It’s official.  ObamaBiden 2008.  After ABC news reported that the Secret Service had been dispatched to Sen. Biden last night, it was confirmed by sources connected to the Obama campaign that the Delaware senator is the pick. The official text was sent out at 3:05am.  Obama has told sources that he made his choice while on vacation in Hawaii.  Sen. Biden is a roman catholic born in Scranton, Pennsylvania who rides the Amtrak to work everyday from Delaware.  Biden is reported to be the “poorest” senator on capitol hill earning about $300, 000 annually.  The Delaware senator will be an asset to Obama in reaching out to the working class voters.   By senate standards, Biden is working class.  Biden serves as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and served as a Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the past. Biden clearly has the foreign relations gravitas that compliments the ticket well.  Sen. Biden will appear with Sen. Obama on Saturday in Springfield, Illinois.  The next question will be if Sen. Biden will run for his Delaware senate seat while running as VP.  My guess is yes.

The United States Secret Service has dispatched a protective detail to assume the immediate protection of Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a source tells ABC News, indicating in all likelihood that Biden has been officially notified that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has selected him to be his running mate.

Sources also tell ABC News that two others said to be finalists for the position of Obama’s running mate — Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Virginia Gov Tim Kaine — have been told they have not been selected to be Obama’s running mate.

Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial:

With his brilliant speech on race relations yesterday at the National Constitution Center, Barack Obama showed why his campaign for president has the aura of a mission.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial:

As an example of contemporary oratory, it was stunning. As political rhetoric, it was designed to do far more than damage control and, in the end, distilled the essence of his candidacy.

New York Times Editorial:

We can’t know how effective Mr. Obama’s words will be with those who will not draw the distinctions between faith and politics that he drew, or who will reject his frank talk about race. What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.

Los Angeles Times Editorial:

No single speech will recalibrate America’s consideration of race and politics, but we are closer today, thanks to this remarkable address, to facing our history and perfecting our nation.

Dallas Morning News Editorial:

Has any major U.S. politician in modern times ever given a speech about race in America as unflinching, human and ultimately hopeful as the one Barack Obama delivered yesterday? …

It was possibly the most important major speech on race in America since Dr. King died, and it probably saved Mr. Obama’s candidacy. If, in the end, Barack Obama does not win the nomination, let it never be said that he did not serve his country.

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial:

So Obama, in that exceptional way he has of brushing aside polemics, stepped up to a podium in Philadelphia and challenged us to see all the shades of gray, to embrace our greater and shared humanity.

It was a moving moment in American history to hear a man who could be president dissect the rancorous matter of race with such candor, and it called to mind other piercing addresses by the likes of FDR, Kennedy and King.

Sacramento Bee Editorial:

This was not a campaign speech; it was Barack Obama speaking to the ages. Clearly, he has thought about this issue for a very long time. Americans can learn from him, no matter what course the campaign may take.

Boston Globe Editorial:

… Obama took the opportunity to engage the question of race in America, starting a bold, uncomfortably honest conversation. He asked Americans to talk openly about the deep wells of anger and resentment over racism, discrimination, and affirmative action. It’s a call to break out of the country’s racial stalemate and finally reach a new national understanding.

Seattle Times Editorial:

In the annals of American history, a watershed moment should come from “A More Perfect Union,” Sen. Barack Obama’s powerful speech linking 221 years of race relations.

Washington Post Editorial:

Mr. Obama’s speech was an extraordinary moment of truth-telling. He coupled it with an appeal that this year’s campaign not be dominated by distorted and polarizing debates about whether he or his opponents agree with extreme statements by supporters — or other attempts to divide the electorate along racial lines. Far better, he argued, that Americans of all races recognize they face common economic, social and security problems.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial:

On Tuesday morning, at a moment of maximum peril to his own ambitions, Sen. Barack Obama delivered not just a speech, but an extraordinary gift to America: A way to transcend racial divisions and political cynicism and set about the task of forming a more perfect union.

