We had a great primary day chat last night in the Blend Cover It Live room; you can see the whole conversation here.
Hillary Clinton proved that she could pull off the big state wins in the crunch; last night in the morale-boosting nods she took Ohio, Texas (the primary) — and Rhode Island. The Texas caucuses results are still being tallied at this hour, where Obama holds the lead (52%-48% with 36% in), so the delegate situation hasn’t been settled in the Lone Star State. Obama won handily in Vermont.
My initial, random observations:
* The win in Ohio was by a larger margin than anyone expected, pollsters left scratching heads. Clinton won 54-44. Yet again, it proves how this primary season has flummoxed these pollsters, no matter the state, when the polls show Clinton and Obama within the margin of error. People are making up their minds at the last minute.
* Gender, education level, and Latino vote mattered. Exit polls in Ohio and Texas Clinton drew women, those who don’t have a college education, and Latinos - the base she had garnered prior to Super Tuesday. Obama lost the independent advantage that he had on Super Tuesday. Personally, I think the pundits fail to take enough into account the quirky nature of all of the states. For once I think we’re seeing that you cannot lump together what seem to be states of similar demographics as wholly predictable. That’s actually a refreshing concept.
* Negative campaigning works? Well who didn’t know that? Of course the “3 AM” Clinton ads would have a beneficial effect, regardless of a speedy Obama response. If the GOP has taught us anything, fear works; the Clinton campaign didn’t have the money to compete on all fronts, so they had to go for the jugular to maximize effect. Of course that came with a price — she tried to make a case that Obama would be weak on national security, and by extension John McCain would be better prepared on that front. Not exactly the message you want to telegraph if you’re thinking about the general election, but certainly it can work in her favor in the primary.
* Media spin on the wins - what about the delegate count? The media, in its glee to egg on the drama of a continuing Dem race, has now declared the race wide open again, even though the math doesn’t favor any possibility of a Clinton win on the delegate side in the remaining contests. Last night on CNN, John King was playing hypotheticals on the interactive delegate counter map, and giving Clinton healthy future victories in plausible states, she still doesn’t surpass Obama’s count. It also showed that neither candidate would secure the number of pledged delegates to win outright - the superdelegates would then be in play, and…
(I continue below the fold)
* Will the renegade states of Florida and Michigan delegates be in play? Howard Dean currently says no, but has been a ton of pressure by the Clinton campaign to seat them (and the Obama campaign not to seat them), even though all candidates — and the states — knew that moving those primaries up was a big no-no. I’ve already posted that Florida governor (and chatted up GOP VP candidate) Charlie Crist has said he would agree to re-do the primary there; I haven’t heard any speculation as to what might be proposed in Michigan, where Clinton was the only name on the ballot.
* Spin machine silliness. The Clinton campaign is floating a crazy “voter buyer’s remorse” message — that the results in TX and OH prove “American voters” are unsure about the sending Barack Obama out there to face the GOP as the Dem nominee. This is bogus. In order to have buyer’s remorse, you have to cast a vote and want to take it back. Each contest is a new set of voters, with different concerns, demographics and outlooks, and are seeing ads targeted to them with messaging that some in the other states have not seen.
Again, on the other hand, the challenge for the Obama camp is to prove that in the general election, he can win the states critical to an electoral college victory. While he has put together an impressive string of victories in Red states, how many of those states will vote Dem in November? For all the talk about Texas, that state is going to go with McCain in the fall. I think some of the states that have been trending purple, like Virginia are ripe for an Obama victory, but what about Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida? Will the Bradley Effect come into play in the general?
You could also ask what role gender bias or the “Tweety Effect” might be in those states if Clinton were facing McCain, or the fact that the GOP is salivating at the prospect of facing Clinton.
* More silly spin. Look for the Clinton campaign, with fresh victories to tout, that it’s the state wins that matter. Unfortunately, when Mark Penn, the $3 million-dollar/month “chief strategist” for Hillary, said this on February 13 in a tornado-level spinning memo to the press:
This election will come down to delegates…Again and again, this race has shown that it is voters and delegates who matter, not the pundits or perceived “momentum”…As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates - not the candidate who wins the most states.Guess he’ll have to come up with a different message and hope the press doesn’t bring up that blowhard, albeit factual, statement.
