Obama And Hillary Prepare For Long Road Ahead

New York Times:

With no breakout winner in Tuesday's Democratic primaries, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Wednesday began fortifying for a drawn-out nomination fight, with Mrs. Clinton disclosing that she had lent her campaign $5 million while Mr. Obama raised $3 million online in a single day and rejected calls for more debates.

The Republican candidates were more focused on the short term after Senator John McCain's strong performance on Tuesday: Mr. McCain canceled a trip to Germany in order to try to seal up the nomination in the next few contests, while Mitt Romney huddled with advisers and signaled that he would stay in the race.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[lornejl]

02:37 PM on 02/07/2008

If dems wanted change, Pelosi would not be speaker, Reid would not be majority leader, and Hillary and Obama would not be the front runners. Sugar coat it all you want , but that is the way it is.

[research]

01:15 PM on 02/07/2008

Do you all realize how SICK our election process is? The obscene millions needed PER WEEK, the corporate shutout of populist candidates.

We need: Publicly funded elections, with free debates on PBS for all the candidates who are one the ballot.

[COwoman]

01:10 PM on 02/07/2008

I have no idea why Huffpost has seemed to have lost this post. It is important and missing in action.
Please read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/senator-barack-obama-resp_b_85428.html

[HumeSkeptic]

11:13 AM on 02/07/2008

Hillary supporters never fail to bring up "experience".

Is it not true that the focus should be really on relevant accomplishments, rather than experience?

There are not many spectacular accomplishments by Obama. But what are Hillary's, independent of Bill Clinton?

And, for that matter, what are McBombs, other than getting shot down a few times, and getting captured in Vietnam? And how would that help him control the deficit and solve the healthcare mess?

And Mittens says he would consult the lawyers before he decides to take military action. And he might take another stroll with MLK before he dicides what to do about extreme economic inequities. Or he would institute a healtcare system exactly opposite to the one he instituted in Massachusetts.

Having no candidates with any significant accomplishments that matter, what it boils down to is that "vision thing" that Papa Bush always lacked, and had problem understanding.

We must make our decision based on how each candidate thinks, how they each approach problems, and what goals they each have -i.e., the vision thing. And hope for the best.

[misterbone]

10:59 AM on 02/07/2008

Remember the old Pepsi jingle, kids?

There's a whole new way of livin'
Obama helps apply the drive
He's gotta a lot to give
for those who like to live
'cause Obama helps 'em
come alive

It's the Obama generation
comin' at ya, going strong
put yourself behind Obama
If you're living
You belong

Cause you've got a lot to live
And Obama's gotta a lot to give

Yeah Obama's got a lot to give.

[Seafarer61]

10:33 AM on 02/07/2008

I've been following politics since I was a teenager and I've called every political election correct since Reagan's first save for 2000 (which I still refuse to call a loss since the Supreme Court stepped in). Sadly, I called Bush's re-election in 2004. Having written this, I'm very nervous about 2008. We know so little about Obama's history pre-Washington. The conservative machine will pound away for months at his "most liberal senator in Washington" ranking. I also do NOT agree that Clinton will bring more conservatives to the voting booth. She would not. Reason? There isn't much difference between her and McCain however there is a HUGE difference between McCain and Obama. His nomination WILL galvanize the right and conservative pundits will tell you this quietly. That is why they are championing his cause. Last night, one would of thought Hannity was stumping for Obama.
I have many conservative friends (retired military) and to a person, they want to run against Obama, not Clinton. In public, they push the "Hillary is the anti-Christ" rhetoric while in the company of uncommitted Democrats because they WANT you to vote for Obama. I'll give the right credit...they know how to play the mental games better than the left.
My prediction for 2008? McCain will edge out Obama if Barack is our nominee. If I'm wrong, fine...better for my party. If I'm right, then credit the conservatives for yet again, playing chess while the left chose to play checkers.

[HumeSkeptic]

10:43 AM on 02/07/2008

Having tried to establish your own credibility with unverifiable successes of the past, you destroyed it with your last sentence.

Poor you!

[HumeSkeptic]

10:44 AM on 02/07/2008

Or, rather with your last paragraph.

[Beelzebul]

10:28 AM on 02/07/2008

Christ, last night at a meeting of my Young Republican Club, the enthusiasm was something to behold. We're all simply thrilled over our candidates for president.

