Obama didn’t just win yesterday, he won big enough to maximize his net gain of delegates out of the four contests. In the Virgin Islands, for example, he won 90% of the vote and captured all three available delegates. His strategy going forward is clear.
In squeezing every delegate out of the small and mid-sized states between now and March 4, and every dollar out of his supporters, Obama is hoping to build a head of steam this month that will make him unstoppable and will lure free-floating superdelegates to his camp.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s strategy is less obvious:
The Clinton camp is braced for Mr Obama to win a series of primary elections over the next three weeks, which they fear could hand the Illinois senator unstoppable momentum in the race for the White House…
The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party’s leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.
Clinton aides have privately admitted that Mr Obama would only consider such a move if offered the position of vice presidential running mate, something Mrs Clinton has always been reluctant to consider.
According to that, Obama has already guaranteed himself a place on the ticket. But there’s no explanation for how the Clintons could get the ‘party grandees’ to convince Obama to accept the second spot. I don’t know how Maine is going to vote today, but Obama has already won 18 states to Clinton’s 10 (with New Mexico tied). If Obama sweeps the Potomac primary on Tuesday and Wisconsin next week, he’ll be up either 21-11 or 22-10 in states won (plus the District of Columbia). Even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas on March 4th, she’ll surely lose Wyoming on March 8th and Mississippi on March 10th. And then there is a six-week break before Pennsylvania.
In a near best case scenario, Clinton might enter the Pennsylvania Intermission even in pledged delegates, but having lost 26 of 40 state contests (including the last two before the break). She’ll be able to justify going ahead with the campaign, but she’ll have no case that Obama should concede. If anything, the pressure will be all the other way. And, of course, this is a near best case scenario.
Clinton aides believe that if Mr Obama does not deliver a knock-out blow before March 4, the advantage will swing back to her and she will argue for a deal in which uncommitted super-delegates unite behind her, to preserve party unity.
But the prospect of a deal behind closed doors, that could brush aside the views of voters in the primaries, is already creating fury in the party.
Donna Brazile, an African American strategist, said last week: “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party.”
But the Clinton camp fears that a failure to engineer a deal could lead to bitter battles at the Democrat convention in Denver in late August, which could even end with Al Gore, the former vice president, emerging as a compromise candidate.
“There’s a five per cent chance of that happening, but that’s five percent too high,” the Clinton source said.
Al Gore? Interesting…
Clinton is using the Giuliani Election Strategy: Lose, lose, lose and hope to win.
It worked for front-runner Giuliani.
Though he wasn’t able to take his home state on Super Tuesday.
I think that after three weeks of wins, the Clinton lead in Ohio and Texas may well dry up and go away.
That’s what I want to see happen, of course! I hope that’s not entirely a fantasy.
I saw a poll taken in Wisconsin 2/6-2/7 that shows Clinton stil ahead there. I wonder what that will look like after Maine’s contest today, and the Potomac primaries Tuesday…
Meanwhile, I wonder if it’s worth writing letters to the superdelegates begging them to look at who won the most pledged delegates, and not to overrule the will of the people. If the party elite shove Clinton down our throats I’ll be very upset.
Not quite the best way to invigorate the party.
A lot of the superdelegates are representatives, Senators, governors. Obama has much longer coattails. They aren’t going to automatically vote for Clinton when their states voted for Obama and Obama’s the better choice to get them and their stateside allies reelected. So the theory that superdelegates will all automatically fall into line isn’t very likely.
Even Clinton wins in Texas and Ohio won’t be so wide as to cut Obama out of those delegates. It’s not unreasonable to see him getting close to half of those delegates, even losing those states.
In short, not good for Clinton.
Obama has agreed to debate Clinton in Texas and Ohio. I wonder, however, whether this is being sponsored by Fox Noise, now Hillary’s favorite news joint.
Look for her to come out swinging and trying to trip Obama up. He’d better be ready for her.
The Maine result will be telling. If Obama continues his winning streak through Feb, there’s a very good probability that Democratic primary voters in TX, OH & PA will decide this nomination by giving Obama wins.
The Clinton’s, IMO, are over-estimating their influence over the super-delegates. Obama has been endorsed by many heavy weights too. Tim Kaine, Ted Kennedy, etc are no slouches. And Edwards has a few delegates too.
