And now you've gone from calling dressing in traditional Somali garb "dressing like a Muslim" to "dressing like a terrorist"?
You're right, Matt. This outfit
looks nothing like this one:
What was I thinking?
What, 'cause they're both wearing turbans? Different style turbans, if you really wanna get nit-picky about it?
Sikhs wear turbans, and they're not Muslim. Heck, medieval Jews wore turbans in some places. Are you calling Jews terrorists, G-Man? Because that sounds like something a REAL Muslim terrorist would say!
Bottom line, wearing a turban has nothing to do with being Muslim, let alone a terrorist. So yeah, what WERE you thinking? Did someone spike your coffee with turbantine this morning?
You have a habit of believing the wrong people - especially if you believe MisterJLA's assumption I'm Matt Kennedy (I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with your age-old tactic of bringing up my supposed real ID)
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
A court in mainly Muslim Malaysia has upheld a ban on schoolboys wearing a serban, a turban that has become a symbol of Muslim piety
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think he's a terrorist or a practicing Muslim. But the fact that matter is that he is dressing, in that getup, the same way that Osama Bin Laden dresses and, therefore, he was dressed like a terrorist.
A court in mainly Muslim Malaysia has upheld a ban on schoolboys wearing a serban, a turban that has become a symbol of Muslim piety
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think he's a terrorist or a practicing Muslim. But the fact that matter is that he is dressing, in that getup, the same way that Osama Bin Laden dresses and, therefore, he was dressed like a terrorist.
And I'm just questioning your logic that because bin Laden is a terrorist who wears a turban, anyone else who wears a turban is dressing like a terrorist. That's Jack Thompson logic.
Yes, Muslims wear turbans, but they're not the only ones who do - again, the Sikhs. So I don't know why you keep sikhing to connect turbans to Islam alone.
And in all seriousness, the only thing the two outfits have in common is a turban - and not even the same style turban! You don't have to be fashion-conscious to see that.
Last edited by The Pun-isher; 2008-02-282:59 AM.
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
A court in mainly Muslim Malaysia has upheld a ban on schoolboys wearing a serban, a turban that has become a symbol of Muslim piety
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think he's a terrorist or a practicing Muslim. But the fact that matter is that he is dressing, in that getup, the same way that Osama Bin Laden dresses and, therefore, he was dressed like a terrorist.
And I'm just questioning your logic that because bin Laden is a terrorist who wears a turban, anyone else who wears a turban is dressing like a terrorist. That's Jack Thompson logic.
Yes, Muslims wear turbans, but they're not the only ones who do - again, the Sikhs. So I don't know why you keep sikhing to connect turbans to Islam alone.
And in all seriousness, the only thing the two outfits have in common is a turban - and not even the same style turban! You don't have to be fashion-conscious to see that.
Punisher. G-Man understands exactly what you're saying. It doesn't matter. The far right is going to try to exploit this picture and try to connect turbans or robes to being Islamic. It's their tactic. It's their hope that they mislead as many people as possible.
Dude, a few posts above, I clearly show that this guy can't even get his stories straight. It's true I'm for Obama but man, that doesn't negate the fact that the guy contradicted himself in a matter just a few minutes time.
and speaking of contradictions...
More on Bill Cunningham, the guy who was introducing McCain and called Obama "Hussein" and then said Madeleine Albright was ugly. The guy who McCain says he never even met before. Well, a reliable source tells me that Bill Cunningham has had several invitations to McCain events at which he has met with McCain for relatively brief periods, and that McCain has been on Cunningham's radio show twice - once from the Capitol itself in 1995. Doesn't sound like John McCain has never even heard of this guy before.
McCain did finally release a sort of wishy washy statement saying that he may have met him before.
From the LA Times yesterday:
Quote:
Some members of the audience laughed, cheered and applauded during Cunningham's remarks; others said they were embarrassed by them.
Speaking to reporters after the rally, McCain apologized for the remarks and said he took "full responsibility."....
Beverly Weeks, a 59-year-old nurse who identified herself as an independent, said she was "mortified" by Cunningham's remarks. "There were people around me . . . who were embarrassed, and some were even saying they wanted to get up and leave."
It was just last week that McCain lied to the media about never having met a lobbyist involved in last week's scandal (he had met with the lobbyist, and admitted it under oath in 2002). Now he's lying about this controversy as well. Or he's telling the truth, he actually thinks he didn't meet all these different people because the 71 year old McCain no longer has all his faculties? I doubt that.
