To Minneapolis Mike & "Flashlight": I've scanned the above & previous blog responses in your profile, & really can't decide whether your writing is "tongue in cheek" irony or for real. A couple of other repostes say you are a "kidder" & joking. I sure hope so.
But IF it's for real, I have to tell you all - seriously - that you/your list of blog fans are truly sick, sick puppies.
(And if that's a fact for you Mike, it's a shame; I always regarded your namesake City as one of the best in the North. I can never regard it in the same light again!)
We've still only seen the "tip of the iceberg", insofar as the wanton, criminal waste of this admin. is concerned; but they can't hide it, when they aren't in office. And that's when it will all REALLY hit the fan (& why they'll stoop to ANYTHING to hang on to the Oval Office!).
Our current "Chief of State" is destined to go down in history books as the most inept, unscrupulous, unprincipled, counter-constitutional/totally manipulated man ever elected to this esteemed office.
The fact that 25-30% of this country can still countenance, or even stand - let alone "admire" & WANT to follow him (over the precipice of debt, failure & shame he has brought us/for our successive generations), is a serious symptom of just how far we have fallen as a people.
IF your views - straight or sicko-comic - have any weight in our future politics, we're in - as GWB's "Papa" liked to say - really DEEP DOO DOO!

Does Hillary own a dress?

We are not electing a king. Congress still makes the laws.Hillary's 47% negative means she could not get anything done

Obama has already redrawn the color of the map - it is not red or blue - it is now the color of water, as was so eloquently described in James McBride's 1996 memoir to his mother.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/11/barack-obama-the-color-of-water/

Plus, when he names Kansas Govenor Kathleen Sebelius his running mate, Kansas will go BLUE. So will COlorado (which is already a PURPLE STATE, and so will Missouri and Iowa, which are officially quasi-RED STATES that Dems had never poured significant resources into.

Winning those states would put Obama in a position John Kerry was never in in 2004, because Kerry never won any

Obama's inclusion of Kathleen Sebelius http://www.governor.ks.gov//) as his VP will ensure that the Democrats are a majority party once again.

Mark my words.

It will redraw the map.

Obama is doing well in states that Democrats have not tradionally won during presidential elections.

And, he did exceedingly well in states labeled quasi-Red or "Purple".

If winning presidential elections meant the DEM Nominee only had to win BLUE STATES, then John Kerry would have been the nominee. Obama understands that when DEMS compete everywhere, that bodes well for the party.

Obama is the first clear beneficiary of Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy", whcih put boots on the ground in the 50 States in 2005 - a move that was the primary reason Democrats have a commanding majority in the House of Representatives.

Obama knows that this is about DEMS winning more state houses, more governorships, and more seats in congress, not just winning the presidency (by counting on only BLUE STATES) - and doing it without a working majority of DEMS, GOPers and independents to push through a progressive agenda.

Obama will be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in generations.

Don't worry about the religious right. When they start thinking about Barak Hussein Obama sitting in the Oval Office, they'll go ballistic. Expect WHITE HOT fervor.

Do the Obamaniacs really believe that a black ultra-liberal college professor, with a goofy African-Moslem name, is going to be welcomed with open arms by lily-white America?

What idiots. They have no idea what America is about.

You sure mike isn't a Republican spy for Mccain?

Why is Obama repeatedly called Senator, when Hillary Clinton is consistently 'Mrs.'? Why are her qualifications and experience downplayed? Not once in this article is she called Senator Clinton. This might seem a minor point, but it is significant that as far as reporters are concerned she is simply Bill's wife, with no accomplishments or ideas of her own. In contrast to the awe and approbation Obama seems to receive for having accomplished very little, it shows rather glaring prejudice against a viable female candidate. It can't help but skew the reader's opinion. And I expect it's deliberate.

Obama ain't no prize either.

A nice-sounding bill called the "GLOBAL Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a GLOBAL TAX on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending will then become subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. The UN, by the way, is a big part of a "World Tax" scheme they'd rather you not know about.

