also comes across as extremely arrogant. We already have that kind of attitude in the White House and we all know where it's gotten us. We don't need it again. All I know is that I want the best "person" for that job, regardless of their party affilliation, that's why I believe there should be no parties, just people running and we would choose the best from that. Too bad more people don't think that way, as we just might end up with someone who is actually qualified for the job.
As an Obama supporter, I have read about his plan for health care, and his plans for education. And while Hillary's plans are similar, I don't think she will be able to bring the country (or the legislation) together.
She didn't get a health care plan in place when Bill was in office--what has changed? If anything, we are far more divisive. She is a lightening rod for partisanship.
I cited Oregon based on the results of Washington state and Northern California, which Obama won. Things change, Obama was supposed to win NH, we all know what happened.
Understand that your friends and you, however many do not represent a valid statistical sample. Neither do my hundreds of friends and myself, because we are likely to vote similarly. Also, Obama has not showed up yet in Oregon (LOL). He is always down double digit before he shows up, and four days later, he is down 2 pts or leading. Some people have suggested that it is not Obama, it is Mrs Bill Clinton who the more people hear from her, the less they want to vote for her. Her numbers dropped in most states (except NH). Well, that's not statistically significant either she only won 11 out of 34.
I concede the "arrogant" point. I've heard it although I have no idea where it's coming from. I've heard it. As far as the best guy to get the job done, well that's what the election is about. I believe he is, you don't, let's hear from other people and not the super delegates who gave her the nod last summer before a single vote was cast. Take super delegates out of both them and she is down 150, no way to make it up! The super are defecting, so that "will take care of itself"
Image Barack Obama had lost 11 in a row, and down 148 on the pledge delegates and lost 4 super delegates since super Tuesday while Hillary gained 25.
We would hear people from Al Gore to Al Sharpton telling him not to destroy the party and hurt their chances of beating McCain. None of them dare call on the Clintons. Look at the super delegates they went on her side in Summer 2007. She lost the super competition since people started voting. Now they are defecting. The defections are a call for drop out without the courage of stating it.
> She didn't get a health care plan in place when Bill was in office--what has changed?
Are you really so clueless as to not get it that the economy was so good in the 90's that not that many people gave a damn about the health care problem. It has come to fruition, and Hillary Clinton was there and trying to do something about it when most of the people who knew about this problem saw what she was trying to do as communism.
decide for them. I think Clinton is right to continue to the end if
she so chooses. The Democratic party is past pretending there are
not major divisions in it, that it is somehow unified. The feeble attempt
and ignoring issues has tossed their best and most experienced
candidates away like yesterday's newpaper and led to a complete
novice being raised as the candidate.
I don't really know or care how many are like me that are going to
be forced to vote for McCain if Obama wins, but if there is any
hope Clinton can win I am glad she is in there trying. It shows
even more of her grit and determination that she has to work
twice as hard because she is not as naturally charismatic. I
really would prefer to not have another Republican in the
White House.
The media has been unfair to her lately. But Pre Iowa, they ridiculed Obama campaign and did not give anybody else a chance. It was a 180 flip after Iowa, even calling for Hillary to drop out before NH if she lost by double digit. We all know how that turned out.
Still, Hillary never got going. Her campaign was just spining everything. This is a race for delegates and she, not on any election day, won more delegates.
Jan 3 - Iowa 16 - 15 Obama (O)
Jan 8 - NH 9 - 9
Jan 19 - NV 13 - 12 O
Jan 26 - SC 25 - 12 O
Super Tues 842-828 O (11 still to be decided)
2/9 (LA, NE, WA, VI) 105-56 O
2/10 (ME) 15 - 9 O
2/12 (DA, DC, MD, VA) 111 - 57.5 (6.5 to be decided)
2/19 (HI,WI) 56 - 38 O
Yet the media used the super delegates count which she received before any voting took place, to hide that she was losing delegates. You can say she lost all of them, tied one because it is a race for delegates.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/27/20620/9054/106/464673
> HOWEVER, he's been trying to please the right wing nuts ever since he started running.
Of course, in the nomination Republicans run to the right, Democrats run to the left, in the lection Democrats run to the right, Republicans run to the left with a few curves thrown in weird cycles like this.
I don't hold that against McCain, if he didn't he might not have gotten the nomination, but then again look at how awful the rest of the Republicans were.
Obama is untouchablely politically correct that makes it up to him to decide if he is going to let people know what he's like or not. I don't go for that. McCain or Clinton are not my favorite people but I know what to expect from them. I'd prefer Clinton, but I can live with McCain. I think a correct strategy for Clinton to attack Obama was hard, what can you say against sweetness and light. I personally do not like people like Obama, I find them untrustworthy and always playing games. The people who manipulate others the best in my experience have been psychopaths, maybe why I don't like most politicians.