As with his stance now on Iraq, it's sort of preposterous that he has to wade in the far right wing slime considering he's running against a guy with across the board appeal and people who reject that sort of politicking. But having to appease people who think Limbaugh, Cunningham, Hannity etc. etc are the voice of conservative politics and not the voice of slimy crap is IMO a weakness. Crap and pro-Iraq War talk may energize the fringe right but it sure turns off everyone else.
Good.
McCain's "Bad Memory"
But this story was small potatoes to the swift and immediate ass kicking Obama gave McCain when McCain tried to lecture him on Al queda in Iraq. THAT is how you deal with misinformation!
What if you ran a candidate who was disqualified from being President by virtue of the location of his birth? It has to make some in Republican circles a little nervous to think about.
Here’s something you may not know about John McCain: He was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was stationed there in the Navy.
The New York Times reports the circumstances surrounding McCain’s birth raise questions about his ability to become president since our founding fathers specifically said only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the highest office in the land. The idea was to prevent foreigners from becoming president.
There’s no precedent for McCain. No U.S. president has ever been born outside the 50 states. But, McCain’s campaign says they’re confident he meets the requirement, that they researched the question during his last run in 2000 and this time around as well. And they have asked former solicitor general Theodore Olson to prepare a legal opinion.
So is John McCain eligible to be President if he was not born in the US? To be honest, I thought it was a ridiculous question, since my lay understanding of international law is that military bases and embassies in foreign countries were considered to be American soil, but there does appear to be a little technical problem:
Quote:
“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
It’s a question for legal minds now, but how funny would it be if after all this, John McCain would be forced to bow out of the race on grounds of ineligibility?
Punisher. G-Man understands exactly what you're saying. It doesn't matter. The far right is going to try to exploit this picture and try to connect turbans or robes to being Islamic. It's their tactic. It's their hope that they mislead as many people as possible.
Again, it's the Hillary Clinton campaign's attack machine, not the EEEEVVVVIIIIIILLLLLLL Republicans, who are continually raising this stream of allegations against Barack (Hussein) Obama.
Much as you like to demonize Republicans and falsely blame it on them.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
And now you've gone from calling dressing in traditional Somali garb "dressing like a Muslim" to "dressing like a terrorist"?
You're right, Matt. This outfit
looks nothing like this one:
What was I thinking?
What, 'cause they're both wearing turbans? Different style turbans, if you really wanna get nit-picky about it?
Sikhs wear turbans, and they're not Muslim. Heck, medieval Jews wore turbans in some places. Are you calling Jews terrorists, G-Man? Because that sounds like something a REAL Muslim terrorist would say!
Bottom line, wearing a turban has nothing to do with being Muslim, let alone a terrorist. So yeah, what WERE you thinking? )
Well, I don't think it's too outrageous to question whether Obama is an islamic Manchurian Candidate, when you combine the (1)history of his father's side of the family, combined (2)with that he spent a fair part of his formative years in Islamic countries, (3)combined with the fact that his parents named him the islamic-sounding Barack Hussein Obama, combined (4)with his dressing in what in this modern age is clearly Islamic clothing. If Obama were a lifelong Christian such as W. Bush or Bill Clinton, or George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc., then yeah, I'd say his wearing muslim clothing didn't raise a serious question about his possibly being a closet muslim.
But when you combine that clothing with his name, and time spent in the muslim world, I think it's legitimate to raise the question. And it's on Obama to prove that he isn't a closet muslim. I'm not saying that Obama definitely is a muslim, but there's enough oddness about it surrounding Obama that it's legitimate for his opponents to raise the question and force Obama to explain himself.
And now you've gone from calling dressing in traditional Somali garb "dressing like a Muslim" to "dressing like a terrorist"?
You're right, Matt. This outfit
looks nothing like this one:
What was I thinking?
What, 'cause they're both wearing turbans? Different style turbans, if you really wanna get nit-picky about it?
Sikhs wear turbans, and they're not Muslim. Heck, medieval Jews wore turbans in some places. Are you calling Jews terrorists, G-Man? Because that sounds like something a REAL Muslim terrorist would say!