If Obama sweeps this month which is not out of the realm of possibility then TX & OH becomes the firewall for Clinton. I believe voters are pretty smart and they’ll not take this down to Denver.
Clinton just doesn’t get it. If the back room politicos could somehow talk Obama into betraying the young people who have come so strongly to his support, they would throw a generation of kids away. The election would be gone!
If Clinton won clearly, not by superdelegates, there would be some justification for involving Obama on the ticket. But to force him to stand down by threatening superdelegates (who have no justification at all) would simply be to trash the input of the young, and they would take their votes and go home.
I think Team Clinton is displaying some delusional signs of denial.
They don’t have any operational arguments to make to the superdelegates.
I apologize before hand but I think Peggy Noonan has it right:
Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?
By PEGGY NOONAN
It’s always about the Clintons. And what’s with that cheap shot at Al Gore? Pretty pissy, whoever leaked that out.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) just told Wolf Blitzer that, “We hope to succeed in Texas and Ohio, and go forward, and we hope to prevail at the convention.”
So, it’s pretty plain that they currently are:
a) aware they can’t win outright.
b) want to set expectations for a convention fight for superdelegates.
and a fight over seating FL and MI delegates.
Clinton did not play by the rules. She remained on the ballot in Michigan, had surogates campaigning in Florida. And where was she on the night of the FL vote? In Florida.
BooMan, we are not going to nominate Al Gore for President, no way, no how. We are not going to have gone through this historic nomination process just to end up nominating a while male. It would be like smearing the Democratic electorate with eau d’cynicism.
However, if he agrees to join Obama’s ticket — much more plausible, as it allows him the sort of lifestyle he’d like, as well as the prospect of being able to focus on the issues closest to his heart — Obama will win the nomination and the election almost without breaking a sweat.
Menendez has been playing up the Michigan and Florida primaries. More than anything else, this tactic has aroused visceral feelings in me against the Clinton campaign. Alarm bells went off in my head when I read that Hillary was going to leave her name on the ballot in Michigan. And they wonder why people don’t like them.
“Meanwhile, Clinton’s strategy is less obvious:”….I don’t know how Maine is going to vote today, but Obama has already won 18 states to Clinton’s 10 (with New Mexico tied)”
Oh but in Maine, she has cried, again? Just yesterday.
It worked..the last two tear up. And three’s a charm.
.
Former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, the nation’s first elected black governor, an Obama backer and Richmond’s mayor, took a swipe at Bill Clinton during a news conference. “Barack Obama is not a fairy tale,” Wilder said. “He is real.”
Of Bill Clinton, Wilder said: “A time comes and a time goes. The president has had his time.”
Clinton Weeps – Obama Sweeps
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Y’know, if this emotionality is actually a matter of political strategy (meant to soften the Ice Queen), we’re looking at a pretty twisted concept of feminine strength. I’d personally find it grotesque.
I think that she is weakening.
The stress of the campaign is wearing on her.
This is not a good sign as regards her fitness for the office of President, by the way.
It really isn’t.
No reflection on women…I do not much see a weeping Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher in my mind’s eye…just an observation on Ms. Clinton.
I have often thought that the “Iron Maiden” idea about her was all wrong, a front that she put up in order be able to deal with the meanness of the political world. This is actually one of the reasons that I think she might be good for the country. Hell…the U.S. has been sporting a Viagra-like hardon since W.W. II. Maybe it’s time to consult a doctor.
A FEMALE doctor.
Buit not if the heat in the examining room is too much for her.
She IS 60+ years old, after all.
Some people stay strong longer than others, and if she has been strenuously holding up a front that is not really natural to her for nearly 40 of those years the wear and tear on her soul may be breaking things down inside her system.
We shall see.
Sooner rather than later, I think.
Considering the level of kneejerk anti-Hillary Clinton invective going on inside the precincts of those who would be most likely to actually support her were the world a rational neighborhood instead of the home for the terminally insane that it most closely resembles, I would not blame her in the slightest if she woke up one day, took a good, slow look around, said “FUCK this shit. I’m outta here. Best of luck in the future, you asshole ingrates!” and went off to Hawaii for a few years.
Whadda buncha maroons!!!
Later…
AG
Exactly, AG. My thoughts exactly, right on down the line.