* No-win situation in the MSM for Obama if he goes nuclear negative. One of Barack Obama’s appeals has been a concerted effort to keep the messaging positive, but to respond pointedly and quickly when attacked. Now if he is forced to deal some political body blows to Clinton the rest of the way, he threatens to stir up the “angry, menacing negro” image that the GOP will subtly (or not so subtly) further cultivate. This has been an Obama Achilles’ heel of bias that is little discussed in the MSM, because too many pundits have been trying desperately to make this a “post-racial” election. Wishing doesn’t make it true. We have entered into new political and social territory in this election cycle, and the avoidance of deeper discussions about inherent racial bias and the use of it in political strategy isn’t being adequately aired in public in a healthy manner. Obama’s team, which has been smart on many fronts, better have a rabbit to pull out of the hat to address this. They are going to go there…
A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama’s team will respond to Tuesday’s results by going negative on Clinton - raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons’ past.Is this downward spiral by both Obama and Clinton what we need?
However, that doesn’t mean the strategizing isn’t occurring behind the safety of closed doors. You can be sure that in Mark Penn’s shop the rules of base tactics apply. And we already know that the GOP has created a task force of sorts to see how far they can take attacks on Clinton or Obama based on race and gender.
It’s not clear that Hillary’s team is any better off on this front, in terms of a strategy to fight well-targeted misogyny missiles. Again, we’re in new territory; her campaign to date has been messy and disorganized when it comes to messaging, so it’s hard to know if they could get their act together to deal with it.
Who will weather this sort of slime better in the general? That’s a good question, and we’re going to find out because Republicans are never afraid to “go there.”
* This means a longer primary fight, good or bad? I don’t know, I’m of two minds about this. As someone who would be disenfranchised by an early close to the Dem race (NC’s primary is May 6, with 134 delegates), it would be great to be able to weigh in on the nominee selection. It gives the rest of the late states in the primary season a chance to reflect on all of the contests so far, see more of what both candidates are made of, and whether they know how to handle political body blows.
On the other hand, with a McCain nomination in the bag, he can now focus on closing the money gap with the Democrats, both of whom have huge war chests in comparison to his. Clinton and Obama are now going to spend precious time, effort and money battling and bloodying one another — exactly what the GOP wants to occur. McCain’s team and the Republicans can now spend time analyzing the Clinton and Obama camps’ attacks on one another to pursue attack strategy.
However, McCain has a long record; and he’s vulnerable on several fronts. BTW, take a look at the official Republican nominee. What a standard bearer he will be:
70 Responses to “Clinton checks off big wins in Ohio and Texas”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Katherine Lopez of National Review reported that there was a heavy Republican turnout in Texas, perhaps approaching 10%, to vote for Hillary Clinton, in order to stir up more chaos in the Democratic nomination process. Sharon, who occasionally comments here, said that she was going to vote for Mrs Clinton for precisely that purpose.
As for me, I changed my registration to Democrat a couple of weeks ago, just so that I could vote against Mrs Clinton in the now-apparently-important Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Unlike your assumption that Republicans would rather face Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama in November, I’d much rather y’all nominated Mr Obama; not only do I think he’d be easier to defeat — which goes against the conventional wisdom, I know — but I see him as far less objectionable to Republicans if he does win.
Personally, I think McCain’s wrapping it up early is a problem–for him. He’s no longer an interesting story and there goes his free publicity via the MSM. Clinton and Obama are still interesting because they are actively competing. Their names will be on the TV, in the paper, on the internet for the next few months. As some politician or another once said, “I don’t care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right.” Even if Clinton and Obama attack each other, their names will be in front of the voters and that will help the winner in the general election.
I wouldn’t despair, Obama partisans! The caucuses are 1/3 of the delegates. I’m sure in other parts of the country, the shakeout was different, but last night most caucuses here were anywhere from 2-1 for Obama to like 9-1.
The downside is that the Clinton campaign has tasted victory with fear-mongering, so they’ll keep it up.
The downside is that the Clinton campaign has tasted victory with fear-mongering, so they’ll keep it up.
And remember, Mark Penn and his consulting firm has a vested interest in either Clinton or McCain winning. An Obama win gains him no client/power base. So he will have no problem trying to take Obama out with tactics that will ultimately benefit McCain as well.
I’m fairly certian, anecdotally speaking, that Dana is significantly lowballing. You don’t have to be a registered Democrat to caucus in Texas. It was Republicans who sealed Hillary’s win in the Lone Star State. Oh well, they were affecting an election’s outcome by perfectly legal means, for a change.