Bottom line, wearing a turban has nothing to do with being Muslim, let alone a terrorist. So yeah, what WERE you thinking? )
Well, I don't think it's too outrageous to question whether Obama is an islamic Manchurian Candidate, when you combine the history of his father's side of the family, combined with that he spent a fair part of his formative years in Islamic countries, combined with the fact that his parents named him the islamic-sounding Barack Hussein Obama, combined with his dressing in what in this modern age is clearly Islamic clothing. If he were a lifelong Christian such as W. Bush or Bill Clinton, or George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc., then yeah I'd say his wearing muslim clothing didn't raise a serious question about his possibly being a closet muslim.
But when you combine that clothing with his name, and time spent in the muslim world, I think it's legitimate to raise the question. And it's on Obama to prove that he isn't a closet muslim. I'm not saying that Obama definitely is a muslim, but there's enough oddness about it surrounding Obama that it's legitimate for his opponents to raise the question and force Obama to explain himself.
Even if he did explain himself (and he has), you really think that would kill the rumors and the smears? People would still say he's mosque-ing his true intentions and beliefs. And his opponents know that.
Once a rumor's out there, it doesn't go away, even if it's proven to not be true.
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question.
Originally Posted By: whomod
the swift and immediate ass kicking Obama gave McCain when McCain tried to lecture him on Al queda in Iraq. THAT is how you deal with misinformation!
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
G-man somebody could whip up their own "what G-man said" when your boy Rudy was running against McCain. At one point you even suspected McCain of swiping Rudy's campaign plans! (in hindsight who would have wanted them?)
Actually, MEM, the difference is that I always said that I had differences with McCain but still agreed with him enough issues that I would support him over Hillary or Obama.
Actually, MEM, the difference is that I always said that I had differences with McCain but still agreed with him enough issues that I would support him over Hillary or Obama.
You've had post though attacking his character haven't you? It was always a given that you would support McCain over a democrat but when it was McCain against Rudy you had no problem suggesting McCain was capable of stealing Rudy's campaign plans. You just don't have the high ground on this one fella.
I believe mem just called you biased g-man. you should probably give up while you have the chance.
Not at all. G-man being biased just goes without saying. That's not a slam btw, after all who here wants to claim they're not biased? I was just pointing out that G-man himself tackled McCain's character back when he was competing against Rudy. It just appears that somebody's character is rather a fluid thing & seems to depend more on who their running against. Besides McCain, I've seen people that I thought liked the Clinton's get very nasty about them now that their an obstacle for Obama.
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 1, 1:52 AM ET
WASHINGTON - For Republicans, watching Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama fight for supremacy in fundraising is not just a spectator sport. It is a look into the future, and the GOP isn't cheering.
US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama speaks to an audience about economic issues in Austin, Texas on February 28. A bitter row erupted Friday as Obama accused Clinton of scare tactics over a provocative presidential campaign ad hinting he was too inexperienced to protect US kids. (AFP/GETTY
Obama and Clinton together raked in as much as seven times as much cash in February as John McCain, the all-but-certain Republican nominee.
The Democrats, particularly Obama, are also developing a broad base of fervent donors whose help goes beyond sending money.
Some Republicans are sounding alarms.
"Since the midterm election of 2006, Democrats have had an enthusiasm gap with Republicans," said GOP strategist Scott Reed. "They have big crowds, raise more money and appear to have more excitement on the campaign trail. Couple this with turnout numbers, which are off the charts, and Republicans are going to have a big challenge in the fall."
Obama raised $36 million in January. Clinton aides said she raised $35 million in February, and estimates for Obama place his haul for the month at more than $50 million. McCain, who raised about $12 million in January, is on a similar pace for February, according to his campaign.
Such a money advantage could mean that for the first time since post-Watergate campaign finance laws, a presidential candidate may forgo public financing for the general election. That would mean turning aside $85 million for September and October on the assumption that he or she could raise more.
McCain has been trying to hold Obama to an agreement to accept the general election public funds, but Democrats are counseling Obama against it. They believe Republicans will use outside groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money to close any financial advantage Democrats may have.
"If we take the federal money we are disarming ourselves unilaterally against the Republicans," said Steve Murphy, a Democratic strategist who advised Bill Richardson's presidential campaign.
Democratic-leaning outside groups are already entering the contest, promising to target McCain for his stance on the war in Iraq.
The Democratic financial advantage has been evident for more than a year. The eight Democrats who were in the presidential race last year raised a combined $253 million in 2007 from individual donors; the nine Republicans raised a combined $207.5 million. Obama's $36 million in January exceeded the amount raised by all six Republican candidates who were still competing in that month.
