Will public opinion polls ultimately decide how super delegates vote?Nobody seems to know quite what to make of all this, but one thing does seem clear in the aberrant election of ’08: Barack Obama (still the likely Democratic nominee) and John McCain lifted themselves above the pack, despite enormous odds, largely because they pledged to be civil. At a campaign stop in Prescott, Arizona, on April 5th, McCain told the crowd, “We are Americans first and partisans second,” adding that the contest “should remain an argument among friends.”
"I've made it very clear that what I want is for families to make decisions about their health care, not government, and that's the fundamental difference between myself and Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton," McCain told reporters in Miami, Florida, referring to the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
"They want the government to make the decisions, I want the families to make decisions," he said.
During a speech at the Miami Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida, McCain said he was ready to take on the "parochial interests" in health care and challenged doctors, hospitals, drug manufactures and insurance providers to do a better job of holding down costs.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/mccain/index.htmlI think that McCain has a strong point by arguing that families and individuals should be responsible for making decisions regarding their health care. I dont think that the government making all the decisions for the people is the correct way to go about solving the health care problem.
According to the article McCain Exists Campaign Money Raise published on politico.com, McCain is abandoning fund raising as the primary financing source of his campaign and is taking taxpayers money along with RNC funding to further finance his presidential bid. His campaign’s finance report shows that he has raised only $72 million during the campaign (including March results) compared to Obama’s $236 million and
"My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) …by Michael Moore
Friends,
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote — and yours — on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly ’til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does — AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come — but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters — that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is… 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours,
Michael Moore"
According to The Politico, a historic spike in Democratic voter registrations in Pennsylvania could help Barack Obama cut into Hillary Clinton’s vote in Tuesday’s primary, robbing her of the big victory margin she needs to justify continuing the primary fight. A county-by-county analysis by Politico suggests that the hard-fought primary between Obama and Clinton has accelerated an ongoing partisan shift in Pennsylvania that could soon move it out of the battleground presidential states, and ripple across congressional races this fall, as well.
Pennsylvania will mark a huge turning point for the Clinton and Obama. Pennsylvania is a state that seems to have a conservative and centrist population for the most part. For this state, Clinton seems to be the better Democratic fit as opposed to Obama, because of where she stands on certain issues. It will be interesting to see what happens here, because as this election has proven, anything can happen. But everyone, whether republican, democrat, conservative, or liberal, must be aware of the fact that voter participation is up now more than ever before, and this is also marking a turning point in our county’s political history. Hopefully Clinton will prevail and defy the odds this Tuesday!
As much as I agree that Obama's comments were elitist and a great fallacy of his campaign, I also think that media is taking the wrong spin on this issue. I have a hard time believing that everything a candidate says on a campaign trail is a direct indication of what he thinks or how he relates to an issue. Rather, most of the candidate’s positions and speeches reflect what his or her particular audience wants to hear. However, some candidates manage to maintain their own identity and stay firmly on the positions they believe in even though they are unpopular. Barack Obama, unfortunately, is not one of them (even though he is constantly praising his vote against the war when everyone voted for it). His comments at the San Francisco fund raiser attended by the millionaires is just another proof that he will tell whatever he thinks the public wants to hear. The way he referred to the rural people of
His campaign’s earlier slip with NAFTA comments in
Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama sat down this week for an interview with the leading LGBT news magazine, The Advocate. The interview was, as the magazine notes, only his second discussion with a news source in the gay community since he began running for President. (The magazine notes that Hillary Clinton, however, had already appeared in their publication the previous fall, as well as on the gay cable channel Logo, and in various other news sources). His silence was discussed right off the bat, as the first question focused on his feelings toward the community and the press that covers it. Obama framed his absence from the gay press as resulting from his strategy to speak to larger, broader publications and media outlets. He said he wanted to focus on reaching the most people possible with the interviews he granted, while he also wanted to discuss LGBT issues in a more general and public manner, like at campaign rallies, rather than just within the confines of a "gay" sit-down interview. He argued that by speaking to the most people about the issues affecting the LGBT community and by making it an issue he discussed within the frame of general social discrimination and acceptance on the campaign trail, he could affect more individuals and open more minds to these issues. His answer really does speak to the broad themes of his candidacy, as he doesn't just want to be the "black candidate" or speak to an African American audience, or any specific audience for that matter. His language speaks to broad inclusion and addresses individuals of all types, and if voters hear him denouncing homophobia in black churches and in the black community because of how it ostracizes LGBT citizens, then he is rightfully seen as trying to bring in even more segments of the society into his campaign.
He acknowledges in this interview that he takes a risk by talking about "gay issues" to a larger audience that isn't necessarily there to hear that side of what Democrats stand for, but he says that gay equality is an important issue to him and that his strategy is the best way to bring about real change. Obama makes a good point here, I think, as he explains that "It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans."
As for his specific plans to help the LGBT community if elected President, he plans to eliminate the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has barred openly-gay individuals from serving in the military. He argues that this policy has been counterproductive and a waste of time, energy, and money, as a great number of valuable and talented men and women have been passed over because of their sexuality. He also wants to pass the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," make sure that federal employees can transfer their health or pension benefits to their partners, and make federal benefits fully available to same-sex couples who are in a civil union. He is a strong advocate of repealing the "Defense of Marriage Act" as well. However, the word "marriage" is still not one that Obama wants to push for same-sex couples, at least in terms of federal legislation, as he believes it would prevent real progress from occurring in Congress, as, no matter what his opinion is, it would be almost impossible for Congress to agree on a topic as controversial as allowing same-sex couples to marry. Civil unions are doable, Obama argues, and he says that his focus is on producing results for the LGBT community. This guides much of his thinking on these issues because he wants to produce legislation that is passable, as he thinks, for example, that transgender-inclusive legislation would also be a deal breaker for many in Congress.
More than anything, Obama wants to create a conversation during his campaign amongst all types of Americans about how to improve this country. He values opposite beliefs and opinions and likes that he is attracting all sorts of people to his campaign events. This begins a national discussion, he believes, and by speaking on a broad stage to so many different groups, he is trying to redefine