I cannot live with something I do think I not know, something that does not apparently want to tell me what he is all about though. If Obama's elected and he does good, I'll vote for him next time. If not I'll be railing about it here on Gather! ;-)
I honestly expect Obama could be as irritating as Bush, so if he's not my expectations will be exceeded and I'll be happy. But I don't think he can win, and I don't think Democrats can hang together.
Actually, wasn't the economy the central issue during the 1992 election. Remember, "Its the economy stupid." was the central theme of Clinton's campaign. There was a recession under way, and many Americans believed that Clinton could deliver on the healthcare issue. The economy improved, probably due more to a surge in opportunities in the high tech/computer industry than anything that Clinton did. He did balance the budget, which will need to be done again once G.W. leaves office.
Things got better and boomed. I don't recall there being the cry for health
care then that there was now. I thought it was nice that Hillary Clinton wanted to fix health care, but I personally had no problem with it, or that is what I thought. I just have not had to use it, and been fortunate enough to have avoided these holes that the insurance companies let people fall through.
I heard a scary thing on the radio a while back where some political pundit was saying the thoughts are - why balance the budget and set things up for the other side to spend like crazy and curry everyone's favor ... in short citizens are so stupid they do not credit anyone with balancing the budget even if they do not want to go into debt, they still do not want to pay for taxes.
Just remember for everydollar we borrow, we have to pay some amount - 6 cents or so in interest ... that means more taxes and less benefits .. which is the Republicans goal. They are using economics to wreck the country.
p.s. James Carville said "it's the economy stupid
many people did not follow Obama during summer. He was very detailed and plan-specific at town hall meetings. The MSM said he was boring, he was being too much of the professor that he is, too academic. They poke fun at him and asked "where is that guy who gave that speech in 2004 at the DNC in Boston." That's what I was referring to and can still find references of it online.
Well, he took note, did not whinne, and came with the 'uplifting' speeches and the MSM jumped on the bandwagon. Can you blame him? I don't.
As far as the left wing nuts, who are they? I think they are called radicals (LOL). Maybe they will vote Nader. Just kidding, I think Obama should be their guy if he wins the nomination. To me Hillary is too close to the right, which is good in the general, not right now.
I stand corrected.
> I also think that which ever of them gets the nomination, people
> are going to have to make a decision: do they really want a
> hundred more years in Iraq or do they want it ended one way
> or another sooner than later?
I think this is a choice that Obama supporters are thinking they
have, which is why I have no respect for Obama. I think it is a
false choice, and the "100 years in Iraq" comment is way overblown.
It is like saying if we get rid of cops we can get rid of crime.
The problems in the Middle East will not go away unless they are
solved. They will not be solved without using force. If these
problems do not go away there is no chance of either world
peace, or steady supply of oil, or women's and human rights in
these lands, Israel will be threatened leading to nuclear war,
Europe will continue to be Islamicized.
This area got so evil and backward because of people standing
down and saying it won't happen in my lifetime, what do I care.
I think we should care.
helping me to see better what a great candidate Obama is.
I'll vote for Obama only on the condition that against everything
I can do he gets elected in 2008, and then does a great job and
runs again. Until that point, it is Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
I don't care what names people want to call me. The nerve of
a less-than one term Senator getting hyped to the White House
amazes me - not in a good way.
I enjoy watching the rapport between Hillary and Barack.
I think that the negative attacks can show to whom keeps their emotions in check during stressful times, but I do think she should bow out gracefully for the sake of the party.
This is an interesting contest and I have found a great deal of people that are impassioned with the process.
Especially here in NH where we are so fortunate to always be in the thick of it.
Thanks
Reports are surfacing that they are menacing the Texas democratic party over its primary/caucus system with a law suit. Keep in mind that these rules have been in place for decades. Bill Clinton won under the same rules. Of course, what else is new? Change the rules when they don't suit us.
One link of the story. Many more links can be found on google news
http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html
The biggest job of the U.S. should be setting its own house right. We have so many all but overwhelming problems here at home where we at least understand the people, the culture, the history, etc. that it is ridiculous to be spending the money and the lives we are trying to "fix" the Middle East where we basically understand none of these factors.
No matter how many soldiers we sacrifice over there it's never going to be enough. While diplomacy might be a dirty word to Mr. Bush, it remains the only way such geopolitical problems eventually get solved. I'm not sure, given the repeated no-show of the Iraqi government when it comes to any sort of action, that it's even possible in Iraq. In some ways the Iraqi government is nearly as pig headed and ineffective as Mr. Bush.
To me a definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and hoping for a different result. There is no "win" in Iraq. Heck to this date there's not even a definition of what "win" means or a clear path on how we would get there. It's time to put the Iraqi government's feet to the fire and insist that they either act or fall.
My vote is yes. Clearly the Dem Party is pretty evenly split over these two. We desperately need them to work together, not disparage each othe, which hands the election over to the warrior McCain.
Citing the Delegate Math, the Obama Camp Tells Clinton: You Will "Fail Miserably"
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7435_citing_the_dele.html