The good news is that the race remains pretty damn gripping …
certian = certain
This has to be the only blog in the sphere where people post to correct obvious typos. I’m charmed by that and I resent it in equal measures.
About 10% of the Ohio Dem vote was Repubs, too.
I guarantee they comprised a lot of the 20% of Hillary voters who said that Obama’s race played a factor in their vote, much as the right will try to deny this.
Godmonkey: I’m fairly certain, anecdotally speaking, that Dana is significantly lowballing.
I’m fairly certain, anecdotally speaking, that Dana is a gibbering idiot who thinks Bush has been a good President and would vote for Bush again if he could. So whatever he says can be disregarded, much as you would disregard a chaotic blubbering drunk who was trying to tell you what car to buy.
Amanda: Is this downward spiral by both Obama and Clinton what we need?
Of course not. *sigh* Still, it will give them each some practice, depending which one wins, on handling the really nasty attacks fro the Republicans.
It’s the victory through fearmongering that has me worried. I hate to see it go that direction. I suppose I always knew it would, but it turns me off completely.
Here is to hope!
“I’m fairly certain, anecdotally speaking, that Dana is a gibbering idiot who thinks Bush has been a good President and would vote for Bush again if he could.”
It’s not even an anecdote. Dana has explicitly stated as much on numerous occasions.
Ask him now and I’m sure he would be happy to whip that lunacy out again…
Oh, I admit it fully: if President Bush could run again, I’d vote for him again. Yeah, his current job approval ratings are low, but, like Harry Truman, in twenty or so years he’ll be regarded as one of our better presidents.
He hasn’t done everything that I’d like, in that I’d have preferred the Republicans to cut spending, drastically, and they sure as Hell didn’t do that! But they cut taxes significantly — and I’ve posted publicly just how much my family has saved in just 2006 and 2007 due to the Bush tax cuts — and they are fighting back against the Islamists. President Bush’s judicial appointments have been mostly good.
So yeah, I’d love to see him as president again, were that possible. I only hope that John McCain does as good a job.
As for “anecdotally lowballing” the Republican participation in the Texas Democratic primary, my source was anecdotal; I don’t know if anyone has actually done the exit polling to determine the real numbers yet.
“I only hope that John McCain does as good a job.”
God Help Us All…
I think y’all in the blogosphere have really misread that “3 a.m. wakeup call” ad–perhaps your pro-Obama bias prevents you from seeing it the way undecideds and older people might see it. The ad wasn’t fearmongering–it worked with parents and especially 40+ women, and it was effective in connection Clinton with a sense of vigilant maternal protection. Working-class women in Ohio and Texas, and married men (versus single men) are the people she effectively reached with that ad. If you think that was “fearmongering,” you haven’t seen anything yet compared to what McCain will unleash on whomever is the Democratic nominee.
Historiann.com
I think y’all have really misread that “3 a.m. wakeup call” ad–the political blogosphere leans heavily for Obama, so I don’t think seeing it the way undecideds and older people might see it. The ad wasn’t fearmongering–it worked with parents and especially 40+ women, and it was effective in connection Clinton with a sense of vigilant maternal protection. Working-class women in Ohio and Texas, and married men (versus single men) are the people she effectively reached with that ad. If you think that was “fearmongering,” you haven’t seen anything yet compared to what McCain will unleash on whomever is the Democratic nominee.
Historiann.com
You have to be completely blinded by support for Clinton not to see “vigilante” as being in the same camp as “fear-mongering”. It’s worth noting that Ohio was awash in Obama-the-secret-Muslim rumors, too.
“If you think that was “fearmongering,” you haven’t seen anything yet compared to what McCain will unleash on whomever is the Democratic nominee.”
Of that, I have no doubt whatsoever. But that does not mean Clinton was not fearmongering…
… President Bush… like Harry Truman, in twenty or so years he’ll be regarded as one of our better presidents.
I will bet all of my retirement funds against that. And my house, too.
On the cusp of off topic:
“the math doesn’t favor any possibility of a Clinton win on the delegate side in the remaining contests”
This whole line of thought that Clinton should drop out because she has less votes (
well crud, I checked it twice and it looks like the rest of my post got eaten.
Anyways, I’m tired of hearing everywhere I turn that Clinton should drop out now because she’s (less than 100 delegates) down… And I didn’t vote for her.
There IS a reason Obama and Clinton are essentially neck and neck, let the remaining states have their say in who they think is the best candidate just like all the states before them.
