Presidential election may be up for grabs

[karl28]

          It will be an interesting race to see who the  next president will be and the after effect of the changing of the guard to see how they conduct the war in Iraq and Afghanistan  . 

 

[Flip]

It will be an interesting race to see who the  next president will be and the after effect of the changing of the guard to see how they conduct the war in Iraq and Afghanistan  . 

That's what gives us all(me anyway ) fantom pains where our wisdom teeth used to be.  Obama might do something bold and heroic  : that screws up the whole effort.

Democrats love to forget that GWB didn't start the war on terrorism, OBL did.

 

[CougarKing]

Obama might do something bold and heroic  : that screws up the whole effort.

Flip,

Speaking of doing bold (or reckless) things, what do you think of what Obama might do with proposing military intervention into Pakistan's Waziristan region, as already discussed in the ff. thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70801.0.html

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

2 articles:

Obama basic training
Volunteers told to share personal conversion stories with voters - not policy views.

... the clincher came on March 17, when she met the Democratic contender face to face. She describes how he lit up the room with his wide smile, shook her hand and thanked her for volunteering.

"He looked at me, and the look in his eyes was worth 1,000 words," said Mack, now a regional field organizer. Obama hugged her and whispered something in her ear – she was so thrilled she doesn't remember what it was.

... Mack wanted to drill home one of the campaign's key strategies: telling potential voters personal stories of political conversion.

She urged volunteers to hone their own stories of how they came to Obama – something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone.

"Work on that, refine that, say it in the mirror," she said. "Get it down."

She told the volunteers that potential voters would no doubt confront them with policy questions. Mack's direction: Don't go there. Refer them to Obama's Web site, which includes enough material to sate any wonk.

... Faced with a politician who spoke to her heart, Coleman said, she had no choice but to become involved, for the first time, in a political campaign.

"I felt like someone called my bluff and now I've got to do it," she said.

As a teacher, Coleman is accustomed to talking to people face to face. But cold calls to strangers were a stretch. For one thing, she doesn't like getting such calls herself. For another, she considers herself a "pleaser" and doesn't like making people mad.

"The thing that keeps me going," she said, "is that I have two beautiful grandchildren, and I feel so strongly about this candidate, that this is the person I want to shape the world my grandchildren are going to inherit. I keep picturing their little faces."

Her role as a neighborhood team leader has absorbed whatever free time she had.

"So I'm cutting a few corners, like not writing as many comments on the papers I grade, because that makes it take twice as long," she said. ...

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/649427.html

And;

February 23, 2008: Bobby Kennedy and Why Obama Unnerves Me

Two or three days before Robert Kennedy was assassinated in the early morning hours of June 5, 1968- its hard to remember now - I attended a rally for RFK in East Los Angeles. The audience was almost entirely Mexican or Mexican-American - there were very few of us gringos. The crowd was wildly enthusiastic, to put it mildly. Cries of "Viva! Viva!" rang out everywhere. It felt as if I was at a rally in Central America and Kennedy was not running for President. He was running for "caudillo." I am sure if it were put to a vote of those present, they would have installed him as "maximum leader" for life in a landslide.

I was a supporter of Bobby Kennedy's in those days, but I was unnerved. And it's not just because I knew that his record was checkered, to say the least. A cult of personality was developing and I was beginning to feel nauseated by it. I am having the same feeling about Obama. Every time I hear "Si se puede!" I get queasy. I didn't when I heard it years ago at Cesar Chavez farmworker rallies, when it had a specific reference, but I do here. It's as if rhetoric has been stolen in a form - almost deliberately - devoid of content. "Yes, we can - what?" Nobody knows.

Another way to look at this is as an issue of the separation of church and state--for me one of the most important values of our society. Support of Obama has become a religion. And now it threatens to take over the state. It's not separated. And like most religions, it can mean different things to different people. Christ said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" for a very good reason. I'm not a Christian but I thank him for that. Those words made democracy possible. I don't want fainting spells at political rallies, anymore than I want cries of "Viva!" I want concerned voters. I'm worried.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2008/02/bobby_kennedy_a.php

 

[Flip]

Aden, if you are hoping that we infer that Obama has found a copy of "the Evangelists Handbook"  I think you are on to something.  While he might be brilliant at campaigning it's fair to point out that  when the campaigns are over we have no idea what  we're in for. He might be a brilliant success or a dismal failure. I don't think anyone ( on earth )knows.

