Hillary and Obama Won't Be Sticking Around East Coast

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will be in Virginia, Maryland or D.C. tomorrow night after the primaries.

Hillary will be campaigning in El Paso, TX while Obama will be in Madison, WI. (Via Al Giordano at RuralVotes.)

Hillary will be in San Antonio on Weds, although more events may be added.

While Chelsea Clinton has been making the rounds of college campuses in Wisconsin, Hillary won't be there until Saturday night, three days before the primary. Obama hasn't been in Wisconsin since October, but his wife Michelle is already there holding roundtables.

Hillary has agreed to appear at a Wisonsin debate, but Obama has not yet responded.

Clinton also agreed to appear at a debate at Marquette University, but Obama has not responded to the invitation. U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin and Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton called on him Monday to do so, saying it was the best way for Wisconsin voters to see where the candidates stand on issues.

The youth vote will be big in Wisconsin, which will favor Obama.

If history is any judge, many of those who turn out for the primary will be first-time voters. In the 2004 general election, the state had the second-highest turnout of young voters. Minnesota was No. 1.

< Stating The Obvious: Clinton Must Win Texas And Ohio | Hillary Maintains Lead in Rhode Island Poll >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Senator Obama, please don't make me picket (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    your appearance in Madison.

    Do your job as a Senator, show up for the votes on the FISA bill amendments before you fly to Wisconsin. Sign's printed, I'd prefer if I could leave it at home.

    How big a factor (none / 0) (#4)
    by badger on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    will race be in WI? There are places where Edwards did very well in '04 that were not very enlightened when I last lived there 12 years ago - Milwaukee suburbs, Waukesha County, Fox River Valley. George Wallace finished second in one primary, although that's a while ago.

    Some of my relatives say it's not an issue this year, but all of the "Obama is a jihadist" emails I got came from WI.

    Then again, there are places where being from IL might hurt him more.


    Let's put it this way (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:25:35 PM EST
    They don't call the place the "Great White North" for nothing. Hate to say it, but from my experience staying up there (have relatives near Duluth), it's patently racist. More so, ironically, than in GA. Northern racism is covert, which is more dangerous (they keep it "politely" behind closed doors, making it more difficult to spot).

    Which is why when the news makes it big on racism in the South, how much those reporters don't know the full scope (or wish to ignore it because it's in their backyard).


    Spot on in many ways (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:55:56 PM EST
    but I know Superior well, and it is literally light years from Milwaukee, which is a majority-minority city now . . . with almost all of the AAs in the state; see below for more more updates for you.

    Also worth pointing out that Wisconsin always has been and remains backwards for women -- in education, in income, in reproductive rights, and in politics, as one of the last states with a woman in Congress, less than a decade ago.  (But now we have two, and one is AA--my member of Congress.)  No women in Senate, no women governors, the first woman elected lieutenant governor also not long ago (and in office now and endorsing Clinton).

    But, well, we like it here.  A lot of my Wisconsin, I couldn't live in -- but Milwaukee is much different.  As the rest of the state so likes to point out, as we have all "those people."


    uhm... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:09:21 PM EST
    Was it really 40 below there in WI today? Because if it was, y'all are batpoo crazy for even living there.

    No. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:28:34 PM EST
    International Falls, MN hit -40  last night.

    Madison +4 daytime, and now, expected to fall to -6 late.

    The Obama folks will be making a big mistake if they follow usual procedure and make everyone stand in line for an hour amnd a half to get phone numbers etc. before entering the Kohl Center tomorrow evening, even tho the forecast is for temps to rise to a balmy 12 degrees with little wind.


    Update (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:11:01 PM EST
    Ticketing for Obama at Kohl Center's off. They'll just open the doors.

    Thank heavens, glad theyheard you, Ben :-) (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:43:04 AM EST
    It can be just bitter up there, with the wind blowing off the lake -- every one of the four lakes!

    Stopped watching when it hit (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:58:30 PM EST
    -25 below, early in the morning here (restless night; no more green tea for me:-) -- very close to Lake Michigan, so we get different weather than Ben in Madison.  Lake effect snow tonight, too.  Not that there's any room for it, with drifts five and six feet high everywhere after our big snows.

    This is not our usual winter, though.  The lake effect (keep in mind that the Great Lakes together are equivalent to an ocean) causes cycles, 17 years or so, and that plus La Nina pushing down Canadian air makes it worse some years, like this year.

    We've just come off tropical years of rarely below 20 degrees (daytime) and much less snow, only five feet or so all winter.  And those really are the bad years, with no sledding or skating or other fun for the young ones -- and not good for the state's number-one industry either: tourism.

    Because you oughta see our other seasons.  Heaven!


    Backwards! (none / 0) (#45)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:17:40 PM EST
    My grandmother never learned how to drive, as that was grandpa's job. Same applied to dad for mom. Ever wonder why I ride the bus?

    Yes, backwards!