For the 1st time in my voting life, Texas actually mattered in a (democratic) presidential election, why should the remaining states not?
I think the 3am was such a feminist ad! I mean, how else do you say “I have an experienced Man on call to tell me what to do in a crunch”.
But they cut taxes significantly — and I’ve posted publicly just how much my family has saved in just 2006 and 2007 due to the Bush tax cuts — and they are fighting back against the Islamists
How do you propose to pay for “fighting back against the Islamists”, if not with taxes?
President Bush’s judicial appointments have been mostly good.
Sure, if a police state counts as “good.”
So by Clinton’s own logic vis a vis Republicans voting in Dem primaries her victory shouldn’t count…right?
Dana, please share what y’all are smoking now. Sounds like it is reeeeealy good stuff!
Can I have some of your drugs?
Clinton won 54-44. Yet again, it proves how this primary season has flummoxed these pollsters, no matter the state, when the polls show Clinton and Obama within the margin of error. People are making up their minds at the last minute.
I think the bigger issue is that polls are a snapshot, not a prediction.
Pollsters should know this, but may have in interest in keeping it a bit quiet so their foolish clients in the press corps keep purchasing their services.
That’s really all there is. Polls are snapshots of objects in motion. That they’re expected to be more is part of the problem.
Dana, please share what y’all are smoking now. Sounds like it is reeeeealy good stuff!
Nuh uh. Good stuff heightens your senses. Bad stuff leads you to think George Bush is a good man and a good president.
That’s some nasty-ass ditch weed laced with some other unidentifiable shit.
The dumb peasants and super-rich corporatists win!
…. alright. Long Live feudalism.
I think I am going to buy Walmart, Carlyle and Haliburton stock. In case Hillary wins for real.
oh, definitely need to load up on HMO’s too.
No drugs, just Mountain Dew.
It’s the victory through fearmongering that has me worried. I hate to see it go that direction. I suppose I always knew it would, but it turns me off completely.
That worries me, too. Frankly, I think the reason the primaries are so close and keep switching between the two candidates is that they’re both really good candidates and people literally can’t decide. As soon as one of them gets a leg up, the other candidate surges. Democrats are not ready to crown a winner yet, because we like them both.
I’m not kidding: Clinton/Obama ticket. Unbeatable and assassination-proof.
I’m not kidding: Clinton/Obama ticket. Unbeatable and assassination-proof.
I like it. Especially if Peloski remains speaker–can’t even get a white boy by assassinating them both.
I agree that Clinton and Obama are both good candidates. The reason I’m pro-Obama is not that I loathe Hillary, but because I want to give the big, fat finger to the DLC, James Carville, Terry McAuliffe and their ilk. But the bottom line is what matters most to me is a Democrat in the White House come 2009.
People are jittery because they’re a-skeert - there is a sense that there is so much riding on this race, the Dems don’t dare put one foot wrong. And the problem with this is that this helps the Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The real issue with the Dems is that they have to remove the INEFFECTUAL LOSERS tattoo from their collective forehead, that even their supporters believe about them.
And can McCain inspire passion and get the Repubs to get out the votes the way the netroots/grassroots seem to be doing for the Dems?
I’m with Mnemosyne; in fact, I think the best way to go is for each candidate to pledge that if s/he wins, s/he will take the runner up as Veep. That would make everyone stick to the issues and keep the sliming down to a minimum. Hillary has already said she’s be happy to have Obama as Veep; now the ball’s in his court.
Who in the right mind want to take Hillary as Veep? Seriously. She’ll backdoor everything and all of a sudden yer set up for one scandal after another and get impeached.
No way Jose. Don’t trust her period. It’s not her, but the people around her that pushes her.
I believe that SurveyUSA predicted Clinton would win Ohio 54-44, so they were very unflummoxed.
Right now I have Obama with 46.2% and Clinton with 45% of the total vote. I do not count Michigan or Florida and use the Washingtion primary numbers, this actually helps Obama’s percent even though he didn’t do as well in the primary (which didn’t count in terms of delegates). It includes yesterday’s primaries (the Texas caucus is only 37% counted).
Overall, I have 61.6% of the votes going to Democrats (here I do include Michigan and Florida). That’s very good, isn’t it.
I should note that these numbers aren’t exact since some states used caucuses instead of primaries and states with caucuses have many less votes.
I’d rather have an Obama/ Clinton ticket, but Clinton saying she’s thinking about tapping Obama for VP would is AWESOME. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see that ticket. I think it would be really helpful in cementing the Democrats behind them.