Most especially your observation that an honest weakening on the campaign trail doesn’t bode well for one’s continual abilities in office. We’ve all noticed how severely our presidents do age, even those like the Current Occupant whose duties are largely ceremonial. Gotta be a reason for that.
until Obama strode onto the scene. Then he became the anti-Hillary, and worse, with that voice and that excitement electrifying the populace like she never could, he’s messing up her dream of an easy coronation.
I don’t doubt that it is unhinging her…inevitability.
I think she’s been waiting a long time for this moment and it’s about to be snatched out of her fingers. And Obama is not going to back down, not unless she makes him vice president, which is something she doesn’t want. It would be like having Gore next door. No surrogate or retainer seems able to break the spell.
Speaking of Gore, where is he at? It’s about time he makes a few noises…
I keep hearing stuff that Bloomberg would enter the race as an indie if Hillary becomes the nominee.
Given that McCain is the GOP frontrunner and Clinton is given the nomination, it would make for an interesting race and I think we just may just see our first Jewish president.
Lieberman???!!!
(Jes’ foolin’…I hope.)
AG
you’ve gotten us into, Ollie!!!
How on earth do ANY of us “know” what Ms. Clinton wants or doesn’t want regarding a Vice President?
We can fairly well assume that she wants to win, right?
Win big if at all possible.
With coattails and a massive majority in the legislature as well?
The whole 9 yards?
The whole 8 (or even 16) years for the Dems?
We can assume that Obama would CERTAINLY help her to do that as well.
We know DAMNED well that she is a visionary in terms of politics. A sex-role visionary among other talents. She made Bill, and it was she who…forgive me, Hillary, but I gotta…pimped HIM out. Right into the Presidency. She knows the strength of having a stud (quite literally) on the ticket better than anyone.
Who is to say that “she doesn’t want” Obama as VP?
You?
How many fed-level elections have YOU won?
Sorry, blksista.
There’s a LOT more going on at that level than the leftiness folk seem to realize.
A whole lot more.
Bet on it.
AG
Muskie cried and lost. Is that sexism?
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I know the media and Republicans are promoting Hillary for Dem standard bearer. BUT
Primaries are all about elected delegates. Those super delegates gotta see the writing on the wall- their pledges not carved in granite, that they are free to walk over to the other aisle.
Is it at all probable Obama’s supporters will be told to go home. “Hillary is entitled.”
Considering who will be doing the telling…and the sheeple-like obedience of the party faithful…you BET it’s likely.
AG
I do not beleive that the Ratpubs ARE promoting Hillary, idredit.
Nor are large sections of the media. (Obama is by FAR the better story. Bettr images, too. Without serious media support, Obama’s steamroller would never have gotten started.)
One of my daily internet treks is over the the Drudge Report. Know thine enemy and all.
For MANY months, Obama has been getting relatively good press there. MUCH better than Clinton. Especially since Rove gave that lovely speech where he so geberously offered Obama pointers on how to win.
I think that the Rovians believe that they can take Obama down on race alone.
Race and inexperience.
Thus they WANT him to win.
I also think that they are wrong.
Watch.
AG
dude, you are sooooo off. The Republicans are terrified of Obama. Jesus. Look at turnout in South Carolina, Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, and elsewhere. They are realizing that even those 60% seats they hold are nowhere near safe, even in the plains states, even in the deep south. What did you smoke this morning?
Here are his headlines and lead images:
The site has been QUITE consistent in both overt and subliminal anti-Hillary/pro-Obama hypnospin.
For months.
Yesterday?
Here’s particularly nice trifecta.
DAMN that botox girl looks like Chelsea Clinton!!!
These are a classic hypnomedia pages.
I called Deans eventual “ARRRGH”-ing six months before it happened from examining a single Sunday NY Times in the late summer of ’03 with an eye towards the subliminals.
What am I smoking?
Reality, Booman.
Y’oughta try it.
This nation is RUN on hypnoshit.
Bet on it.
Inhale?
That ‘s the POINT!!!
AG
girl? GIRL??????
AG, you are a sexist and mysogynistic old fool-from-last-century if you claim that 27-year-old Chelsea Clinton is a pre-pubescent, diminuative, helpless, underage minor… not to be handed adult responsibilities, because she is only a girl.