The 45-minute address, delivered to an audience of 200 elected officials and religious leaders at Philadelphia’s Constitution Center, would have been remarkable under any circumstances. Under the circumstances that beset the senator from Illinois, it was the equivalent of a World Series walk-off grand-slam home run, a singular moment in the history of American political rhetoric.

Houston Chronicle Editorial:

Obama, confronted with flaws in his own church “family,” passes these tests. His thoughtful exploration of those flaws certainly was good for his campaign. But by fully and realistically exploring and discussing the hard topic of race, Obama did more. He showed deep understanding of this complex culture, and faith in the strength of the national family.

Newsday Editorial:

The complex calculus of racial animus in this nation is real. And it is powerful. And, as Obama said, “to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.” This nation needs to bridge that chasm. One speech won’t do it. Nor will one candidacy. But it would help if we stop using race as a political cudgel.

Charlotte Observer Editorial:

But Sen. Obama had a larger purpose in mind: not merely to handle a political problem, but to talk about race and the future of America. In a quiet, insightful, at times powerful speech he examined the reasons for both anger and hope. It was a message our nation sorely needs to hear, and one he is uncommonly qualified to deliver.

Newark Star-Ledger Editorial:

This was not a speech written by a political spinmeister just back from taking the pulse of the latest focus group. It was the heartfelt speech of a man who has spent a good part of his life thinking about what it means to be an American.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Editorial:

When we think of words in politics or governance that had to be said, we think of the Gettysburg Address or Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s admonition that all we had to fear was “fear itself.” And now we think of Obama’s speech on race - words that sorely needed saying.

San Jose Mercury-News Editorial:

If Obama is, as we hope, the leader who can draw people across political divides to create real change and a renewed optimism in America, then confronting race head-on was inevitable. Perhaps Pastor Wright did us all a favor.

The Oregonian Editorial:

But every American, young and old, should hear this speech. Obama certainly isn’t a post-racial candidate, if there is such a thing, and he didn’t claim to be one Tuesday. But he did offer an inspiring vision of a nation where unity eclipses division, and where the identity we cherish most is the one we all share:

American.

Des Moines Register Editorial:

His speech was frank and honest. And it offered hope that by confronting the racial resentments that continue to divide us, this nation can move forward toward becoming a more tolerant and understanding place.

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Editorial:

Then again, Obama has already astounded conventional wisdom with the progress he’s made in this year’s presidential campaign. For the nation’s sake, hope that America’s conscience was at least pricked to want to do better.

Kansas City Star Editorial:

It would have been politically expedient for Obama to disown Wright totally. But in a reflection of his own integrity, Obama said Wright was instrumental in the development of his faith and had other virtues that his critics were ignoring.

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post:

Yesterday morning, in what may be remembered as a landmark speech regardless of who becomes the next president, Obama established new parameters for a dialogue on race in America that might actually lead somewhere — that might break out of the sour stasis of grievance and countergrievance, of insensitivity and hypersensitivity, of mutual mistrust.

Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish:

I have never felt more convinced that this man’s candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man’s faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.

Courtland Milloy, Washington Post

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who co-chairs the Maryland for Obama campaign, hit the nail on the head when he told me: “Obama has the ability to elevate our thinking beyond the chicken-yard scratching and biting. He calls on us to soar like eagles. And if he can’t always take you there, he can sure dare you to go.”

David Corn, MotherJones.com:

With this address, Obama was trying to show the nation a pathway to a society free of racial gridlock and denial. Moreover, he declared that bridging the very real racial divide of today is essential to forging the popular coalition necessary to transform America into a society with a universal and effective health care system, an education system that serves poor and rich children, and an economy that yields a decent-paying jobs for all. Obama was not playing the race card. He was shooting the moon.

John Dickerson, Slate:

Can you give a State of the Union address before you’re president? Barack Obama talked about race in America for 45 minutes in a nearly 5,000-word speech. That was longer than some of the annual presidential addresses, and though, yes, those speeches tend to cover more topics, this one felt like it addressed the actual state of our union more than those dreary January list readings presidents are obligated to perform.