So it's global, but not global? Sounds like a platform he's adopt.

Obama's proposed legislation also purportedly contains a hidden gun control provision.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT? ANOTHER CFR NEW WORLD ORDER GLOBALIST STOOGE? GAHHHH!

WORSE, Barack Obama's foreign adviser is the ARCHITECT of the smash-and-grab genocide in the Middle East: Zbigniew Brzezinski. Obama = MORE WAR = DRAFT.

Never mind what the man says or how he says it. He'll betray us all. His voting record closely matches Hillary Clinton's. Here is the new boss, same as the old boss, DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.

Aren't hardcore Democrats FURIOUS at the hijacking of their party by closet Neocons??? It's time for a third party candidate. The Constitution Party. The Peace Coalition. I don't care; I just refuse to accept my nonchoices.

This election may be less geographical than any in recent memory. Or, at least, it will begin to reverse the segmenting of the electorate along geographical lines - i.e. coastal blue and interior red.

The NY Times opinion page is interesting today (Friday). Krugman writes on the contagion in the credit crisis which he compares to the 30's in the sense that both are characterized by a crisis of confidence in the financial system. Brooks, the conservative, writes a column suggesting consevatism needs a new start and then concentrates on social policy, because a change in social policy, he says, is necessary to have success in the economy. Laissez-faire is not enough!!
Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Mr. Brooks, please burn your Republican party card at the next neo-con convention and join the Obamicans.
If we are to have good social policy we need conservative input and we will not be getting any from Krauthammer, Kristol, et al.

"The problem is not a lack of good ideas. The problem is that Washington is the place good ideas come to die". - Barack Hussein Obama

With a democratic majority in congress expected and a democratic president, Obama, we progressives can expectedly get something done, if we hit the ground running. We need to get the distraction of Hilary out of the picture and start concentrating on the legislative agenda which, if well structured, will pay off for dems and the public for the next decade.

There is a graphic rep ofthe states in this article which shows the states that were close during the last election. They are as follows:

NH- Clinton
NJ - Clinton
PA - not voted yet
OH - not voted yet
MI - Clinton (but doesn't count)
WI - not voted yet
IO - Obama
MN - Obama
FL - Clinton (but doesn't count)
CO - Obama
NM - Clinton
NV - Clinton
OR - not voted yet
WA - Obama

That's Clinton 6, Obama 4

It certainly could. McCain has a healthy amount of support in the southwest, not to mention the possibility of shaking up the hispanic vote due to his stance on immigration. Furthermore, if he can't convince the religious right that his change is sincere, (Dobson still won't endorse him), they may just sit on their hands in November.

Beyond that, Obama has been lifting the percentage of black voters by substantial amounts, and states like Virginia have been wobbling away from the conservative end of the spectrum.

Obama is bringing out new voters, but isn't guaranteed 100% of the traditional democratic base. McCain is losing traditional voters, too, but taking some that typically would vote democratic.

Either way, these two candidates would make it an interesting fall.

excerpted from: http://www.politicalmaelstrom.blogspot.com

Obviously John McCain will not only easily win every state President Bush won in both 2000 and 2004, but win almost every other state as well. No reason exists why each and every of the record 60 million who voted for President Bush in 2004 won't vote for John McCain in 2008. Not only will all the 60 million ensure a victory, they will all demand that at least one other person will vote for John McCain as well. With at least 120 million votes for John McCain, Republicans will take complete and total control of America and force all losers such as democrats/terrorists/dessenters into labor camps where they will choose to either work as slaves or die due to their traitorous ways.

Let's face it - American's love Republicans even more in 2008 than in 2004 as if that were even possible. Everyone openly laughs and mocks at such nonsense as a message of hope from the democrat leaders. Hope never works! What works is to never think about solutions, but to always act like a Kick Ass Cowboy no matter what the problem. America loves a shoot-first, ask questions later policy.

All Republicans are super winners. John McCain is a Republican therefore he will win. The choice in 2008 is clear - vote for McCain and win or vote for someone else and die.

www.primadogma.com