The discrepancy was enough to lead Republican National Committee Treasurer Tim Morgan to sound off last weekend in San Francisco during a California Republican convention. Morgan said the RNC has budgeted $150 million for the year, $100 million less than it raised in 2004 when President Bush ran against Democrat John Kerry.
"I look at the Barack Obama campaign in some horror," he said, noting the Democrat's totals so far this year. "That should give all of us a pause."
Republican officials said their party usually budgets conservatively. It planned to raise $172 million in 2004 and ended up raising nearly $249 million. They said party fundraising is ahead of schedule so far this year.
"Republican candidates will have the necessary resources to achieve victory, and communicate the message and mobilize the vote this fall," RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said.
The RNC is the only GOP committee that is faring better than its Democratic counterpart.
Obama and Clinton are still competing, while McCain, anticipating Obama's nomination, is already targeting his campaign against him.
"The next 60 days is all about defining Obama in a way Clinton was never able to do," Reed said. "The big crowds, the curiosity factor and the high platitude speeches have worked — it's a true movement. But can the wave keep a crest all the way to November? I don't think so. It's impossible."
Still, either Obama, who is leading in the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination, or Clinton would clearly have the upper hand going into the general election.
A fundraising advantage, Democrats say, would give the party's nominee the opportunity to compete in states that traditionally have not been considered general election battlegrounds.
"Obama can extend the contest to the Deep South," Murphy said. "That would offset the Southwestern advantage that McCain might have."
Murphy says he believes the Democratic nominee will raise twice as much as the GOP candidate and the Republican Party combined.
"I think $85 million for the general election season is a lot of money to give up," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan organization that studies campaign finance trends. "That's $1 million a day in spending."
But Obama and Clinton spent about $1 million a day in January alone, when they were competing in far fewer states than they would face in a general election.
"I don't know where this tops out," Malbin said. "Even now, only about 2 percent of the public is giving to politicians. It tops out when people who are interested in politics are tapped out."
___
Associated Press writer Laura Kurtzman contributed to his report from California.
Come on, BSAMS. That article has to be fake. After all, people like Obama have been telling us for years that the Republicans are the party of "the rich". How could Obama be raising that sort of money?
Come on, BSAMS. That article has to be fake. After all, people like Obama have been telling us for years that the Republicans are the party of "the rich". How could Obama be raising that sort of money?
Again, G-man, for someone that is on the pulse of politics, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? Obama has been incredibly successful in getting small grass roots donors rather than a few large donors.
Here, for future reference:
Quote:
Small Online Contributions Add Up to Huge Fund-Raising Edge for Obama
CHICAGO — A cluster of cramped cubicles, tucked away in a rear corner of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters here, serves as the heart of a fund-raising machine that has reshaped the calculus of the 2008 election.
Mr. Obama’s finance director, Julianna Smoot, who has helped him raise more than $150 million so far, does not even have her own office. A Ping-Pong table is the gathering spot for Friday lunches for her team.
The setting, which has the feel of an Internet start-up, is emblematic of how Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has been able to raise so much money. On Wednesday, the Obama campaign will report to the Federal Election Commission that it collected $36 million in January — $4 million more than campaign officials had previously estimated — an unprecedented feat for a single month in American politics that was powered overwhelmingly by small online donations. That dwarfed the $13.5 million in January that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is expected to report Wednesday and the $12 million Senator John McCain’s campaign said he brought in for the month.
In other words, Obama is being funded by THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, rather than by small wealthy donors at fancy dinners.
I know, I know, the American people overwhelmingly participating in their election process, and FOR a Democratic candidate no less, must be pretty scary for G-man.
Why is it "tainted"? I'm sure Hollywood is also providing money. The point was that an "overwhelming amount" of his money is coming from small donors rather than from the rich or interested parties.
Here's some commentary by columnists Mark Shields and David Brooks, from last Friday's PBS News Hour.
It's a bit long, but they offer a lot of insights into the strategies, backgrounds and futures of Obama and Clinton, hinged on the Texas, Ohio and other state primaries tomorrow:
With Texas and Ohio on Horizon, Shields and Brooks Assess the Race
Amid worsening economic reports and tightening poll numbers, the primary race between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton entered a critical weekend ahead of primary votes in Texas and Ohio. Analysts Mark Shields and David Brooks provide their take on the week.