Janny Scott, New York Times:

Yet the speech was also hopeful, patriotic, quintessentially American — delivered against a blue backdrop and a phalanx of stars and stripes. Mr. Obama invoked the fundamental values of equality of opportunity, fairness, social justice. He confronted race head-on, then reached beyond it to talk sympathetically about the experiences of the white working class and the plight of workers stripped of jobs and pensions.

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek:

In introducing the speech, Harris Wofford, the former senator from Pennsylvania, hinted at the historic weight that hung over the occasion. Wofford, a friend of Martin Luther King Jr.’s and a onetime adviser to President John F. Kennedy, recalled a White House conversation with King, after Kennedy had informed King that there would be no quick vote on the sweeping civil rights legislation pending. “Martin turned to me and said, ‘I had hoped we at long last had a president who had the intelligence to understand this problem and the political skill to solve it and the moral passion to see it through. I’m convinced … that he has got the intelligence and the skill. We’ll have to see if he has the passion’.”

Wofford suggested that Obama did in fact possess all three qualities. The critics, reporters, cable commentators—and ultimately the voters—will all be weighing that assertion in the aftermath of the most personal and extensive discussion of the legacy of slavery made by any major American politician in memory. For the moment, Obama gave them much more to talk about than the sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

Jim Mitchell, Dallas Morning News:

Politicians rarely achieve such a depth of humanity, in part because they’re captive to narrow life experiences, rigid ideology or consultants. It’s one thing to know intellectually that race is still a factor in American life and how it polls. It’s quite another to eloquently express the profound stain of past racial injustices without being trite, hostile or unabashedly partisan.

Jon Robin Baitz, Huffington Post:

Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama’s glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of “what is is”), those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama’s magisterial speech today. A speech in which he distanced himself from a flawed father figure, Reverend Wright, and did so with almost Shakespearian dignity and honor.

Subject: The Real Truth About Barack Obama!

1. Did you know that Barack Obama is a devout Christian? He has been a member of the same United Church of Christ congregation for 20 years, and was married there to his wife Michelle in 1992.
2. Did you know that Barack Obama often leads the US Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance?
3. Did you know that Barack Obama is a strong friend of Israel and has spoken out strongly against anti-Semitism?
4. Did you know his grandparents from Kansas were part of the “Greatest Generation?. His grandfather served with Patton’s Army during World War II, and his grandmother, a real “Rosie the Riveter”, worked in a bomber assembly plant back home.
5. Did you know that Barack Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one, before we invaded, even while he was running for the Senate, and knowing his opposition might be politically unpopular?
   

   “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” –Barack Obama, 2002

6. Did you know Obama favors transparency over secrecy in our government? Did you know that Obama worked with Republican Senator Tom Coburn to pass one of the strongest government transparency bills since the freedom of information act? He’s calling it Google for Government and you can see the results at www.usaspending.gov. Sen. Obama has also released his own tax returns for public review.
7. Did you know that after graduating with honors from Harvard Law School, Barack practiced civil rights law and also taught Constitutional Law for 10 years at the University of Chicago, one of the nation’s best law schools, where he was consistentl y rated by his students as one of their best instructors? Did you also know that he was the first African-American elected pres ident of the prestigious Harvard Law Review?
8. Did you know that Barack Obama is an outspoken advocate for women’s rights and has been a principled defender of the civil rights of women?
9. Did you know that despite the grueling schedule of running for President, Senator Obama remains a devoted family man, making time to do things like pick out a Christmas tree with his wife and two young daughters, or hurrying home to spend Valentine’s Day with them? Did you know he hasn’t missed a single parent-teacher conference while running for President?
10. Did you know that Barack Obama has a stellar environmental record, including having the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters (96%) of any Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican?
11. Did you know that Barack Obama has been an elected legislator longer than Senator Clinton?
12. Did you know that Barack is a member of all of these Senate Committees: Foreign Relations; Veteran’s Affairs; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security and Government Affairs?
13. Did you know that Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become law, and has introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted since he joined the Senate in 2005?
14. Did you know that Senator Obama sponsored legislation working together with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, to keep Americans safe by keeping dangerous weapons out of terrorist hands? The two senators also visited the former Soviet Union to inspect the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Sen. Lugar said of Sen. Obama, “He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future.”
15. Did you know that Barack Obama is the only candidate running for president who voted against using cluster bombs in Iraq and the only candidate who supports banning the use of landmines?
16. Did you know that, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama succeeded in passing legislation requiring the videotaping of police interrogations, gaining the respect and support not only of fellow legislators but that of the police, who had initially opposed the legislation?
17. Did you know that Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all younger when they took office than Barack Obama will be?

