<p>I don’t think tomorrow will help close the deal. They will split the delegates pretty evenly, unless one wins by a landslide, which doesn’t seem likely at all at this point.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, McCain will be the winner the longer this goes on and the democrats have to fight on two fronts. Will Obama’s enthusiastic supporters be as enthusiastic for Hilary, or would Hilary’s people come out and rally for Obama? The Clintons didn’t do much to help out Sen. Kerry in his race 4 years ago, and it’s hard to imagine them going all out for Obama now. </p>
<p>Maybe it’s only fair that a Republican should have to clean up the Bush/Cheney mess.</p>
<p>ASAP: Tomorrow <em>should</em> help close the deal even if Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island by slim margins, because it is a battle for delegates and she would not have a reasonable chance of making up the delegate count. But I am not sure if she will just step down. She has nothing to lose and much to gain by staying in the race. She would be in a much stronger position for a subsequent Presidential run if she were successful in weakening Obama sufficiently to bring him down in November. In these last couple of weeks we have seen Obama attacked by THREE prominent national politicians- Bush, McCain and Clinton. Another few months of this could do a lot of damage.</p>
<p>I agree, McCain may be the man who gets to clean up the Bush/Cheney mess.</p>
<p>Don’t worry about the attacks, vicariousparent. Our nominee will be attacked by Bush, McCain, other Republican politicians, and various shadowy groups set up for the purpose, no matter what. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans? It could even be argued that delaying identification of the nominee will give them less time for this. From what I have seen, Obama and his campaign staff are incredibly effective at responding to the attacks, wherever they’re coming from. </p>
<p>I agree with others that there is going to be a huge mess to clean up, and the next president will be blamed for some of it. For one thing, presiding over a recession is not a recipe for popularity. Before 9/11, Bush was going down in the polls as the economy soured, even though things were in decline before he took office.</p>
<p>“The whole point of Obama’s politics and campaign is to get away from this kind of traditional thinking and divisiveness and to build coalitions of democrats, independents and Republicans.”</p>
<p>I think someone has been drinking a bit too much of the Obama Kool-Aide. If Obama really meant this wouldn’t he have some sort of track record of occasionally abandoning the special interests of the left and voting with the consensus? Instead, he is the most reliable vote for the issues of the special interests of the left. Yes, he looks earnest when he makes these claims. Unfortunately, his votes do not reflect any semblance of wanting to meet in the middle. </p>
<p>Anyone who truly wants to have a president who is willing to take a view opposite of his base would vote for McCain who has the scars to prove his maverick/independent status.</p>
<p>“…and to build coalitions of democrats, independents and Republicans”</p>
<p>That may backfire. Him already talking about republicans in his cabinet might be able to pull some Republican votes in primaries, but that may make the traditional democratic party leaders very unhappy. Many party leaders want those jobs.</p>
<p>"She would be in a much stronger position for a subsequent Presidential run if she were successful in weakening Obama sufficiently to bring him down in November. "
I have to disagree with this statement. If Hillary loses, and continues to lose in March, but refuses to pull out until the convention, and Oboma then loses in the general election, she seriously risks becoming labeled a “spoiler” and would generate even less support from democrats in 2012.</p>
<p>^^maybe but that would be her <em>only</em> chance to ever become President. If Obama wins this November, then she would be unlikely to ever become President. </p>
<p>Also, while I agree with your assessment of her chances in 2012, she may not think of it that way. She may be able to portray Obama as having been a doomed candidate from the outset and she would be giving the party a chance to make amends.</p>
<p>Another factor is that 2012 is also the year she comes up for re-election to the US Senate. She would have to decide whether to give up her Senate seat for a Presidential bid.</p>
<p>But perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. We can’t predict that far. We can’t even predict what will happen tomorrow.</p>
<p>Obama camp downplays conversation with Canada</p>
<p>Barack Obama’s campaign manager downplayed reports Monday an economic advisor discussed the Illinois senator’s position on NAFTA with a Canadian official, characterizing the meeting as an “informal” discussion not under the direction of the campaign.</p>
<p>The meeting was first reported last week by Canadian television network CTV. The report referenced anonymous sources that said one of Obama’s chief economic advisors, Austan Goolsbee, said the candidate was only talking tough on NAFTA for political reasons, and would likely not seek to change the trade agreement with Canada if he became president. Both Obama’s campaign and the Canadian embassy immediately denied Goolsbee had ever made such a suggestion, and did not reveal Goolsbee had ever spoken with the Canadian government.</p>
<p>But the Associated Press reported Monday it had obtained a memo from a Canadian diplomat essentially confirming CTV’s story and stating Goolsbee said Obama’s tough talk on NAFTA was “more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”</p>
<p>“Sen. Clinton knows full well that she’s not telling the truth on this story, and that her blatant distortion is just part of her campaign’s stated strategy to throw the kitchen sink at Sen. Obama in the closing days of this campaign,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton."</p>
<p>Me too. I will be heading over to my precinct about 6:45 p.m tomorrow. Looking forward to experiencing a caucus for the first time.</p>
<p>At the gym this morning, I was talking to a couple of men and asked if they voted already. One had but the other said he was going to vote last week but changed his mind when someone told him that he would have to vote twice. He said that it would be too much of an inconvenience with his job.</p>
<p>Anyway, I explained to him that the caucus is an option and he can vote once. So he plans to vote tomorrow before going to his shift job. </p>
<p>I am an election junkie and like to be in front of the TV when the polls close. But as noted, I will due my duty for Obama and be at the precinct on time.</p>
<p>I didn’t read the whole thread but all the recent polls are surging towards Clinton. That being said it looks like she holds a slight, but steady lead in Ohio (6/7 pts) and Texas is going to come down to the wire (tied). I talked to a former coworker who is pretty high up in McCains camp and he was talking to both Clinton and Obama people and the Obama people seem to have “given up” on Ohio and trying to focus on Texas, believing if they can take 1 of the big 2 they can make a case for Clinton to drop out. He said the Clinton camp is cautiously optimistic that they are going to win both. Either way it’s going to be an exciting tuesday</p>
<p>One positive thing about Clinton winning the nomination is that I believe Obama would support her in her general campaign, which will help bring over his supporters. Although it would be a hard loss to take at this point, he never expected to win the way that Hilary did - never took it for granted (until recently, it could be argued.) The Clintons did very little to help Kerry last round, and I believe they’d do even less for the nominee this time considering the bitterness the campaign expressed over the these few weeks.<br>
I never understood why Bill was riding around in a golf cart with Bush Sr. while Kerry and Edwards were trying to help the party take back the White House. It’s certainly understandable why Kerry did not back Hilary this time around.</p>
<p>“I never understood why Bill was riding around in a golf cart with Bush Sr. while Kerry and Edwards were trying to help the party take back the White House.”</p>
<p>It’s comments like this that reinforce in me that this desire/promise of eliminating partisan politics is a fictitious ploy to win gullible voters. If two former presidents are chastised for getting along on a personal basis(especially since the reason for them being together was to help the tsunami victims), then partisanship will certainly be here for awhile.</p>
<p>mini - you are correct. She could conceivably win both Ohio and Texas by very narrow margins and still not make up the difference to put her in the lead for delegates. It’s not about just winning the states, it’s about winning by a certain amount of points. So much emphasis has been placed on the results of tomorrow, but it’s not just about winning a state, it’s got to be a clear wide-margined victory.</p>