Cougar Daddy - Thanks for pointing that thread out.

By "Bold and Heroic" I was sarcastically referring to a premature withdrawl from Iraq.
Your point deserves consideration of course but there are way to many unknowns................... in short, I have no idea.  ;D

What concerns me is the arrogance of youth and that cult of personality.
Under the current situation I would be more comfortable with someone more experienced in the Oval Office.  I'm sure no one is more aware of Bill Clinton's shortcomings than Hillary.  ;D

I've said it before - if had a vote to cast - John McCain.

 

[Yrys]

Robed Obama picture ignites row

US Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have traded accusations over a photo of Mr Obama circulating on the internet.

The picture, sent to the Drudge Report website, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional African dress during a visit to Kenya in 2006. The Obama camp said it was circulated by
Mrs Clinton's staff as a smear. Mrs Clinton's team denied the accusation.

The row comes as the rivals campaign for two crucial primaries next week. Analysts say Mrs Clinton needs to win the contests, in Texas and Ohio, to remain in the race to
choose the Democratic candidate for November's presidential election.

The photograph shows Mr Obama - whose father came from Kenya - wearing a white turban and a white robe presented to him by elders in the north-east of the country.
According to the Drudge Report, which published the photograph on Monday, it was circulated by "Clinton staffers". Some Clinton aides have tried in the past to suggest to
Democrats that Barack Obama's background might be off-putting to mainstream voters. A campaign volunteer was sacked last year after circulating an email suggesting, falsely, that Mr Obama was a Muslim.

But the BBC Justin Webb in Ohio says the photograph - coming at this pivotal moment in the campaign - is being seen by the Obama team as particularly offensive.
His campaign manager, David Plouffe, accused Mrs Clinton's aides of "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election".

The accusation was dismissed by Mrs Clinton's campaign manager Maggie Williams. "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional
Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," she said. "Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."

Mrs Williams did not address the question of whether staffers circulated the photo.

 

[a_majoor]

Andrew Sullivan makes a prediction. Given the Clinton's access to the party machinery and how many uncalled favors and secrets that still might be out there, I don't quite see this as a done deal; the Superdelegates might well be the deciding factor after all:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-clintons-la.html

The Clintons' Last Stand

24 Feb 2008 05:44 pm

Watching senator Clinton attempt to regain some lift as she paraglides into history is almost enough to evoke pity. Almost. The Clintons come with their own boundless reserves of self-pity so further reinforcements seem unnecessary to me. And I suppose they could somehow still find a brutal, soul-grinding path to the nomination. But we've learned something important these past couple of weeks.

Clinton is a terrible manager of people. Coming into a campaign she had been planning for, what, two decades, she was so not ready on Day One, or even Day 300. Her White House, if we can glean anything from the campaign, would be a secretive nest of well-fed yes-people,  an uncontrollable egomaniac spouse able and willing to bigfoot anyone if he wants to, a phalanx of flunkies who cannot tell the boss when things are wrong, and a drizzle of dreary hacks like Mark Penn. Her only genuine skill is pivoting off the Limbaugh machine (which is now as played out as its enemies). Her new weapon is apparently bursting into tears. I mean: really.

It's staggering to me that she blew through so much money for close to nothing (apart from the donuts). Without that media meltdown in New Hampshire, she would have been forced to bow out much earlier. She didn't plan for contests after Super Tuesday. She barely planned for any before that. She was out-organized in Iowa and South Carolina, and engaged in the pettiest form of politics in Florida and Michigan. Her fundraising operation was very pre-Internet. She has no message that isn't about her and the Republicans. Her trump card - Bill - managed to foment a 27 point loss in South Carolina. The Clintons, we can now safely say, got lazy. Or rather their old and now forgotten lackadaisical attitude toward governing returned like a persistent flu to campaigning. We tend to forget that their entire governing agenda after 1994 was essentially finessing Gingrich and battling impeachment. (Their entire agenda before 1994 was successful Eisenhower economics, and disastrous Hillarycare). It's been fifteen years since the Clintons actually stood for a coherent message, and it turns out they had forgotten that you kind of need that for a presidential run.