During election season many emails are circulated about the candidates. Some are true, some aren’t. It’s often difficult to determine the truth. We encourage you to visit the following non-partisan sites that do a good job of fact checking the candidates.

http://www.snopes.com/       http://www.factcheck.org/

There is a question that should be answered with respect to recent results in the Ohio and Texas primaries.  Rush Limbaugh who broadcasts to a national audience urged his listeners in Ohio and Texas to influence the democratic primaries on March 4th by voting for Hillary Clinton.  Limbaugh’s motivation?  To drag out the democratic race and get Obama all “bloodied” up from Clinton attacks for the general election against John McCain.  Apparently, the Clinton campaign doesn’t care how it wins because Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh show (Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh?????) the day of the primaries in an effort to, what can only be interpreted as, encourage such strategy.  A little back story for those who have lived in Siberia during and since the Clinton administration.  Rush Limbaugh hates Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Limbaugh has done nothing but insult, rail, disparage, and spew vitriolic attacks against the Clintons since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992.  So the fact that Bill Clinton went on the radio show of his most vehement public enemy tells me that he endorses this republican manipulation. In Texas, it turns out that Obama did win the republican vote 53-46, however, of the conservative republicans who voted, Clinton won them 52-45 for the first time since Super Tuesday.  Republican turnout in the Texas and Ohio primaries was up overall by 3-5 points from previous open democratic primaries.  Not to mention that conservative republicans voting in the democratic primary was up by at least 7% from previous contests.  Side note: the conservative wing of the republican party sole mission is to keep the Clintons out of the White House, the Senate, and any other public office.  However, Clinton won an additional 16% of the conservative republicans voting in the Texas democratic primary who said that Obama is the most electable candidate.  Coinkydink? probably not.  One can conclude from such a contradiction that the 16% are voting for who would be the weakest candidate in the general election so that their candidate, John McCain, has the best chance of winning.  Considering that the Texas primary was won by Clinton with only a 2.8% margin, and republican turnout in the Texas primary was up from previous state contests by at least 3% and in some states as much as 5%, chances are that such tainted votes played a significant part in Clinton’s win in Texas, and to a lesser extent, Ohio.  I have said this before, the longer the democrats drag this out, the increased likelihood of mischief by the Republican Party thereby allowing the conservative right wing of that party to choose the democratic nominee rather than the choice being made by true affiliates of the party.   As mentioned in an earlier post, even republican governor and staunch John McCain supporter,  Bill Crist is trying to influence the choice of democratic nominee.  Those who think that a long drawn out fight is good for the Democratic Party should respond to the points in this post.  This is not the way to get more voters involved in the process especially if such process is ripe for and can so easily be manipulated thereby making all the voter enthusiasm, dedication, and commitment, moot.