__________________
JIM LEHRER: And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, who joins us tonight from Columbus, Ohio, and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Mark, what do the polls -- you're in Ohio. You've been there recently, now. What do the polls and your own reporting show you or tell you about what's going to happen on Tuesday?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, Jim, in many respects, it's following a similar pattern we've seeing elsewhere where Senator Clinton opened up the contest with a double-digit lead -- in some cases, 20 points -- which we're now seeing narrow.
But she is clinging to a single-digit lead in virtually every poll. I think there's been one that showed Senator Obama ahead, but basically a close contest with Senator Clinton still ahead.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with what the congresswoman and the mayor just said, that it really isn't issues that separate them, it's something else?
MARK SHIELDS: It is something else. And, no, there aren't any great issues, although each of them tries to emphasize from time to time differences.
And Barack Obama constantly returns to the vote for the war in Iraq, and Senator Clinton supported that. And Senator Clinton likes to emphasize the difference in their health plans because she thinks that's to her advantage. And I think most people would agree it probably is.
But there are not great divides here; this is not a great ideological strife.
DIFFERENCE IN STYLE, NOT POLICY
JIM LEHRER: You agree with that, do you not, David? We talked about this last week, as well, that this is more than just about checking off issues one way or another?
DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Right, it's not about that. It is about philosophy, though. What strikes me is they really do have two different theories of how change happens.
Obama has a loose, decentralized, bottom-up theory, as you'd expect from a community organizer, that it's not really top-down organizations, that you build a base in the country and you activate people, and then they create change at the top.
I think Clinton has a much more traditional theory of change: You gather the smartest people in the room, union leaders, business leaders, government leaders. You create a policy that you then can spread around the country. So one's a much more bottom-up theory of how change happens; one's much more top-down.
JIM LEHRER: But do you think that's being understood and acted upon at the voter level?
DAVID BROOKS: I do. I mean, Obama talks about it quite a lot, about two different theories of change. And I think for young people, I think that's one of the attractions.
If you grew up in the age of the Internet, which is a decentralized, self-organizing system, you do eBay, you do "The Sims," you basically have that sense. You have a sense that Bono communicates, that you do social change through social action.
And in the world, we're faced with a whole series of transnational problems that are not going to be addressed by traditional politics but are going to be addressed through mobilization.
And I think Obama adopts that language. I think it's a lot of language that especially people under 40 is their natural way of talking about politics.
JIM LEHRER: You read it the same way, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, I do. There's a little difference, Jim, and I think it seen in the structure of the two campaigns.
Barack Obama just set a record. He has a million individual contributors to his campaign by the month of February. In the month of January alone -- we don't have his figures for February yet -- he raised $28 million online in individual contributions.
Ninety percent of those contributions were under $100 each, which is just remarkable. It's exactly the group David was talking about, people not of great income. It's what we've always wanted to have in politics, where there aren't just a few big money guys, that people are contributing.
But they take those contributors, and it's not simply the passive act of making a contribution. You are then enfolded into a community. You're encouraged to go to meetings, to events.
You're regularly communicated with. You're urged to canvas, to make phone calls, to become part of an activist political company, if you would, of like-minded citizens. And that's what's been remarkable.
And, ironically, this is a state, Ohio, that's had nothing but presidential attention the last eight years. It's been the battleground. So these are people, voters, who are -- they've seen presidents. They've seen presidential candidates.
They've had them on their doorstep for eight years, and yet the Obama campaign somehow has been able to get crowds that nobody in this state has ever seen before. And I think it's through that same organizing mechanism.
JIM LEHRER: And that's happening also in Texas, as well, is it not, David?
DAVID BROOKS: Right. Well, especially there in Texas where Obama seems to be ahead.
And the irony, of course, is that we thought Clinton had this fierce political machine and Obama was a newcomer, where he has a much better organized campaign.
And one thing, though, people talk too much about the cultish following. And I've done my share of it. And there is the element of the cult.
But we had a poll in the New York Times-CBS poll this week which asked people, "Do you have some doubts about the person you support?" And, actually, Obama supporters have more doubts about their candidate than Clinton supporters do.
And so there are a lot of people who take a look at the guy and say, "I like him, but I do have some doubts about his inexperience or this and that, but I still basically like him."
So what strikes me about that is it's not all a fever that could fade away in a couple of weeks. There are people who have much more ambivalent and I think a much more realistic sense of what he can actually deliver.
