Written by Bloggers are starting to assess that Barack Obama is the big winner in today’s democratic caucuses. Official results won’t be in for a while, but post caucus polling says it’s Obama.
And the Clinton campaign has issued a Statement to lower expectations… a little like conceding defeat in our state already.
YAY
double yay!
Triple yay!
*campaigns harder*
Good luck!
I hope to Sweet Zombie Jesus that Obama is as cool as he seems from this side of the isle.
Either McCain or Obama would be just fine by me – both of them are true public servants.
As a Republican, there’s a part of me that would have liked the Harpy to win the Democratic nomination – we would have crushed her two faced lying *#*# . But for the good of the nation, I’m glad that Obama is doing fine.
Lets hope both campaigns pick good running-mates.
Re: Good luck!
Thanks for the positive feedback about Obama. While I don’t feel the same way as you do about Hillary (I actually think she’d make a great president), I’m a realist, and I understand that for whatever reason, she’s a polarizing figure for many people. That’s basically the argument I tried to make to my peers at the caucus today, but some of the older, more “establishment” Democrats — especially older women — were seriously offended by the notion that Hillary’s baggage hinders her electability. There responses often fell back on, “it’s just because she’s a woman.” I think there’s certainly a segment of her detractors that dislikes Hillary because she’s a strong woman, but there are many others who distrust her due to her marriage to Bill, and all of the “scandals” she’s supposedly been part of (which are bogus). I’m not trying to give those claims validity, but people are *not* going to change their minds about Hillary Clinton, and we’re not just talking about a handful of talk radio nutjobs who despise her.
Despite Obama’s apparent victory in WA, I guess I’m still in caucus mode. 🙂
Re: Good luck!
Thanks for the thanks!
The reason that I don’t *trust* Hillary, is not so much as a disagreement with her policies. It’s the same way that I feel dirty about the Bush children piggy-backing on the success of their daddy, It’s creepy to see the same in Hillary, albeit with her husband.
I’d like a strong women president, hopefully a Republican 🙂
We’re trying to get Zombie Margaret Thatcher to run.. but alas she’s English.
Thankfully, with this election, I can give serious consideration to the other candidate, and not have to pick between the lesser of two evils. The last election was spectacular in it’s choices – douche-bag or monkey-boy. I’m afraid I’ve just offended the hard workers at Masingil, and our fellow primates, but I call it like I see it.
Sorry that you had to deal with accusations of sexism – it’s sad that its even a consideration. The demographics of the Democrat primary in California made me sad – basically no Asians or Hispanic voters went for Obama. Sad.
Re: Good luck!
Yes, the results in CA were surprising to me, but it least it wasn’t a winner-take-all situation.
As for a Republican woman becoming president, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone like Christine Todd Whitman or Susan Collins in the Oval Office. I doubt such moderates would ever have a chance, though, unless social conservatives abadoned the Republican Party to start their own. Hey, there’s an idea!
Oprah would be my first choice for a woman President, though. How friggin’ cool would that be? She wouldn’t even have to accept PAC money.
Re: Good luck!
At first, I poo-pooed your idea about Oprah. But the more you think about it, the better it sounds.
I’d be great to get a non-politician in the Whitehouse. I’d be good for the country in the long term if we could just mange to get someone who had an ounce of common sense and had to struggle to get to where they’re at.
In the late 80’s, I had high hopes for Jennifer Dunn. There was someone I’d follow into battle.
Don’t worry about the FundieChristian Conservatives – the vast majority of people that are Republican are good and quiet. The “silent majority” on a party level. We take their money and use it for a better purpous – our weekly lunches of innocent babies and harp seals.
Our Fundies are sort of like your Noam Chomskieites – fringe people that are good for entertainment, but not much more.
Hopefully the Fundies and the Chomskities won’t get into power – they’re both too itching to tell other people what to do for the good of the Republic.
Re: Good luck!
I believe that religious conservatives *did* seize power to a certain degree when they twice helped Bush get elected. He’s been paying them back with all sorts of gifts since 2001, from the establishment of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, to the appointment of Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, to filling the Dept. of Justice with graduates of Pat Robertson’s prestigious law school. Such actions will not be easy to reverse (other than replacing all the political appointees), but even if John McCain wins in November, he won’t have the same obligations to religious conservatives that Bush does, if any.
Re: Good luck!
You are so far to the left that you better put on your life jacket because you are about to fall in the Pacific ocean. What is wrong with faith based initiatives? These type of charities do far more than the government can do with less money. Take a look at the Rotary clubs and see what they do to give you an idea of money well spent. Get off your liberal horse and take a walk in reality alley.
Re: Good luck!
Take a good look at where we live, RP. You’ll find that my political views are pretty mainstream for Western Washington.
I don’t need to explain my objections to Faith-based Initiatives. I’m sure you can figure them out. I’ll give you a hint, though:
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
-Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Board of Education, US Supreme Court, 1947
Re: Good luck!