John McCain wins Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island to become the Republican nominee.  McCain can now begin concentrating on the general election as well as unifying his party.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had their final debate, before the Jr Tuesday March 4th primaries, in Ohio.  Both candidates held their own.  There were a couple of tense moments where both candidates accused each other of negative campaign tactics and clashed over Healthcare, NAFTA, Iraq, and foreign policy.  Clinton mentioned the Saturday Night Live clip and attempted to rehash the joke by asking whether the moderators wanted to offer Obama a pillow.  I don’t think that she got the response from the audience that she hoped for.  Clinton also mentioned that she is always being called on first for questions but doesn’t mind, however, did want the moderators to be aware of it.  Some predict that the statement was an attempt to garner sympathy from voters regarding her alleged unfair treatment by the press.  I also think that Clinton was trying to find an opening to use the Saturday Night Live skit, and when one didn’t present itself soon enough, she created an opening.  Unfortunately for her, again, the attempted joke fell flat.  Maureen Dowd writes an article in the New York Times regarding the alleged Obama favorable press charge by the Clinton campaign.  The gist of the article is that the charge is silly because of the special treatment that the Clinton campaign has received.  As an example, the article offers as proof of the openmindness of the press, the fact that no other candidate could lose 11 contests in a row by such large margins and still be embraced and touted by the press as a major contender.  We have all heard it, “don’t count a Clinton out,” “Hillary could come back.”  Does anyone actually believe that if the situation were reversed and Obama had lost 11 contests in a row by such wide margins that the press would still be touting him as a contender?  Visions of Mike Huckabee comes to mind.  Democratic party leaders would be asking him to fade out so that the party can began moving toward the general election.  Clinton also finally said that she regrets her vote on the Iraq war.  Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, the debate was not a game changer.  The Clinton campaign went in hoping for a major blunder by Obama, or at least a big moment, that will somehow turn the tide in its direction.  That moment didn’t come.  Both candidates performed well and the debate seemed to this writer to be a draw.  However, current MSNBC post-debate polls show that 70% of the people watching the debate thought that Obama won, while 30% thought Clinton won out of the 97,000 people who have voted.  Latest national polls released before the debate also revealed that Obama is now leading Clinton by double digits.  The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama closing in on Clinton’s lead in Ohio with Clinton at 48% and Obama at 43%.  According to the latest CNN poll, Obama is leading in Texas with 50% to Clinton’s 46%.

Hillary Clinton has developed a different posture since her closing comments at the CNN debate last Thursday.  Most believed that Clinton’s final comments on Thursday were those of a conciliatory candidate.  This writer did not necessarily agree with such sentiment due to Clinton’s final statementswipe at Obama at the end of the debate.  What began as a congenial closing comment by Clinton, ended with her in essence saying that she hopes that the American people will survive if voters do not choose her as the nominee.  But that’s a side point.  Apparently, no one told Hillary that the race is over because she has ratcheted it up a few hundred notches since Thursday.  What ticked her off?   Allegedly, it was campaign mailers that the Obama campaign has been circulating, regarding Clinton’s position on NAFTA, for almost a month.   At a press conference this past weekend, Clinton accused Obama of Karl Rove (GOP operative accused by democrats of dirty tricks campaigning) tactics as well as attempted to scold Obama by saying ”shame on you Barack Obama.”  Senator Clinton also mocked Obama’s unity message this weekend in an effort to discredit the Illinois Senator with Texas and Ohio voters.  Many opined that Clinton sounds more schoolmarmish than presidential.  Besides the obvious point that this new tone will certainly not attract the white men that have migrated away from her candidacy in droves.  This different version of negative campaigning is also not positioning her as the candidate able to bring both parties together to move Washington beyond the party gridlock of the last eight years.  Instead, it seems to reinforce the polarities of her candidacy.  Is sarcasm the best weapon available in the Clinton arsenal?  If so, perhaps it is time to make a graceful exit.  Further, what is that saying about the supporters who have embraced Obama’s message, should they be mocked as well?  In which candidate playbook does it say that you gain votes by insulting voters? Nothing like the demonization of hope and unity that sends me running towards a candidate.  One last question, is Hillary Clinton the only person in the United States that is aware of the realities of Washington?  And, if Hillary is the only person, now would be a good time to apply some of that awareness to the strategies and management of the Clinton campaign.   In addition to the new tone, the Clinton campaign is being charged with attempting to smear Obama by circulating pictures of the Illinois Senator donning traditional Somali garb while visiting Africa.  This is something that most dignitaries do, including Hillary, while visiting other countries to show respect for the culture.  When asked why the Clinton campaign released the photos, the campaign did not deny circulating the photos but flipped the script and gave the nonresponsive “we will not be distracted” answer.  Many think that this calls into question the judgment of the Clinton campaign as to why they think this would be an effective campaign strategy.  I am at a lost as to why the Clinton campaign would push to circulate such photos.  Is this show and tell day and the Clinton’s are sharing how Obama spent his summer vacation?  Or, is there a more sinister karlrovian tactic at play here?  Clinton tells Obama “shame on you,” yet resorts to what most have described as the divisive, fear mongering, campaign tactics of the past.  So as a final go-for-broke strategy, Hillary Clinton has decided to go karlrovian, aggressively negative, with a big dose of sarcasm, and whatever else that sticks.   At this point, the schizophrenic nature of the Clinton campaign strategies are giving me whiplash.  However, the latest has sold me.  The New York Senator’s final posture taken this past weekend went something like this;  enough of the speeches….enough of the big rallies…enough of the popularity of his message…..enough with the optimism……just knock it off, “get real,” and vote for me unless you want a couple of knuckle swats with my ruler.  Hmmm………the corporal punishment strategy…..works for me!  Yes maam!  Sign me up IMMEDIATELY!                                                  Debate tonight on MSNBC @ 9pm ET