How did they come this close to losing this? They had all the money, all the contacts, all the machine levers, the entire establishment, the biggest Democratic name in decades, and they've been forced into a humiliating death-match by a first-term black liberal with a funny name. It seems obvious to me that the Clintons blew this because they never for a second imagined they could. So they never planned to fight it. Once put in a fair contest, they turned out to be terrible campaigners, terrible politicians, bad managers, useless executives, wooden public speakers. If you're a Democrat, that's good to know, isn't it? All that bullshit about Day One and experience? In retrospect: laughable.

Whatever happens in this campaign, if it finally puts the Clintons in our rear-view mirror, it will have been worth a great deal. We're not quite there yet, and the moment you feel any sympathy for a Clinton, they will use it to their own ends. But I'm enjoying the backward glance, however long it lasts. We're nearly free of them. Nearly.

 

[a_majoor]

The Clinton team may be starting to self destruct.......but it is not a done deal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502501_pf.html

Team Clinton: Down, and Out of Touch

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A02

They are in the last throes, if you will.

As Vice President Cheney knows, such predictions can be perilous. Still, there was no mistaking a certain flailing, a lashing-out, as two Clinton advisers sat down for a bacon-and-eggs session yesterday at the St. Regis Hotel.

The Christian Science Monitor had assembled the éminences grises of the Washington press corps -- among them David Broder of The Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and columnist Mark Shields -- for what turned out to be a fascinating tour of an alternate universe.

First came Harold Ickes, who gave a presentation about Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects that severed all ties with reality. "We're on the way to locking this nomination down," he said of a candidate who appears, if anything, headed in the other direction.

But before the breakfast crowd had a chance to digest that, they were served another, stranger course by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer. Asked about an accusation on the Drudge Report that Clinton staffers had circulated a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somali tribal dress, Singer let 'er rip.

"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," he lectured. "I find it to be a reflection of one of the problems that's gone on with the overall coverage of this campaign." He went on to chide the journalists for their "woefully inadequate" coverage of Obama, "a point that has been certainly backed up by the 'Saturday Night Live' skit that opened the show this past Saturday evening, which I would refer you all to."

The brief moment explained everything about the bitter relations between Clinton's campaign and the media: Singer taunting the likes of Broder, who began covering presidential politics two decades before Singer was born, with a comedy sketch that showed debate moderators fawning over Obama.

"That's your assignment editor?" responded Post columnist Ruth Marcus.

"That's my assignment editor," Singer affirmed.

That Clinton's spokesman is taking his cues from late-night comedy is as good an indication as any of where things stand in the onetime front-runner's campaign. To keep the press from declaring the race over before the voters of Ohio and Texas have their say next week, Clinton aides have resorted to a mixture of surreal happy talk and angry accusation.

Yesterday, Ickes played the good cop. "We think we are on the verge of our next up cycle," he reported, even suggesting the apparent impossibility that Clinton "may be running even" with Obama when all the contests are over. "This race is very close," he judged. "This is tight as a tick."

The reporters were dubious. The Monitor's Dave Cook mused about the consequences of Clinton "battling after there's not much chance."

"For the love of God, we can't say there's not much chance here," Ickes maintained.

David Chalian of ABC News reminded Ickes that Obama's lead in delegates is now of the size Ickes had said would be "significant."

"As we all know in this city, I have a very short memory," Ickes answered.

At one point, he warned of "a bitter and potentially very divisive credentials fight" at the Democratic convention. At another point, he compared the race to 1972, when a strong front-runner, Ed Muskie (now played by Clinton), was upended by an antiwar candidate, George McGovern (now played by Obama), who lost to the Republicans. "The fact is, he could not carry his weight in the general election," Ickes argued.

But Ickes could suspend reality for only so long. He referred to Clinton's opponent at one point as "Senator Barack," swapped 1992 for 1972 and Michigan for Vermont, and said of the Pennsylvania primary: "Um, what month is it?" Eventually, Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Morning News drew a confession out of Ickes: "I think if we lose in Texas and Ohio, Mrs. Clinton will have to make her decisions as to whether she goes forward or not."

Ickes's return to Earth seemed only to further outrage Singer.