And the woman getting needled is at least 40 and probably quite a bit older. Nobody has needles poked into them while wearing make-up… sure route for contamination and infection… so the photo is faked and real age hard to determine. She left girlhood behind decades ago, in any case.
I see no children in those images. So, why do you see children when you see women???
I wasn’t born a feminist, but became one to survive. It doesn’t matter if the lady in question is the ex-President’s daughter or a working-class mother of 6, a stay-at-home full-time-wife or a hard-scrabble street-tough… once we pass the age of puberty, and gain adult responsibilities (the right to work for fair pay, vote our own mind, handle our own bodies, pay taxes and manage credit… the works), we are due basic respect.
Referring to somebody as a child means that you don’t have to take them seriously. It is an insult.
I despise Clinton and do not want to see her in the Presidency (nobody is entitled to rule in America), but I’d never refer to her or her grown daughter as girls.
Girl is a loaded weapon. I suggest that you avoid the word rather than firing indiscriminately.
This is a reality-check from the other half of humanity.
He (Karl) may be aiming for a divide and appease strategy, attempting to alienate Clinton supporters, thus
exploiting divisions in the Democratic Party.
Nothing is out of the question when dealing with his devious intellect.
Frankly, I think they could ratchet up basic Amurken xenophobia, too — calling his basic loyalties into question because of his diverse background. Attacking the strengths of the opposition, as per usual. They can play the race card more subtly that way.
We’re not just talkin’ black, we’re talkin’ Muslim.
There’s no bottom to the ignorance they’ll plumb. It’s unbelievable.
As a Muslim, the best thing about the GOP smearing Islam is that it finally woke up the Muslim community in America to see that the GOP isn’t for them. For too long I watched as Muslims voted with the GOP as some weird sort of “assimilation” and supposed “values”. I’d beg and plead and explain that the GOP isn’t going to ever be behind that voting bloc. They’re finally seeing the light.
Thank you for the insight, fabooj!
“…Mr Obama would only consider such a move if offered the position of vice presidential running mate,…”
He didn’t actually say that did he? That’s just more Clinton delusion, right?
Considering Bill Clinton will be all over his wife’s administration, in fact co-president, I don’t see Obama accepting a VP spot.
The Clintons will have difficulty finding a Secretary of State. Her spokesperson told The Telegraph, UK, that ‘Bill can simply pick up the phone and call Gordon Brown. Get use to it he’ll play a big roll.’
And why would he want to be tainted, aka Al Gore, with the new scandals, post White House years, that will unfold. Oh what fun the GOP will have in a McCain-Clinton race.
I agree with that comment. A VP in Hillary’s would be relegated to some menial position, that would limit their chances to ever be president. Look what Bill did to Al.
also Clinton would not want to select Obama..the media will be focused on him…his charisma would detract from Clinton.
OTH, Cheney, without a challenge, has detatched the VP office from the Oval Office. Quite a precedent that’s under the radar:
Cheney asserts independent power from Bush
Cheney’s break with the administration regards such a critical issue, too: a ban on handguns in DC.
& why shouldn’t he declare independence in this manner? He’s self-appointed.
I cannot get over the nagging feeling that this is exactly why Bill Clinton was watching the Super Bowl with Bill Richardson. People thought it was to sit on Richardson’s balls if he was tempted to go over to Obama.
Richardson wouldn’t mind being Veep. He’d do what he was told. Meanwhile, Billary would have gotten a coup–the first Hispanic vice president and the first woman president.
I don’t think they were interested in an endorsement, though it seems the Hillsters online think that the Super Bowl think was a tacit endorsement. I too think that Richardson would be tapped for VP and he certainly is probably one of the few well-known Democrats who’d be pliable enough to be VP in a Clinton WH.
I think one tv commentator said it nicely..”just two people who like to eat a lot of chips and dip.” I think Bill and Hillary were just trying to get a “photo-op” to play to NM voters.
AG
In fact…promises WILL be mnade.
Bet on it.
Will Obama believe those promises?
Dunno.
Maybe he’ll need some insurance.
That might be made available too.
Everything is up for negotiation.
Everything.
AG
I have only heard that from this UK paper that Boo used for this post, which wrote the dramatic article after talking to (only?) a Clinton source.