After several substantial losses in a row, the Clinton campaign is scrambling.  After Virginia, the campaign is frantically trying to hold on to its coalition. In Virginia, Obama won three stronghold groups of Clinton; women, catholics, and Latinos.  In light of this new development, the Clinton campaign has made some strategy changes.  Campaign Clinton has now directed their focus towards two groups; women and working class whites.  It also appears that the campaign has decided to go negative…again.  However, this time it looks as if they will do it carefully.  Clinton is already running a negative ad in Wisconsin criticizing Obama for his decision not to debate in Wisconsin.   Not to mention, the very public and concerted effort by campaign Clinton to try and seat Florida and Michigan, even though only Clinton’s name appeared on the ballot in Michigan.  My question is…how does that pass the fairness test?   Now, lets talk about campaign financing.  The Clintons raised 140 million dollars that they spent by Super Tuesday.  How do you spend 140 million dollars in a month and a half?  The fact that the campaign was unable to manage and properly allocate resources does not bode well for the Clinton Economic Plan.  Apparently, the campaign spent the bulk of the 140 million before Super Tuesday not expecting the Obama campaign to last past that point.  One thing that may have contributed to the lack of funds is Clintons’ hiring of two jets, one for her, and one for the press.  It is only recently that Clinton started flying on the press plane.  But according to Bill Clinton, they were operating on a “shoestring.”  The Clintons far out raised Obama in 2007, yet the Obama campaign does not appear to be having such struggles.  Next for Clinton, all eyes are on Texas and Ohio.  The campaign has adopted the Giulianni strategy and is putting all their chips in a big Texas basket.  On Tuesday, when Clinton arrived in Texas and spoke to a very large crowd, the Senator told the crowd “we are family…starting right now.”  So was she a mere acquaintance prior to that?  And what about March 5th, the day after the Texas primary, does the relationship revert back to acquantance status?  James Carvill, one of Clinton’s biggest supporters,  said very bluntly last night that if Clinton does not win Texas and Ohio, it’s over.  Latest polls show Clinton ahead in Ohio and Texas.  By the way, there are two additional primaries before Ohio and Texas.  Wisconsin and Hawaii??  These primaries take place on February 19th.

Mitt Romney has just dropped out of the republican race for president of the United States.  Mitt Romney has effectively suspended his campaign.  Two remaining.  I suspect that we will be hearing from Mike Huckabee soon.  Mitt Romney will confirm his decision during his speech today at CPAC . CPAC is the Conservative Political Action Conference and is hosted by the American Conservative Union.  Romney said during his speech that if he were to continue, he would be aiding a Clinton or Obama win.  The former Massachussetts govenor said that he disagrees with McCain on a lot of issues but agrees with him regarding the Iraq war.  Romney then said that in this time of war, he must step aside. My question is…what will Huckabee and McCain do now that they don’t have Romney to pick on?  For now, it seems that Huckabee will continue his campaign and will speak to CPAC tomorrow morning in an attempt to convince it that he is the viable conservative candidate.  