You seem to attribute a lot of these post to me, and my wife? That is not fair. To make it easier, I will use my RP signature on these posts, and you will know who is commenting.
FYI- I am a huge proponent of Faith Based Initiatives. I know in our congregation, there is so much good that comes from our efforts.
RP
Re: Good luck!
I’m sorry to have tagged you as the author of the other posts. Thank you for confirming that it is indeed you and your wife who make up the RP team. It’d be nice if she had a separate nickname, though. Perhaps something like “RG”? 😉
Anywho…
I think it’s great when any religious organization takes on charitable causes, expecting nothing in return for their efforts. I’m particularly impressed by how the various Catholic charities operate. I absolutely agree that some religious charities do a more effective job than the federal government could ever do in delivering aid to those in need. The Salvation Army is a good example. I’d trust them to get help to people far more than I’d trust FEMA after a major disaster. I’m not in agreement with all of the Salvation Army’s policies and beliefs, but I do respect and appreciate their work.
The fact remains, though, that giving federal funds to religious charities represents government support of religious activities, any way you look it. Some people argue that the Establishment Clause does not forbid such support, but the fact that it’s so disputed should compel us to err on the side of caution, in my opinion. Unfortunately, some religious groups are driven more by proselytization, money, or politics than by true charity, so the potential for abuse is high. Would you want federal funds given to the Church of Scientology or to Fundamentalist Islamic madrases to administer drug & alcohol treatment services, even if they swore not to expose people to their beliefs in the process? Probably not. Why then, is it OK to give such funding to conservative Christian organizations, especially those with specific political agendas?
It’s not as though non-religious charities don’t exist that the federal government could choose to fund, and we somehow got through a couple of hundred years of not funding religious charities in an official capacity. The establishment of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives was purely a political move by the Bush Administration. It was a calculated effort to test the boundaries of the 1st Amendment, and to appease and empower Christian Fundamentalists. There have already been numerous reports of serious conflicts of interest and lack of oversight with federal funds going to Christian charities/service providers. I hope the next president has the courage to eliminate the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives altogether, but I doubt even Hillary Clinton would venture into that hornet’s nest. At least we can look forward to some accountability and oversight with the next administration, though — maybe even under John McCain.
Re: Good luck!
Minor correction- Just me (my wife things we all spend too much time on these blogs)
I know you probably do not mean this, but at least from my perspective, our faith should not be equated to the Church of Scientology or to Fundamentalist Islamic madrases. That being said, If I were in charge, I would see value, and continue to support faith based initiatives, with some sort of oversight, for all. Probably easier said than done, but doable.
Re: Good luck!
In the eyes of the law, all religions have equal status, regardless of whether they’re considered mainstream congregations or min-controlling cults. As long as religious groups don’t break any laws, the government is compelled to treat them equally, which is why we enjoy such a diverse spectrum of faiths in this country, from Pentecostal Christians, to Hare Krishnas, to Hassidic Jews, to Native American animists. Dominionist Christians claim that our country was founded on Christian ideals and that we’re a de facto “Judeo-Christian nation” (with the judeo part thrown in to appeal to a broader base), but there’s no getting around the restrictions of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which are iron-clad for a reason.
While I personally understand the differences between Christianity and Scientology, under the law, one is not more deserving of government support than the other. Unfortunately, the faith-based programs have been almost universally geared towards Christian groups, with Evangelical power brokers making the decisions on who and what gets funded. More importantly, though, is the reality that faith-based program funding has been used by the Bush Administration to fund thinly-veiled political activities targeting religious voters, especially in minority communities. I recommend you read “Tempting Faith,” written by the former deputy director of the office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Not a pretty picture.
Mixing politics with religion is always a recipe for disaster.
Re: Good luck!
Rotary is not a faith based club and Rotary members are Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Re: Good luck!
You are correct, Rotary is just an example of a club that can get better results than anything ran by the government
Re: Good luck!
It was interesting to observe the make up of the supporters in my precinct. Clinton’s supporters were middle-aged white women. Obama’s supporters were in the majority and all ages and colors and both male and female. I hadn’t quite expected such a difference in the composition of supporters. The verbal appeal to support Clinton was that it was time for a woman to be elected. The verbal appeal to support Obama was that he has the ability to bring people together. Ended up 2 delegates for Obama; 1 for Clinton. What I really loved were how many people brought their children to observe the process. The kids were all very well behaved and sat and really listened and asked their parents questions. Campbell Elementary’s auditorium was packed. It would be interesting to know how many were there. I’d guess 300+?
I was surprised to see how strongly Huckabee has been doing in Washington. I’ll have to see if they have a breakdown later on CNN of what parts of the state went for which candidates.
Elizabeth
Re: Good luck!
Don’t be too worried about Huckabee – Us normal Republicans stayed home with our families and enjoyed ourselves knowing that McCain has a lock on the national level.
The Mega-churches released their drooling hounds and swamped the few people that were doing the civic duty.