I REALLY doubt that Obama has any desire to be the next Al Gore, destroying his future in politics by having to pretend to support the Clintons’ scummy political tactics for 4 or 8 years. After that time, the country would be so sickened by it all that they’d never make him president. He’s no dummy.
It sounds to me that the Clintons are trying, through the media, to define this “compromise” that Howard Dean has been suggesting might happen down the road if there’s a deadlocked race.
I don’t buy it.
No matter if it’s from the Clinton camp or the MSM is that it will be Obama who is forced to step aside. I wonder why?
‘Cuz that’s the way it’s goona go down, fabooj.
Sorry…
AG
It strikes me as tremendous cheek for Clinton to feel entitled to come out on top after losing so many races. Like, I don’t know, she just expected to have this thing handed to her or something.
I reckon she still does.
o/t
So can we now start calling McCain “Wrong Way Corrigan/McCain? After reading that he is a reverse ace, losing 5 planes I’m thinking that at least wrong way made it to Ireland and they didn’t torture him when he landed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong_Way_Corrigan
thanks openleft
You write:
Followed by a quote from one of the Clinton camp’s spinners.
And now a little statement from Paul Hackett, who had his own difficulties with the party insiders.
Remember?
And you actually write “But there’s no explanation for how the Clintons could get the ‘party grandees’ to convince Obama to accept the second spot.” with a straight face?
HE’S PART OF THE CLUB, BOOMAN!!!
Your naiveté is astounding!!!
Your so-called “numbers”?
Phhffftttt!!!
I wrote a quick refutation of your numbers two days ago.
Here.
As of Feb. 8th, (Go to the original for links.):
As is usual with you (much like the left-wing-of-the-right-wing CIA mouthpiece who you so often publish and defend here, Larry “But I quit!!! I quit!!!” Johnson), when opposed by any real content you simply do not answer.
Good answer, Booman!!!
Because you have no answer.
Your numbers…like mine and those of every other unconnected pundit…will be just like dead leaves blowing in the spin wind once the real movers and shakers get through with them.
Yer dreamin’ Boo.
Yer dreamin’.
Gore?
Edwards II.
Only not even willing to get in there and do the down and dirty.
Like your stance with Edwards, you decide what you want on the basis of…well to terll you the truth I’ll be damned if I know WHAT your “basis” is, but it’s mos’ DEF a virulent form of anti-Hillary disease, just for starters…you decide what you want and then you assemble numbers that agree with that desire.
Sorry Booman.
Even if you’re right, it’s for all the wrong reasons.
Grow up.
AG
Well, your numbers are already outdated because continues to narrow the gap. He had 99 superdelegates two weeks ago, and now he’s at 150. Clinton is at the same place she was. But if you don’t want to face reality that’s not my problem. Perhaps you don’t care about the facts, or perhaps you’re just wrong.
It’s amusing for you to say that Obama is a member of the club and then suggest that he is giving the finger to the club. Among his endorsements:
The Senate Majority Whip.
The chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Penions Committee.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.
The chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee
The former majority leader of the Senate.
The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
The chairman of the House Education Committee (and Nancy Pelosi’s best friend).
The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
The chairman of the House Armed Services’ Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.
That’s a lot of establishment support. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
I know that they are outdated.
That’s your only possible argument against them.
You are a day kate and a dollar short
Two days late and a percentage short.
ONE ‘a them, annyway.
As usual.
Once again, anyone who backed Edwards as a serious candidate past his sad, trumped-up “I’m for the people!!!” coming-out ceremony in New Orleans is almost not worth the effort and attention.
But I guess I am a glutton for punishment, becauuse here goes.
I am not going to re-calculate the numbers, because I really do not BELIEVE in the numbers.
I am numb to them.
Because they are numb-ers
I am not saying that he is giving the finger to the Senate club, as even a cursory reading of what I wrote would indicate.
I even put it in boldface.
What? Did you skip by that part in your rush to anti-Hilllary judgement?
I suppose I should have made it larger.
He’s gonna do what they TELL him to do.
Or else face a Kucinich-like fate down the road.
But of course he is WAY too slick to fall into that trap. Unless of course a certain amount of hubris comes his way from all of the adulation he has been receiving. (I actually think that he is too slick for that to happen as well.)