We have John McCain, a war hero who wants to bomb any and all countries. That gives my club a hard on a bear couldn't bite.

We have Mike Huckabee who loves the Lord Jesus Christ as much as all us chistian conservatives do.

We have Mitt Romney who knows how to set up offshore accounts so we don't have to pay taxes . That's a christian conservatives wet dream.

All Republicans feel blessed to have three candidates that all of us can and will support.

[Superbus]

10:32 AM on 02/07/2008

Barack and Hillary won't defend the country.

Hillary is a Christian Socialist, Obama is a Muslim Christian.

Neither Hillary nor Obama have any economic experience.

Neither Hillary nor Barack have ever run anything, not even a street lemonade stand.

[HumeSkeptic]

10:35 AM on 02/07/2008

OK. Now you can put your head back inside your ass again. Too much oxygen might kill you.

[JamesR.]

10:36 AM on 02/07/2008

I heard McCrazy ran a Savings and Loan once.

[Beelzebul]

10:19 AM on 02/07/2008

--Top Uniformed Officer Calls for Shorter Deployments, Says US Troops Are Tired--

Pussies. They volunteered to go fight the global war on terror globally and now they're whining like babies.

I can guarantee you one thing, no members of my Young Republican Club ever whine about being "tired" after working 2 or 3 hours raising upwards of 10 dollars for the troops.

[BrooklynLager]

10:48 AM on 02/07/2008

haha, now I dont' know WHAT your politics are. I was born without a sarcasm detector.

[HumeSkeptic]

10:12 AM on 02/07/2008

I think the biggest message from the elections thus far is that there is a movement to the left, both among Democrtas and whatever "left" means among the fascists.

Among the fascists, McBomb is considered a lefty because he voted against Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich, and has a sane approach to illegal immigration and Global Warming. Of course, on the issue of war, he is batshit crazy.

Among the Democrats, there was no one to the right of Hillary when it started. The dismantling of her "inevitability" by Obama is a sign that there is a movement to the left, although very slight, and mostly confined to the issues of war and foreign policy.

[Superbus]

10:14 AM on 02/07/2008

Global warming? That's what your dopey 2004 presidential candidate blamed the tornados in Tennessee and Alabama on.

Talk about morons.

[Seafarer61]

10:18 AM on 02/07/2008

John Kerry is an idiot. Come to Florida when there are thunderstorms John and watch "global warming" in action. It's what happens when warm and cool air collide. Did you NOT take science in high school? For the love of God, how in hell did that guy get our nomination in 2004? What a tool. thanks John...for giving conservative radio talk show hosts 20 minutes of fodder this afternoon for your idiotic remarks.

[Sisyphuss]

10:20 AM on 02/07/2008

Being wrong on one thing doesn't mean you're wrong on everything else. And I don't know he's wrong here, though it's a wild and unproven causal link.

[borderorder]

10:16 AM on 02/07/2008

I would think a silly millimeter to the left would be accurate.

[borderorder]

10:23 AM on 02/07/2008

Aside from that, wouldn't you concur that a true shift to the left would require a dramatic push that direction in congress? A president can only do so much.

[HumeSkeptic]

10:26 AM on 02/07/2008

That's abot the extent of it. Although, on the issue of war there is a clear difference, and a meaningful one.

[Beelzebul]

10:11 AM on 02/07/2008

As a lifelong Republican, I'm very pleased to see my fellow Republicans reject the Dems latest stimulus package.

The Dems wanted to give billions of dollars to old people and disabled veterans and my team said no way in hell. Giving money to old people is like throwing money out the window. They'll soon be dead anyway. And giving money to disabled vets is even more absurd. They should instead be put down and their disability monies be given to recruiters to recruit more young blood to fight the global war on terror globally.

Thank you my fellow Republicans for not allowing the Dems to waste taxpayer dollars on the old and on veterans that are no longer of any use.

[VogonsCryptolect]

10:13 AM on 02/07/2008

That's not what really happened but it's nice spin Beel.

[BushJustdrivesdemscrazy]

10:19 AM on 02/07/2008

I also wonder how he figures that providing that money would help stimulate the economy anyway.

Why can't Dems focus on the subject at hand?