The pledged delegates are not the most democratic measure of support. I can tell you what the problem is right now, Obama leads the total popular vote by 580k votes. If yu count Florida, he only leads by 280k if you count florida and Michigan Clitnon leads by 40k. An agrument can be made either way about who is leading in the most democratic measure, we are going to have to redo MI and FL to settle this fairly. A superdelegate showdown or a pledge delegate count that disagrees with the popular vote are going to be pretty sucky ways to pick a candidate.
Dana: Oh, I admit it fully: if President Bush could run again, I’d vote for him again.
So you’re volunteering to go fighting in Iran and/or Syria?
Oh, right, I forget. As long as you get your tax cut and it’s only poor American losers and brown foreigners who die, you’re happy.
BTW, Dana - the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions are now estimated to cost $3 trillion. That’s $3,000,000,000,000. That’s better than $7,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
Gee, I sure hope your “tax cut” comforts you - because you’re not going to be able to evade paying your share of that one way or another…
“Gee, I sure hope your “tax cut” comforts you - because you’re not going to be able to evade paying your share of that one way or another…”
Phoenician, I tried to make that exact point with Dana a couple weeks ago. The silence of his (non-)response was deafening.
And yet he claims to love his kids, who will, along with the rest of us short-term-thinking Americans, inherit the debt and be stuck paying for it for decades/centuries to come…
Dana March 5, 2008 at 7:55 am
I’d much rather y’all nominated Mr Obama; not only do I think he’d be easier to defeat — which goes against the conventional wisdom, I know — but I see him as far less objectionable to Republicans if he does win.”
If he is less objectionable to average republicans, then he is harder to defeat. If he is easier to defeat, then he is more objectionable to republicans.
which one is it?
squashed, I’m afraid to ask: what is “backdooring” in this context??
Buy Walmart , buy walmart!…
(oh man, this is my pet peeve about Hillary, because it fundamentally altered retail sales in a lot of small towns. And I am willing to bet those “free trade” agreement stuff is connected to Clinton ties to walmart. (Walmart corp is a giant, …
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-01.htm
Hillary Clinton was paid $18,000 each year she served on the board, plus $1,500 for each meeting she attended. By 1993 she had accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock.
As Clinton sheds her Arkansas past and looks ahead to a possible 2008 presidential run, the Wal-Mart issue presents an exquisite dilemma: how to reconcile the political demands she faces today with her history at a company many consumers depend upon but many Democratic activists revile.
‘’The interesting question is not just Hillary Clinton’s history at Wal-Mart, but why it’s delicate for her to talk about Wal-Mart,” said Charles Fishman, author of ‘’The Wal-Mart Effect,” a book on the company’s impact on the national economy. ‘’Plenty of Democrats denounce Wal-Mart, but there are also plenty of people who need it, love it and rely on it.”
In 1986, when Wal-Mart’s founder, Sam Walton, tapped Clinton to be the company’s first female board member, Wal-Mart was a fraction of its current size, with $11.9 billion in net sales.
Today, Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer and largest private employer, with over $312 billion in sales last year and 1.3 million employees in the US alone. But recently, the company has drawn intense scrutiny for its labor practices — from its wages to the lack of affordable health coverage for employees, to its stiff resistance to unionization.
——
“Wal-Mart is not just the world’s largest retailer. It’s the world’s largest company–bigger than ExxonMobil, General Motors, and General Electric. The scale can be hard to absorb. Wal-Mart sold $244.5 billion worth of goods last year. It sells in three months what number-two retailer Home Depot sells in a year. And in its own category of general merchandise and groceries, Wal-Mart no longer has any real rivals.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtdwcbqeE5s
Eric, Rejector of Memes March 5, 2008 at 4:01 pm
squashed, I’m afraid to ask: what is “backdooring” in this context??”
She owes a lot of money and favor during her political lifetime, on top of her lobbying buddies (You think Penn and Carville crew will just go away ?)
So she will be trojan horse to all nasty corporations lobbying crew. She can’t get away from them, since she owes them big time. (scan youtube for various bit and pieces, the chatter. She built her political based on these type of relationship.)
so no. Time to start fresh. Otherwise why bother with election, put Cheney back in charge already. It is not possible to clean up washington with Hillary in charge. She is part of the money politics.
PS. Hillary’s biggest problem is her money and how she gets it.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/democratic-nomination-battle-now-focuses-on-wyoming/
For all of the Clintonian celebrating, I just don’t see how gaining a net of 12 delegates is all that big a deal. She’s got a looooong way to go.