When Amy Chozick of the Wall Street Journal asked about how combative Clinton would be in tonight's debate with Obama, Singer informed her that it was an "absurd" question. "I don't think . . . any of our senior people have the ESP skills that you all ascribe to us," he said.

When Time's Jay Newton-Small inquired about the Obama photo on Drudge, Singer used the occasion to complain about the press's failure to examine Obama's ties to violent radicals who were part of the Weathermen of the 1960s. "As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no follow-up on the part of the Obama traveling press corps," he said.

Even Broder, asking about why Clinton had abandoned the North American Free Trade Agreement, was informed by Singer that "elections are about the future."

Cook, the host, got similar treatment when he asked why Clinton hasn't released her tax returns. "When she's the general-election nominee, she'll release the tax returns," Singer said.

After the breakfast, one of the questioners asked Singer whether he could elaborate on the tax-return issue. He dismissed her with more hostility. When the reporter suggested that Singer was being antagonistic, the spokesman explained.

"Sixteen months into this," he said, "I'm just angry."

 

[Yrys]

Opponents slam Obama after CTV story on NAFTA

Allegations of double talk on NAFTA from the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks
about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about
opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated. However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was
held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the
NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He
also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.

During a candidates' debate Tuesday, both Democratic party leadership contenders -- Obama and Hillary Clinton -- suggested they would opt out of the North American Free
Trade Agreement if core labour and environmental standards weren't renegotiated.

The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support
despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday.

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," McCain said, referring
to Obama. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

More on
link

 

[a_majoor]

Some insight by Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view507.html#scope

It's a long time to the Convention; Clinton and Obama have quite a while to pound on each other, and there's little Clinton can do but go negative now. She spent all her money early and in a spendthrift fashion -- sort of like the Republicans once they got rid of Newt Gingrich -- and now she's got little left. She also shows us her contempt for other people's money. Her crew stayed at five star hotels, her consultants were the highest paid hacks in the business, and her management style was about what you would expect from someone who has never actually managed anything. Of course Obama hasn't much more experience, but he's a bit smarter, and seems to have chosen his team with a bit more care.

It ought to get interesting as the Clintons get desperate.

=========

Is McCain going to be hoist on McCain Feingold? Delicious irony. And hardly astonishing. Campaign finance regulation can either be simple: full disclosure and otherwise anything goes, and thus enforceable; or minutia like McCain Feingold which gives commissions and Bureaucrats what amounts to arbitrary power and a lot of leverage. No one can possibly conform to this crazy set of laws; no one even understands them.

But we told you that would happen. Not that my readers weren't smart enough to know.

The problem is that once the scope of government is vast and sweeping, and the power of the office is enormous; once you get to where you must have vast sums to get the office, and you must win because otherwise you are ruined by your borrowing, and possibly up for prosecution for criminalized policy differences -- then you are where the Roman Republic was, and it is worth everything to win. The remedy is to go back to leaving much of the power to the States and then decentralizing that to local entities; let the Federal government carry out foreign policy and defense, which is quite difficult enough without interfering with mangers in the public squares and affordable housing in the suburbs and financing transit in the cities and -- but then since we can't defend the borders we demand that the feds do something to justify their existence.

Would we be better off if one out of two bureaucrats were sent home, on salary, and told never to come back to work? Just do nothing and leave us alone?

But that's whimsy and it's time for our walk. I'll have some mail up later today.

 

[tomahawk6]

Hillary has two options stick it out until the August convention or she can throw in the towel after March 4. That is the only way for Obama to win outright. If it goes to the convention its up to the superD's which could sway the vote either way. Obama has 1,303.5 delegates and Hillary has 1,212.
Hillary needs to get Florida and Michigan seated at the convention which would upset Obama. Hillary is aware of Obama's ethical problems in Chicago and the longer that this goes on may be enough for him to take a fatal hit. Hillary and Obama have identical positions so its a popularity contest. There are enough republicans voting in the democrat primary as an anti-Hillary effort. If Obama gets the nomination I dont see him getting enough votes to win. He has no real experience compared to McCain and the difference between them are stark. If either democrat wins and the they keep control of Congress I see a return to the Jimmy Carter era long lines at the gas pump,high taxes,high food prices ect.