CLINTON CAMPAIGN NEARLY BEATEN
JIM LEHRER: Well, let's talk just some horse-race issues here now. Let's say that Barack Obama does well in both Ohio and Texas -- and use any definition of what "well" is -- what could that mean?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think if he wins one of the two -- and it's likely now he'll win Texas. And he could be...
JIM LEHRER: He's now six points ahead.
DAVID BROOKS: Right, I think it will be over. Bill Clinton has said his wife has to win them both.
And, again, the thing that struck me -- I said this last week, but I met with some more people this week and had the sense confirmed -- that within the Clinton camp, the fight just isn't there among the donors and the staff. They like her, but they've almost got one psychological foot out the door.
So I have trouble seeing her, in a case of a disputed results post-Tuesday, I have trouble seeing her fight against the will of the party, essentially, and that is staying in and making this a long, bloody fight. I don't think the will is there for that.
JIM LEHRER: What do you think about that, Mark? How do you see this post-Tuesday possibility?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, it depends solely on the results.
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
MARK SHIELDS: The Clinton campaign, yes, David's right that Bill Clinton said she had to win both Ohio and Texas. James Carville said the same thing. So, too, did Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, one of her strongest supporters in that state.
But today the campaign, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson, changed the standards, Jim. They said that Barack Obama would not be the logical candidate nominee for president if he didn't win all four contests next Tuesday, if he didn't win Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
So I guess, you know, you could call that moving the goalposts, if you want. But I think, quite honestly, that if Obama wins Texas -- and I think it looks good for him there -- if he comes here and wins Ohio, then I think it's over.
And I think at that point you're in a very sensitive political time frame. There's going to be a stampede of super-delegates to Obama. Obama has to hold that off so it doesn't look like Senator Clinton is being stampeded or forced out of the race.
It's got to be her decision. She deserves 36 hours or whatever is necessary after that, if this does happen, to make up her own mind, to do it on her own terms. It's very much in Barack Obama's interest to do that.
DEMOCRATS EAGER TO FORGET PRIMARIES
JIM LEHRER: It's going to be a difficult thing, if that happens, is it not?
DAVID BROOKS: But, you know, I sense a lot of people who are fervent Obama supporters, at this stage, they have some sense -- they feel a little sorry for Hillary Clinton, because they like her, and they don't want to see her hurt, and they feel she's hurting now.
So I don't sense -- and Mark has been around more of these fights than I have -- but I don't sense any degree of animosity with a few exceptions, but in general. And I think there will...
JIM LEHRER: You mean, from the Obama people toward Clinton?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, or even vice versa, with a few exceptions. But I do think they will go out of their way to be kind.
And Hillary Clinton, if she does go on to lose, has a big future in politics. I mean, everyone who's seen her as a senator will say she's a great senator. She could become majority leader some day. And I don't think she would want to spoil that possibility.
JIM LEHRER: Where do you come down on the animosity thing?
MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I think David's right. I think you saw it in Ray's interview with Congresswoman Tubbs and Mayor Coleman here in Ohio. But I think that's true throughout.
I mean, there are people -- there are zealots in both cases sometimes at leadership positions in the campaign who really have tried to turn this into a holy war.
But for the voters themselves, because there aren't these great ideological differences, and most Democrats like both candidates, so you don't find that animus. And I think there will be very little schadenfreude on the part of the Obama people, if and when Senator Clinton does lose and is forced to resign, or vice versa. I just don't think that happens.
I do think, Jim, there is a test that Barack Obama does face, and it's a moral test, and it's a test of his differentness and uniqueness, and that is if he's going to honor the pledge he made to abide by public financing.
He's under enormous pressure from within his own campaign that he's got this incredible fundraising capacity. He could probably out-raise John McCain 4 or 5 to 1 based upon their ability at this point, their capacity at this point.
Obama did pledge that he would abide by the public financing rules, which is that each candidate gets $85 million once he's a nominee to run that campaign in the fall, in September and October. And I think this is a real test for Barack Obama.
And if he starts to wiggle and waffle and flip-flop on it, I think it calls into real doubt the question of whether he is a change agent, whether he is sincere.
JIM LEHRER: Yes. Do you think that's going to be a big deal, could be?
DAVID BROOKS: It could be. He's already begun wiggling. He wasn't ruled out the possibility...
JIM LEHRER: He was asked about it.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, but I agree with Mark. I mean, the temptation to have that money has got to be there. But if he does this, it really -- he looks like a normal politician.