12?
Clinton: 73 + 19 + 77 + 7 = 176
Obama: 63 + 10 + 71 + 12 = 156
No caucus count for TX yet. So currently 20, via CNN who I trust only marginally more than Fox to get it right.
JohnL looked at vote totals, so I looked at deligates.
Clinton: 46.8% pledged deligates; 54.5 superdeligates; 47.9% total
Obama: 52.2 % pledged deligates; 45.5 superdeligates; 51.1 total
Edwards: 1% pledged deligates; 0.8 total
That’s a 3% difference at the totals. Obama is not running away with the race (and wasn’t before). This is so even because we have two good candidates.
Let’s hope they do not fuck it up again for themselves (and here I mean us as well as the campaigns).
Teac asked if anyone had found a breakdown of not just delegates but also total votes- I found this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914
And NOT from Fox, Helen H!
You’re right; not the most unbiased site, eh? I’m blaming headaches and 11th snow/school day due to icy roads all day- kids will be making up days until at least June 24th. Oh boy.
Husband just got this a few minutes ago:
So according to Plouffe, Barack Obama is down only 4!! Oh, this modern math confuses me…
On the other hand, if you go here you’ll see the movement of delegates in total. And here Clinton has gained 24 delegates (not including all of Texas, especially those assigned by the caucus). Since Obama is leading the caucus (although still only 39% have been counted) this should decrease.
At this point I don’t see either getting enough delegates to win outright unless there’s a big change (Obama does have a much better chance).
Cruising around the net, the numbers I keep seeing range between 4 and 15. After the Texas caucus numbers are counted in, between 4 and 7 is probably more accurate.
Favorite Hillaryism:
“No one has been elected president who did not win Ohio.”
Actually, the correct quote is:
No Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio since Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860.
On the Democratic side - just a couple of insignificant guys - Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.
aquashed… we had a Wal-Mart distribution center here in Maine suffer a partial roofing collapse (50x 40′) yesterday because of the weight of snow and ice! They just finished building this 1 million square foot warehouse 2 years ago…
phoenician,
Are you saying the soldiers who are killed in this war are “poor American losers”?
squshed wrote:
Quite frankly, it’s that he’s black.
I remember the election of Douglas Wilder in Virginia in 1989, where the polls predicted all of the statewide Democratic candidates would win by double-digit percentages. The other two statewide Democratic candidates did, with Attorney General Mary Sue Terry becoming the first person to rack up a million votes in the Old Dominion. Mr Wilder won by about ½ of 1%. Why? Because a lot of people, when polled and identifiable, said that yeah, they’d vote for the black guy, but once in the privacy of the voting booth, picked the white candidate. And in that particular contest, the Republican candidate was so bad that even I voted for Mr Wilder.
In 1994, the same scenario played out in the North Carolina Senate race between Harvey Gantt and Jesse Helms.
In this years’ primaries, we’ve seen a lot of demographic voting: Mrs Clinton triumphing among white women, and Mr Obama among blacks of both sexes; when John Edwards was a candidate, he was winning among white males, and this was among Democrats in the Democratic primaries.
It is my guess — unprovable in advance, of course — that in the privacy of the voting booth, there will be a significant bleed-off of white votes for Mr Obama, and moving to John McCain, the safe, white candidate.
That’s why I think Mr Obama would be easier to defeat in the fall, even though I think he’d be less objectionable to Republicans than Mrs Clinton if he won.
However, not everyone is as racist as the Republicans.
Dana March 5, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Quite frankly, it’s that he’s black.”
Big effing deal. All southern white racists live in states with good number of minority.
If states with confederate flags were PA, IL or CA, I’d be worry. But it’s GA, AL, TX, MS… Let the racist crew go ape about minority becoming a president and I’d love to see democrats go out in huge numbers just to shut them up in next 3-4 elections.
That on top of GOP racism problem that they won’t be able to shake for next 2-3 decades.
Or maybe, just maybe, people have caught up to the little tiny fact that Obama is not even remotely a progressive and liberal, as Shakes argues here?http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/hang-ten-dude.html
It is already well known that amongst the actual registered Democrats, Hillary Clinton always had a far larger following than Holy Obama. But that will be yet another little insignificant truth put aside by the Holy Obama movement because, after all, facts are irrelevant.