My answer to the Anti gay marriage people has always been the same – the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. The government should be in the civil-union contract business. Marriage is for churches. Yes, there is something good about a normal family and that should be encouraged – but at the same time we need to love our gay citizens and wish them the best and give them the tools to be as productive as they can.
Re: Good luck!
Works for me! 🙂
Re: Good luck!
With the Clinton machine in place, she will still win the nomination. Just go back in history and recall the dirty tactics they pulled on their opponents. Don’t forget about the super delegates. They will go to Clinton. You will see a huge uproar in the democratic party. Go google Obama and corruption and take a look at his past corruption allegation. The Clinton machine will bring this out, and many other things. Just wait and see. Don’t underestimate this group. They will hammer Obama like nothing you’ve ever seen. I’ll give it about 2 weeks before it begins. After the hit she took tonight, she will have to come out strong and negative very soon. Obama will be so discredited that party faithfuls will run away from him.
Re: Good luck!
Yes, I am concerned about the super delegates. I just talked to a friend in CA who’s close with a Clinton campaign big wig, and the Clinton camp is apparently counting on the super delegates remaining overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. On the other hand, if Obama scores major victories in upcoming races, especially Ohio, it might be hard for super delegates to tow the Clinton line against the will of the people. You’re right: the potential for a schism in the party certainly exists.
I’m not so sure negative tactics can work against Obama at this point, and it could backfire on Clinton if she chooses to go that route. It all depends on how Obama responds to rumors and innuendo, and I’d imagine his campaign has been preparing for such inevitabilities. Everyone remembers what happened to John Kerry in 2004.
I just hope neither candidate becomes so desperate that they feel the need to destroy their opponent.
Re: Good luck!
Wouldn’t a real negative slam campaign by Clinton against Obama potentially backfire in that people might say, “More of the same like we’re used to seeing out of DC. It’s time for a change!” It certainly didn’t help Hillary, when Bill started bad mouthing Obama on the campaign trail.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m tired of politicians bad mouthing each other. I’d much rather see what a person can positively contribute than how much they have to put down someone else. A question was raised somewhere else on the blog wondering what Hillary’s 35 years of experience actually is. Good question and I’d also like to see that one spelled out.
It will be interesting to see in the next couple of weeks if the tactic is slamming the fellow candidate from the same party, or focusing ahead on distinguishing how each can stand out in a competition with McCain. I think the latter would be the wiser approach.
Elizabeth
Re: Good luck!
Yes, I think Obama has changed the game, and the same old tricks might not work this time around.
Re: Good luck!
Don’t get too complacent!
I’ve gone through several elections where the youth will supposedly “rock the vote!”… but it never came to pass.
As an evil-establishemnt overlord, this is good for me and not so good for you. 😉
The clintons are amazing – when Bill’s tactics looked to be backfiring, they very quickly recognized this and changed course. Darn amazing.
Where are the Republicans
How I do hope the King County Republican doesn’t become extinct. When I participated in the interview to fill the vacant council seat I made a comment about the lack of choices my neighbors have. In the last election, my state representative ran unopposed. I don’t think a one party state would be healthy for the county. As good as Obama seems, and even though the republicans have strayed from their believes, I still believe that the government role is to make it easier for me to do things by myself and the Republicans are the ones that will allow that the most.
As I read your postings I see that the Democrats filled schools. The Republicans decided to have a more neighborhood style caucus in homes of prescient officers. Most people were for Huckabee with a sprinkling of Ron Paul supporters for good flavoring. My prescient was combined with another and together we had about 15 people.
On a personal note, The PI interviewed me and printed a few paragraphs about me along with two other caucus goers in today’s paper (Saturday). The picture of my family is pretty good.
Mark Martinez
Re: Where are the Republicans
Hi Mark!
If those pictures from your caucus or the story get put on the online version of the PI, please let me know…I would like to link to them.
Thanks!
(I think that McCaine was the presumed national winner, hence republicans stayed home…. while the democrats are in a horse-race… that would be my theory)
Re: Where are the Republicans
Randy,
The story is online at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350714_vignettes09.html
I didn’t see the pictures online but I don’t have a subscrtpition and might not be able to see them. I would like to know that I am an Accounting major not an Economics major. Econ is my minor.
Mark
Re: Where are the Republicans
Do those prescient officers foresee a big win for Obama when he runs against McCain?
Re: Where are the Republicans
Oh no you di’unt!
Re: Where are the Republicans
One party states government is inherently bad – it’s absolute power.
Thankfully the Democrats around here are decent folk – but they do need some competition. Especially on the gross poor pending on Social Welfare that’s given us so many problems around here.
And it’s up to us Republicans to give that competition to them. We just have to offer the local voters something they want more – or educate the voters as to why some of our positions may not “feel good” but are better in the long-term for our Republic.
Clinton Campaign Manager
CNN just announced that Clinton’s campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, resigned. It will be interesting to see what direction and tactics the campaign takes on now.
Elizabeth
Re: Clinton Campaign Manager
Ruh-roh!