It's just like when Max Cleland lost his Senate seat by trying to turn Homeland Security legislation into a handout for the unions.

[JamesR.]

10:25 AM on 02/07/2008

You'd rather see them bail out the bond issurers right Cramer? Or just continue to devalue the dollar by dumping into the markets virtual funny money? LOL

[Superbus]

10:16 AM on 02/07/2008

It's not the Congress' money to give away. Remember Davey Crockett's speech on the House floor over 180 years ago.

[BrooklynLager]

10:27 AM on 02/07/2008

I would like to direct you, sir, to the US constitution.

[robodweeb]

10:28 AM on 02/07/2008

Davey Crockett accused his opponent of dressing in women's clothes.

(Not Rudy)

[robodweeb]

10:09 AM on 02/07/2008

Democrats can't decide who they like best.

Republicans can't decide who they hate less.

I've got HAPPY FEET!

[VogonsCryptolect]

10:11 AM on 02/07/2008

That's not "HAPPY" it's a fungus, Try Tinactin.

[SupremeIdiot]

10:11 AM on 02/07/2008

Bust a move Robo!

heh...

[Sisyphuss]

10:09 AM on 02/07/2008

Daily tracking results (Rasmussen) show that McCain leads Clinton 46% to 44% while Obama leads McCain 46% to 43%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[JamesR.]

10:10 AM on 02/07/2008

LOLOL Rasmussen. Got any Zogby polls?

[Sisyphuss]

10:15 AM on 02/07/2008

Zogby has not been doing real well lately. I haven't seen anything recent that is comparable to the Rasmussen above.

[BrooklynLager]

10:29 AM on 02/07/2008

Common sense told me to ignore the Zogby poll in California.

This one makes perfect sense to me; I'm just surprised it's not more lopsided.

[Seafarer61]

10:08 AM on 02/07/2008

What I found most compelling with exit polling Tuesday night was this revelation: The majority (a good majority) of Democrats, even those who voted for Obama, would be more comfortable with Clinton as commander in chief. How interesting. They want to "punish" her by going with Barack because she voted for the war but when the shit hits the fan, they don't want Obama in charge.

Those numbers speak for themselves and clearly back up the observation that huge groups of people are voting for Obama with their heart, not their head. Clinton wouldn't of had such a commanding advantage when voters were pressed with that preference for military leadership if the observation was false.

Inspiration is fine for locker room pep talks but the nation wants a leader on the playing field...at least that's what they're saying.

[robodweeb]

10:10 AM on 02/07/2008

I thought the interesting statistic was that the majority of white males voted for Obama.

[Seafarer61]

10:22 AM on 02/07/2008

I'm not terribly surprised. This race has become one of gender and skin color through no fault of the candidates (OR their spouses). It's been fueled by the media who require SOMETHING to talk about to carry their nightly political speak on cable news. Talking issues would put people to sleep so they spend hours upon hours ranting about crap nobody gives a hoot about. I know...I'm one of the poor saps that actually watches FOX, MSNBC and CNN. God help me.

[JamesR.]

10:27 AM on 02/07/2008

I didn't.

[BrooklynLager]

10:32 AM on 02/07/2008

Really. You found that more compelling then the actual results?

Hillary Clinton is a pretty-good fit for Commander-in-Chief. McCain is better. Thank god that's not what people are voting over.

[sonofloud]

10:03 AM on 02/07/2008

Of course Obama rejected calls for more debates.
He is all style over substance.

How can you debate when you have no past record or no plans for the future?

Hasn't the last 8 years been enough???

[m4rk0]

10:05 AM on 02/07/2008

There have been 18 debates so far. Why let her get free airtime when she's running out of money to run ads. It would be stupid for him to take her up on the offer.

[Seafarer61]

10:11 AM on 02/07/2008

It's never stupid to debate the issues. It doesn't matter how much air time someone gets if they are sending the wrong message. Obama is a big loser on this one. It makes him look afraid to get on stage with little ole' Hillary.

[BrooklynLager]

10:33 AM on 02/07/2008

Right, and "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first bush; it'll take a Clinton to clean up after the second" is really sound policy arguments at its finest.

She's better with sound bites. I'll give you that.

[suntzu]

10:02 AM on 02/07/2008

For you political caricature fans, go here, a must see.

http://tinyurl.com/3cuyxt