I also find it very funny that the same people who complained about Bush stealing the elections in 2000 have no problem with their own candidate’s possibility to win the nominations despite not having the larger popular vote, and with the disenfranchisement of the Michigan and Florida voters.
Oh well, hypocrisy, well at home at Pandagon. Who wouldda thunk it?
soopermouse March 5, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Or maybe, just maybe, people have caught up to the little tiny fact that Obama is not even remotely a progressive and liberal, as Shakes argues here?
====
Well let’s take a look (I take it, they were comparing it to Hillary.)
“When I’ve wondered, as a result of, for example, Obama’s vote to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State, his endorsement of Joe Lieberman, his support of McCain’s immigration plan, or his opposition to impeachment, whether he’s really progressive, I’m told to trust him—and that Hillary’s done stupid shit, too, which, believe me, I know, but that doesn’t actually tell me anything about Obama.”
—
Hillary Clinton, voted to confirm Rice.
Clinton created the DLC! (hence Lieberman)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
* Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri (1985 - 1986)
* Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia (1986 - 1988)
* Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia (1988 - 1990)
* Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas (1990 - 1991)
* Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana (1991 - 1993)
* Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma (1993 - 1995)
* Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (1995 - 2001)
* Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (2001 - 2005)
* Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa (2005 - 2007)
* Former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee (2007 - present)
his support of McCain’s immigration plan
(sure as hell better than Hillary’s flip-flopping about immigration. Is she still pushing ‘path to citizenship? oh wait, she run away from that after wingnut attack. Kennedy endorse Obama, which was largely for immigration/latino advantage)
——-
Now Let’s collect the stupid shit that Hillary has done
1. AUMF
2. Kyl-Lieberman act
3. permanent Iraq occupation
(I am only tracking issue that I think very big deal and obvious)
Did Hillary even show up for FISA senate vote? (yeah that’s right, very liberal)
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/lyman.htm
Founded in 1984 by a group of moderate Southern politicians, the Democratic Leadership Council’s goal was to move the Democratic Party toward the center of the political spectrum. Although it struggled at first the DLC caught a break in 1992 when Bill Clinton, one of the organization’s founders, was elected President. Since then the DLC has grown in size and become a major factor in national politics and policy making. The organization has achieved its success by pioneering a “Third Way” of approaching the problems that confront the nation. Instead of being couched in the old terms of “liberal” and “conservative,” the DLC has moved the debate above partisan politics and toward logical solutions. Many feel that this move toward the center is the wave of the future in politics. But simply talking about the “Third Way” in an abstract manner is confusing. This essay, by taking one issue — in this case education reform — and examining ideas held by liberals, conservatives and “Third Wayers,” is an endeavor to make the purpose of the DLC more easily understood.
Squashed
I knew you would bring up Kyl Liebermann
…
Because earlier in the year, Obama co authored a similar measure “The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.” asking
“(14) the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;
”
so, his measure didn’t pass, and he failed to be present yet again to vote on Kyl Liebermann, and you count that as opposing Kyl Liebermann.
Isn’t it nice? Barack Obama has found the best way of dealing with hard decisions, he just doesn’t show up to vote for them.
Fourth highest absenteism record in the US senate’s history,.. because he was too busy campaigning. Someone who is neglecting their actual job for personal reasons yet still gets paid for said job is normally called a fraud you know, and in a corporation would normally lose that job.
And Liebermann? you mean the same Liebermann who mentored Barack Obama’s career? Please
And you might not want to mention the term “liberal” in the same paragraph with Barack Obama’s name, after all the senator is trying to not appear as one.
mentor isn’t the same as “Clinton campaigning for Lieberman” right? On top of that a lot of net post claim obama has this or that connection to important law figure. (did you follow the underground weather posts? classic.)
—-
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/clinton_vs_obama_the_fact_chec.html
The Facts
Both Clinton and Obama have outlined plans for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I looked at these plans here and here. While there are some differences between their plans, both candidates have talked about keeping a residual force in Iraq to battle Al-Qaeda and protect U.S. interests in the country. Both candidates have also said that it is in the U.S. “national interest” to counter the influence of Iran.
Here is what Obama had to say on Iraq and Iran in a November 2006 speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs:
It is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time [if the Iraqi government fulfills a number of conditions, including disbanding militias and moving toward political reconciliation.] Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.