 

[tomahawk6]

CTV calls out Obama on NAFTA.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080228?hub=TopStories

Obama campaign mum on call to Canadian gov't

Updated Fri. Feb. 29 2008 12:18 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama's campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team called the Canadian government about comments Obama made about NAFTA.

Allegations of double talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month -- saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

During a candidates' debate Tuesday, both Democratic party leadership contenders -- Obama and Hillary Clinton -- suggested they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if core labour and environmental standards weren't renegotiated.

The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday.

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," McCain said, referring to Obama. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.

"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said in question period Thursday that Canada should take advantage of any openings to renegotiate NAFTA.

"Why won't the prime minister take the lead here, exercise some sovereignty and bring about some change here that would be good for workers?" he asked.

However, Harper had a warning to anyone contemplating renegotiation of the trade deal.

"If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss," Harper said.

But Harper also noted that assertions made in the heat of political campaigns should be taken with a grain of salt. During the federal election in 1993, former prime minister Jean Chretien threatened to back out of NAFTA's precursor -- the Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by the Tories in the 1980s.

With a report from CTV's Washington Bureau Chief Tom Clark and files from The Canadian Press

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think a floor fight (to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates) would be a disaster for Clinton. It would appear - and the Republicans would make sure it appeared again and again and again - as if she couldn't win 'fair and square' so she (and Bill) decided to try to win the old fashioned way - by chicannery.

A brokered convention is almost as bad - whichever candidate won would be somewhat tainted and it is likely that the Democrats would go into the election badly divided.

If, as it appears from down here in Texas (where I have been for the past several weeks), that:

1. Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat in Texas;

2. Clinton is ahead, but not too far ahead in Ohio; but

3. Clinton needs decisive victories in both states to overtake Obama and have a shot at the nomination through a brokered convention; and

4. McCain can beat Clinton (today) but Obama can beat McCain (today);

then a principled withdrawal, by Clinton, is the best course for the Democratic Party. If she fails the party and continues fighting she will, I think strengthen McCain's appeal to moderates and independents, more than making up for his current difficulties with the hard right wing of the Republican Party, almost certainly guaranteeing another Republican in the White House and deeply dividing her own party.

 

[Rifleman62]

Agree. I have been in Texas a bit longer, and this is also what appears to be going on. Although, a lot of Republicans are calling radio talk shows saying they will vote Obama vice McCain. It is scary indeed that charisma/ability to be a motivational speaker can fool so many Americans. The next leader of the free world may be Obama. That's akin to having Martin or Dion (who have no charisma/motivational ability) as President of the USA.
Do you watch O'Rielly, No Spin Zone on FOX?

 

[tomahawk6]

The problem with the Texas primary system is that its complicated. You essentially have to vote twice caucas then primary or is it primary then caucus ?

Update. Looks like Hillary might want to take matters to court.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/502960.html

State's Democratic Party braces for lawsuit

AUSTIN -- The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its primary night caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an "imminent" lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night.

In a letter sent late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party attorney Chad Dunn warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.

Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained that there were no plans to sue before the primary on Tuesday.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party," Dunn said in the letter, obtained by the Star-Telegram. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process."

Democratic Party sources who asked not to be identified because of the potential for litigation said that representatives from both campaigns had made it clear they are keeping all their options open but that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

'Imminent threat'

"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign," said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Democratic source who was privy to the often intense discussions confirmed that representatives of the New York senator's campaign had issued veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,'" the official said. "The call consisted of representatives from both campaigns and the Democratic Party."

The source, who was not authorized to speak about the matter on the record, said Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had pointedly raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

Seeking agreement

But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said that campaign and party officials had merely discussed primary night procedures and that the campaign was seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking. "It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it," Elrod said. "No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action."

Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said the campaign had no plans to sue.

"We're confident that by working closely with the Texas Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign we'll have a caucus that Texans can be proud of -- because every eligible voter will be allowed to participate and have their vote counted in a timely manner," Earnest said.

The letter to the two campaigns did not specify what procedures or rules might trigger a lawsuit. But one party official said the campaigns were most concerned about the caucus process, or, as the party refers to it, the "precinct conventions." Texas has 228 delegates, the biggest single cache remaining.

