Billary are shitting in their pants - somebody put a diaper on them!

I don't care if he's black, white or checkered - he's the only candidate who offers anything to get excited about!

I'm sick of looking at Hillary's fake smile and Bill's smirk!

I'm white a white woman (in my early 40s) - I could give a crap about Hillary being a white woman, I can't stand the sight of her or the sound of her hideous cackle!

Go Obama, go Michelle! You can do it - David vs. Goliath!

Giants vs. Patriots!

..or will Obama stop the coronation?

I'm guardedly optomistic.

that the Democrats are awarding delegates by winners of congressional district when most of the states are gerrymandered? For instance, many states go out of their way to draw majority-black districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act (it's complicated but if you're curious I can elaborate). What this means is that most of the black people in those states are in just a few districts. Instead of their being able to swing a lot of districts to Obama, they'll just win the few districts for him in which they're put; the rest of the districts are overwhelmingly white and Hillary will win those easily. Also, many states draw their districting maps to benefit one party or another. In Texas, if half the voters vote Republican, the Republicans win three fifths of the seats. Now, you might not think that would matter given that this is a race between two Democrats. But if the most reliable Democratic voters are packed in a small number of districts, while moderate Democrats and independents/Republicans are the majority in the rest, that would tend to favor Obama. It would be much fairer if they just took the overall vote in the state and assigned the delegates based on the percentages of that.

Please, please bring a friend or two with you to the polls. I called everyone in my cell phone's address book and my sister's cell phone address book to make sure they were voting Obama (and they are, except for one lone Hillary holdout), but the problem is that we all live in Illinois. Missouri is crucial so I thank you for your help; please double or triple your vote by bringing another person into the process with you!

This selection of candidates runs the gamut from bad to worse.

The next President, without a doubt, will make the current one look good.

This democracy thing seems to be in need of repair.

After watching Hillary on the Hallmark Channel last night, I know I am right. She has depth and vision. She described her energy platform that will transform our economy to a green economy and move our planet back from global warming. Her green platform is a stunning and beautiful vision for our country. Vote for HRC this time and Obama in eight years when he has had some time to collect some battle experience.

Obama is surging as voters get to know him because he has integrity. Hillary continues to fight dirty, witness the last minute push polling last night implying Obama is a Muslim:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/4/14125/10055/922/449619

How scummy can you get?

And, even more important, Obama will win in the fall. Latest poll, Washington Post reported Sunday had McCain beating Clinton, 49-46, and Obama beating McCain 49-46. That's a 6 point advantage for Obama. And his advantage will only increase as more voters get to know him.

1. It's not entirely true that NJ primary allows independents to vote. Each primary is in fact restricted to those who declare a party affiliation. For most voters, that means those who declared before the pre-election deadline for registering to vote. Those who are listed on the rolls as unaffiliated on primary day can affiliate on the spot, and they then become a member of the party they chose. In future elections they will be listed as a member of that party. To change their affiliation in the future, voters have to complete paperwork before the next election. I think the ability to register as a party member on the spot is not all that well-known in NJ (where I live), and the prospect of having to formally affiliate with a party would probably turn off some independents. These two factors make NJ's election today something very different from an open primary.

2. Another poster reminds me that Senator Clinton supported outlawing flag-burning. This makes it very hard for me to cast my vote for her as I'd intended. For the most part, I think she would be a better president at this time than Senator Obama would be, but if she is president I see her moving, probably in her first term, to outlaw flag-burning in order to buy some capital with the right. Although I share the view attributed to Norman Thomas that it is a more meaningful protest to WASH the flag than to burn it, I regard outlawing protest as un-American. I'll have to spend a little time on the fence this morning before I go to the polls. -- Bob

I'm a bit surprised that Walter Shapiro didn't include Missouri among the bellweathers. Missouri has turned into an up-for-grabs state, and since 1900, in the general election, anyway, as goes Missouri, so goes the nation. (At least that is what was being claimed on NPR yesterday afternoon.)

Tom Dumm

In my previous post I expressed concern over Senator Clinton's support of a bill to criminalize flag-burning. So I looked up Senator Obama's stance. It looks as if both contenders are trying to have it both ways, by supporting a law against flag desecration but not wanting to amend the Constitution to do so. This is not satisfying, though I guess the argument could be made that flag desecration is just not important enough to be addressed in the text of the Constitution. Still, it would be nice if they would oppose legislation too, following Justice Scalia's enlightened (!) view that flag-burning can be Constitutionally protected speech.

On June 27, 2006, Senator Obama released a statement in which he purported to feel revulsion at flag-burning but also opposed Senator Hatch's Constitutional amendment to allow Congress to prevent the physical desecration of the flag. Various internet sources cite this as evidence he opposes outlawing the burning of the US flag. But the same statement says clearly that "I support legislation introduced by Senator Durbin that makes it illegal to burn the flag without changing the Constitution."

A December 7, 2005 NYT editorial described HRC's approach: "Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag... It looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways. Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning."

So perhaps there is no reason for me to favor Obama over Clinton on this issue. -- Bob