He then called for stepped-up diplomacy, leading to a Middle East Peace conference, and added the following:
Make no mistake - if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
Kyl Liebermann amendment IS NOT just “iran is terrorist” That law is an exact copy of Iraq Liberation act. Which ultimately lead to US invasion to Iraq.
within it contains all the provision that allows pentagon to allocate resource to start attacking Iran.
It was when people online notice the dangerous similarity that senate start inserting different language.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054151.php
Hillary was pandering hard to neocon. (her vote was followed by series of speeches in various places, beating the war drum. Youtube has at least 3 records.)
Why do you think I am against Hillary? (You think I particularly care about universal healthcare or what not? both are not going to pass. The budget deficit is $400 and down, while dollar is collapsing. neither of them can make it work. First order of business is to stabilize global economy and prevent dollar collapse.)
I just remember my rule to NEVER TRUST CLinton people and actually fact check
section 219!
S.970
Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110TFmYpC:e10006:
(d) List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110TFmYpC:e10006:
My turn.
Hillary is mouthing war with Iran, way ahead. Directly connected to external foreign policy
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php
NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation.
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032006.html
As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.
During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, “I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel’s right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel …”
As Sen. Clinton embraces Israel’s violence, as well as AIPAC’s duplicitous Iran position, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the recent shelling of the Gaza Strip. Over the past weeks Israel continues to mark the occupied territories (they call ‘buffer zones’) like a frothing-mouth K9 on the loose.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/20/comment.iran
This produced a further hardening of US policy in the last years of the Bush administration. In the 2008 US presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, felt compelled - perhaps against her own better judgment - to use the Iran issue to demonstrate that she could be tougher than John McCain on national security issues.
When she came into office, she was already committed to preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, by military means if necessary. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime had abandoned all restraint in its pursuit of that objective, calculating that its own best chances of survival lay in the swiftest possible acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. In February 2009, an alarming intelligence report reached Washington, suggesting that Tehran - using a secret cascade of its version of the P-2 centrifuge - was much closer to obtaining a bomb than had been thought. In a series of crisis meetings, President Clinton, her new secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, and her new secretary of defence, Joe Biden, decided that they could afford to wait no longer. Operation Gulf Peace, for which the Pentagon had long made detailed contingency plans, started on March 6 2009.
Make no mistake - if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
Uh-huh. But the Iranians lending support to Iraqi insurgents because they’re afraid of a certain aggressive power using Iraq as a staging area from which to attack them is an entirely incomprehensible concept which can never be allowed into American public discourse…
Hillary Clinton on International Law
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803
Not only is she willing to support military assistance to repressive regimes, she has little concern about controlling weapons that primarily target innocent civilians. Senator Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children.
She was also among a minority of Democratic Senators to side with the Republican majority last year in voting down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas. Each of these cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets that are scattered over an area the size of up to four football fields and, with a failure rate of up to 30%, become de facto land mines. As many as 98% of the casualties caused by these weapons are civilians.
Senator Clinton also has a record of dismissing reports by human rights monitors that highlight large-scale attacks against civilians by allied governments. For example, in the face of widespread criticism by reputable human rights organizations over Israel’s systematic assaults against civilian targets in its April 2002 offensive in the West Bank, Senator Clinton co-sponsored a resolution defending the Israeli actions that claimed that they were “necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.” She opposed UN efforts to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli occupation forces and criticized President Bush for calling on Israel to pull back from its violent re-conquest of Palestinian cities in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
because of the caucus results obama will win texas. unfortunately, because of our bifurcated system, that salient fact won’t be verifiable until the results of the county/senatorial district caucuses on march 29. this means the results of the recent set of votes should be hillary wins two and obama wins two.
i know we’re a little crazy in texas, and i apologize to everyone i know in other countries about george w, but our primary/caucus hybrid isn’t THAT hard to understand.
because of the caucus results obama will win texas. unfortunately, because of our bifurcated system, that salient fact won’t be verifiable until the results of the county/senatorial district caucuses on march 29. this means the results of the recent set of votes should be hillary wins two and obama wins two.
i know we’re a little crazy in texas, and i apologize to everyone i know in other countries about george w, but our primary/caucus hybrid isn’t THAT hard to understand.
because of the caucus results obama will win texas. unfortunately, because of our bifurcated system, that salient fact won’t be verifiable until the results of the county/senatorial district caucuses on march 29. this means the results of the recent set of votes should be hillary wins two and obama wins two.
i know we’re a little crazy in texas, and i apologize to everyone i know in other countries about george w, but our primary/caucus hybrid isn’t THAT hard to understand.