It being reported by NBC that Hillary Clinton has just given her campaign a $5 million dollar loan.   Wow….that cannot be a good sign considering that the Obama campaign raised an astronomical $32 million just during the month of January.  See below.

From NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
Breaking news, just in time for Clinton’s press conference at 4:00 pm ET: Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million late last month to remain competitive financially with Obama. 

Said communications director Howard Wolfson in an email to NBC News: “Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.  The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the Web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy.”

Though this does not look good at first glance, I am sure that it is merely a minor glitch in the campaign.  Though it does raise eyebrows as to whether her base support is as strong as is being claimed.

Georgia voters have spoken and Barack Obama is definitely on their mind!  The results are in and Obama wins in Georgia by double digits against his chief rival Hillary Clinton.  The Senator from the Windy City will receive a proportion of the 86 delegates available from the southern state.  Obama received  43% of the white vote in Georgia, this is up significantly from South Carolina where he only received 23%.  Maybe the Senator of Illinois is on to something…what do you think?  The republican race is still too close to call.  The contenders in the tight 3-way race for the republicans are Huckabee, McCain, and Romney.  McCain be very careful about what you wish for.  Huckabee may turn into a serious contender for the republican nomination.

Recent events indicate more and more that John McCain will be the Republican nominee.  The conservative base of the republican party is beginning the process of swallowing this very bitter pill.  Reports are circulating that the base is attemping to coalesce around what is shaping up to be a fait accompli.  The question for democrats is who is most electable against McCain.  Both republicans and democrats agree that McCain’s best chance of winning the White House in 2008 is with Clinton as the domocratic nominee.  Most are speculating that in a McCain-Clinton matchup, McCain would win and therefore the winner is determined at the outset of the race.  According to recent statements by McCain, I think he agrees.  Most republican and democrats believe that Obama will be a much better general election candidate because of his message and his huge draw of independents.  I have noticed that the media and other operatives are framing the match-up as McCain-Clinton.  Is this because they believe that we are the same unengaged, gullible, electorate of yesteryear?  An electorate that falls in line with whatever the pundits and media outlets profess? No no no, just because you say it louder doesn’t make it so.  In such a volatile race, anyone who can state definitively that it will be between two specific candidates, I question their/its motives.  Especially considering the extraordinary unpredictability of this race.  Therefore, whenever I hear such statements, I am immediately suspicious of the person or outlet. Recently, I heard an interview where Pat Buchanan stated that Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee.  I think that I heard this on the day that Teddy Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama.  In the midst of all the excitement surrounding what has been lauded as a historic moment, Buchanan still maintained that Clinton will be the nominee.  One might think that he was working for the Clinton campaign considering that at every opportunity, regardless of how well Obama is doing at the time, he insists that Clinton will be the nominee.  Now, I tend to be a little suspicious of life-long militant conservatives, who are so far to the right they’re left, pushing or helping a particular democratic candidate.  So I ask Mr. Buchanan…why are you pushing a Clinton candidacy so vigorously?  Especially because during Bill Clinton’s time in office, you were probably their most outspoken critic.  Guess what, we are on to you this time.  The tail will not wag this dog.  Electability is the order of the day. We will vote for the most electable person that best represents America’s possibilities.  If we are democrat, we will push forward, and vote for, the candidate who has the least baggage, and has the greatest chance of beating possible republican nominee John McCain.  If we are republican, we will push forward, and vote for, the person that can best face up to the democrats.  All in all, and most importantly, we will elect the person who can bring us together as a nation and repair our image with our foreign counterparts.  We will elect the President that best represents our dreams and hopes for America’s future.  Why you ask…..because that is progress.