No, Booman, Obama has been waging a perfectly respectable, only-draw-inside-the-lines so-called “outsider” (but actually INSIDE-outsider) cammpaign. Why? Because he had the political talent and understanding to realize that it stood a good chance of winning. Big. (Why does a dog lick its ballls? Because it can.)
And unless he DOES win big…and I mean REALLY big…then he is going to be asked “For the good of the counntry”, “For the good of the party”, “For the good of world peace”, “For the good of business-as-usual” and for whatever OTHER “goods” to which the Dems who really HAVE the goods wish to refer, up to and including “For the good of your own survival and the survival of your family” if he gets stubborn about it, bet on it, because the left wing of the right wing faction of the CIA is right on up in there, bet on it…unless he wins really big he is going to be asked to do the righht thing, the SURE thing and run as Hillary’s VP wiith the solemn promise that he is next in line as caporegime once she is gone.
Watch.
Your naiveté in these matters is beyond belief.
How old are you?
Where you BEEN the last 40 years or so, Boooman?
Really.
Where you been?
AG
Arthur, if I feel like it I can out-cynic you any time you want. You name the place and bring the grain alcohol.
The political stage in the U.S. is a rigged game. So? Right now it’s the only game in town.
He’s living in a fairytale.
AG
So, Boo, looks like y’all might get to call the winner. How’s it looking around there for March 4?
lol! I told you Clinton was putting all of her resources into Ohio and Texas and it wouldn’t matter if she lost every single election until then.
That’s the whole point. She’ll be able to justify going ahead. That’s always been the plan. Ignore the states leading up to March 4, win March 4 and go on to win Pennsylvania. Then the pressure really starts on one or the other to compromise.
She’s doing two things here. She’s trying to neutralize the good media narrative Obama will receive from his wins last night by saying that they don’t matter AND she’s starting the discussion on who should compromise after Pennsylvania by saying it should be him.
And Al Gore? What a freakin’ disaster. Al Gore as a compromise candidate is a laugh.
P)recisely.
Yup.
AG
Time and money is on Obama’s side.
Sounds a wee bit like the failed strategy Guilliani used with Florida.
She’s defaulting to manipulation politics; big scores and with this strategy turning her back on the people in between. Trademark GOP.
So look at the results yesterday. If she were running against a generic guy, what would the #’s have been like attending the caucus’s? Likely a bump but not the avalanche we’re seeing.
Likewise, since Obama seems to not only be able to draw people out of their shells and into the polling booths in droves, it’s likely those same people will feel invested in taking on the hard work necessary to heal the country.
So we’ve learned it’s not who has the most money, it’s not who has the most experienced machine, it’s not who ran a successful campaign a decade ago, it’s not about gottcha, or savvy MSM pundits, those are all so yesteryear worn out.
This campaign season is all about the American people who want their country back.
I’m not sure why you think it’s important that Obama has won more states. You wouldn’t say that a republican presidential candidates has more legitimacy b/c he won more states if he lost the overall vote by losing the big states.
I agree that Obama has momentum–but he needs to win some big states too. If he loses both Ohio and Texas, then Clinton will have won (or at least, not lost) NY, NJ, MA, OH, MI, FL, TX, and CA. I’m an Obama supporter, but even I would think that she has legitimacy at that point.
That’s what you get.
AG
You should you really be counting MI, and FLA? Sen. Clinton lacks credibility because she gave her word not to count MI & FLA, like Obama and Edwards had agreed. And wasn’t she the only person on the ballot in FLA?
I think this speaks volume about Hillary, she will “intend to do this and that”, but when in bind she changes her mind. And do we really want a candidate who can’t even play by the rules..”Cheaters never Win”, maybe Hillary should read that book.
Really?
Look around.
They BEEN winning for…oh, say since 1962.
Just for starters.
The only real straight-shooter that we have had in the office of the Presidency during all that time?
Jimmy Carter.
Four and out.
Iran-Contra-ed out of office.
C’mon…
Wake the fuck UP!!!
AG
arthur, your innocence is refreshing, in a spring morn’ with fauns and butterflies sort of way. jimmy carter was straight shooter? don’t you know he was one of the trilateral-commission lizard-alien fused-blooded over-masters? how i wish i still had your rosy glasses, looking out from a velvet padded womb of delusion.
ah, for the days when i thought i could make a difference, change anything by taking action, even the absurd notion of changing someone’s point of view by posting here. not me, you adorable dreamer.