But only 126 delegates are doled out based on the selection voters make at the ballot box. Sixty-seven delegates -- more than many states' entire share -- are to be apportioned based on the number of people who participate in the caucuses that begin in over 8,000 precincts once the polls close at 7 p.m. Tuesday.

The remaining 35 are so-called superdelegates, high-ranking party officials free to support whomever they choose and can switch votes when they wish.

Every delegate counts

The intense competition between Obama and Clinton has made every delegate a precious commodity. In past years, the caucuses generated little attention or interest. Now, questions are being raised about procedures, whether there's enough space to accommodate participants and how the results will be recorded and reported. Democrats have described the enthusiasm in Texas, as evidenced by the record turnout among early voters in the most populous counties, as a sign that the party is undergoing a revival after years of decline under virtually unchallenged Republican rule.

Dunn, the Democratic Party attorney, said it could all be for naught if the Texas nomination battle winds up in court.

We need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it. No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action.

 

[a_majoor]

More on Senator Obama and NAFTA:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-hidden-agenda.html

Obama's Hidden Agenda

Obama claims he has opposed NAFTA from the beginning despite that NAFTA has resulted in an increase in trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico of 129% between 1993 and 2004. Trade increases essentially mean an increase in industrial production and commercial activity. While it is true that there will be some movement of jobs to areas where labour is cheaper, the net result has been a period of unprecedented economic growth for all three nations. After all, no one would complain that saddle makers and carriage construction has migrated overseas since the development of the automobile. It's called creative destruction.

NAFTA has not resulted in massive trade diversion as the left (Democrats) frequently argues. While textiles have and other low paying industries have migrated, there has also been a restructuring of the US and Canadian economies towards high tech and service industries.

Sources say that Obama privately reassured Canadian officials that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. But, Obama claims he wants to renegotiate NAFTA on the campaign trail to audiences in Ohio. Quite amazing from someone who has criticized the Iraq war as a "unilateral" failure, yet wants to unilaterally renegotiate a treaty that was signed by a Democratic President (Clinton) over a decade ago.

So is Obama a liar, or does he have a hidden agenda, or both? Either way, the least that can be said is that Obama is disingenuous and pandering to voters in Ohio. So much for "hope" and "change".

On the other hand, Senator McCain stated, "I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," McCain said, referring to Obama. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."(link)

This whole episode has demonstrated Obama's utter lack of experience. Canada and Mexico both hold a trump card in the fact that they are HUGE suppliers of oil to the United States. Any renegotiation of NAFTA would be decided by how Canada and Mexico wanted to "re-think" their priorities on oil exports, which are specifically covered in NAFTA.

Mr. Obama should also consider that in 1993, before NAFTA was signed, the unemployment rate in the US was 6.3%. It is now 4.9%. Rich Lowry also points out that manufacturing output has increased by 63% since NAFTA came into effect.

If Obama wants to be the candidate for hope and change, he shouldn't be preaching the same old doom and gloom, protectionist, big government, socialist policies that Democrats have been trying to sell since FDR. Is it any wonder that there has only been 1 two term Democrat President since Truman?

Oh and one more thing, "Just last October, however, Obama announced he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement that would expand NAFTA into that country." Thanks Barack.
Posted by The Strong Conservative at 3/01/2008

 

[tomahawk6]

Obama and Hillary are trying to appeal to the union guys.Obama's comments illustrate why he isnt ready to be President at this time.He neeeds to go back to Illinois and run for governor that will give him experience running something.

 

[muskrat89]

Here's the feeling in Arizona....

 

[TCBF]

- Darn.  How do I post a picture, anyway?

 

[retiredgrunt45]

McCain's been around the block a few times and then some. He has the wisdom that comes with experience and it shows. Even though some of his own republicans say he isn't conservative enough. He's no bible thumper and he's more middle of the road.

Obama speaks a good piece but tends to have a frequent reocurrance of foot in mouth disease. He has no experience other than his one year in the senate and he's to young. His Nafta escapade really shed some light on his inexperience.

Hillary the old girl is still hanging onto that dream, she has the experinece but her campaign is beginning to lose steam. If she doesn't pull a rabbit out of the hat soon, she'll soon be saying adios.