Well, we can’t compare presidential elections and these primaries because presidential elections are almost all winner-take-all rather than popular vote. And just because you lose a Democratic primary in those states doesn’t mean you won’t win them in the GE. A blue state is still a blue state. A red state is still a red state. Just because a Dem wins a democratic primary doesn’t in and of itself mean they’ll win or lose it in November.
Going into March 4 Obama will have won more states and, since they were pretty even in overall popular vote after SuperTuesday will be ahead in popular vote. While I think Hillary will win both TX and OH Obama could make it close (he might even figure out a way to win Ohio). So they both will still be legitimate at that point.
But, in the end, I somewhat agree with you in the sense that if they end up in a virtual tie, the fact that he won at least one big state would take some of her arguments away for her greater legitimacy.
Given the home state advantages of Hillary and given the issues with MI and FLA (and I’ve never really understood why anyone thinks MA is more important than other states), I think he needs to win at least one of CA, TX, OH or PA to give himself a boost with the superdelegates in the event of a close delegate count. He’s already lost CA.
Maryb, your latest posts are my blog equivolent of ginkgo biloba — that is, they assist in blood circulation to the brain. Thank you.
Clinton didn’t win Florida or Michigan. Remember? If you are going to criticize someone for mentioning the number of states that Obama won why do you feel it necessary to pad Clinton’s number of states with two she did not win–at least under the same book of party rules that have the superdelegates.
Besides, we don’t know how those two states might have gone if there had been a real vote with both candidates on the ballot AFTER Super Tuesday, if the states had followed the news.
As far as looking at states to predict who would win in November, and I presume that’s what you are alluding to, I see no reason why Obama wouldn’t win NY, NJ, MA, MI, CA. I don’t see Clinton having any advantage over Obama in Ohio, Florida or Texas in a general election. And he would probably pull in some states where the Republicans often prevail. He certainly couldn’t do worse there.
First, The Potomac Primary by Doug Wilder. (His was the first political campaign I ever volunteered on. Yes, I know, I’ve been a nerd for a long time now. :<) )
He really speaks to me when he says:
For me, the bolded text goes to the heart of why I was just astonished at the MLK/LBJ comments. The top-down arrogance of the statement was just breathtaking. Saying that Obama’s approach is “naive” is just an excuse for their inability to solve problems.
Also, The Baltimore Sun endorsed Sen. Obama today. And they also provide audio from the interview by the Sun editorial page editor for both Sens. Obama and Clinton. I thought that was a very interesting feature, and I think other papers should follow suit.
(ô-dăs’ĭ-tē) n., pl. -ties.
1.Fearless daring; intrepidity.
2.Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.
3.An act or instance of intrepidity or insolent heedlessness: warned the students than any audacities committed during the graduation ceremony would be punished.
The same story is true today that was true last Wednesday. Obama needs a win in either OH or TX. Axelrod, Plouffe and Obama have three weeks. Ohio might, MIGHT be winnable.
If they can get out the black vote and convince just enough of the Catholic vote.
And get the election machinery to allow the votes to be counted.
Ouch.
But as for the Clinton camp, I don’t think they care if they wreck the party but secure themselves as victors. Given that they really seem to believe they’re doing the right thing in this — that is, that only they are trully qualified for the job — well it makes me wonder that people make such a big deal about the messianism coming from the Obama people. Team Clinton is just as bad.
I think that’s pretty much an established fact. It was the last Clinton administration that handed control of Congress to the GOP for the next decade and a half. The only thing that saved us from absolute GOP dominion, at least until Bush, was that Newt Gingrich overplayed his hand.
The problem with both Clintons is that they think the party, the country, and the world are about them. They are malignant narcissists of the first order.
I am tickled silly that the Democratic Party is finally imploding under the weight of the Jim Crow DLC right-wing.
This is a good thing. Good for the Party and good for America.
Kick out the authoritarian Clinton thugs and restore the Party to its hay days of respect for its core values and constituencies.
I’d recommend that she step down instead and be content with her senate seat. I’m sure her husband will be wise enough to give her such practical advice.