    Beautiful state, but to me it's not home. Ever tried finding grits up there? ;)

    It's the cities in the southern part of the state with the population. They'll influence the vote. Those up in Superior to Ashland would go more favorably to Hillary, since there's m-a-n-y elderly folks up there -- well in their 80s and 90s.


    Ashland (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:36:12 AM EST
    Big Green Party vote, they've got a couple County Board seats. With no Green Primary, they'll cross, some to Gravel, more to Obama.

    Get your grits at truck stops. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:41:50 AM EST
    Duluth went huge for Obama.

    And Douglas county was my 2nd best v Kohl, in part coattails from the only Legislator to openly endorse me, Frank Boyle, who had to work to beat off a Primary from a rightwing ex-Sheriff.


    Get your grits in Milwaukee (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:46:06 AM EST
    at Mr. Perkins, the best place for Southern cooking.  Mmmm, black-eyes peas, fried green tomatoes, sweet potato pie, hush puppies, and corn bread so moist that when you pick it up, it oozes butter back onto the plate.  Plus some of the best conversation in town.  I leave the grits for others, though.:-)

    Noted, thanks. Where? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:58:37 AM EST
    On Atkinson at 20th (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM EST
    just north of Capitol.  Where the AA community leaders meet, great, and eat. :-)

    Uh, greet. But it's great, too (nt) (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    DAMN! (none / 0) (#156)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    Got to save this when the next time I'm in Wisconsin. After a couple of weeks, I'm homesick for Southern cooking. That'll hit the spot!

    BBQ pork ribs (for us Georgians it's a tomato based BBQ), mac+cheese, coleslaw, buttermilk biscuits, peach cobbler -- and a gallon of sweet iced tea and lemon -- are a mainstay for any Southerner abroad.



    Isn't Vel Phillips (none / 0) (#54)
    by badger on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:23:20 PM EST
    the only African-American elected to a statewide office (when she was Secretary of State)? Gwen Moore is also the first African-American elected to Congress from WI.

    I haven't seen any polling, but if it hasn't changed much (and Milwaukee and the inner suburbs have changed a lot for the better) it's going to be a tough state for Barack. I've been away too long to have a useful opinion though.

    Of course it depends on turnout too, and Milwaukee and Madison will probably have strong turnout for the primary. WI usually has good turnout statewide.

    The only thing you forgot to mention is that WI's Presidential primary is the oldest in the nation, brought to you courtesy of real Progressives.


    Close. Vel (I know her) was (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:09:38 PM EST
    the first African American woman (repeat, woman) elected statewide to executive office in the country (all those clauses are carefully worded; for others, see the American Women in Politics at Rutgers site, it's a great resource).  And she didn't know it until I had that verified there and told her!  Here, she is still the only African American ever elected to high state office . . . as yes, Gwen Moore is our first AA ever in Congress (and my Congresswoman:-).

    But still a terribly racialized and divided city.  We're working on it, but the rest of the state's hatred for Milwaukee, through the legislature, is making it slow work.  We are the economic center of the state but get less back -- and get burdened with unfunded mandates from the state that are breaking us and making any headway hard to win.

    As for turnout, story today in jsonline.com says it's expected by even higher than usual, at least 35% but some towns are stocking ballots for 50% and even 75%.  As ever, it depends on whether it's what we call "Dem weather" for the bus-riders and others.  ("Republican weather" means they win in bad weather, because they all have cars -- SUVS.)

    As Ben said, we have high youth turnout after great GOTV in 2000 and 2004, with the highest in the country in 2006.  And we're in the top five or higher for women voting, in the first state to ratify the 19th Amendment.

    But believe me, that wasn't because of the so-called Progressives.  They and the Socialists (Milwaukee never was a Progressives' city; they were Madison) voted down woman suffrage here, 2 to 1, as late as 1912.  Women fought back hard here, because they always had to do so in a very backward state for women even today.

    I do miss the good ol' days, though, of one of the first primaries in every election year, too.  Rang doorbells for JFK when I could hardly reach 'em!


    Err (none / 0) (#40)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:14:13 PM EST
    Minnesota went huge for Obama.

    Caucus. And Minnesota is just (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:18:29 PM EST
    sort of the mirror image of a lot of northern Wisconsin.  The family trees don't have a lot of branches in some of those towns. . . .

    Oops (none / 0) (#61)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:28:47 PM EST
    I forgot my HRC talking points.

    Caucuses don't count matter.
    Caucuses don't count matter.
    Caucuses don't count matter
    Caucuses don't count matter

    (Remember when we were arguing that folks should listen to the democratic base. You know, the folks who, unlike Hillary, argued against authorizing the Iraq war and such? The folks who attend caucuses?

    ...By the way, in MN caucuses, you can walk in, cast a pres. nomination vote, and walk out. Still...totally disenfranchising.)


    They matter -- they're just much harder (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:16:15 PM EST
    to measure.  MN, from what I see, did not bring out numbers for the caucus similar to its great turnout in elections.  At least MN has the secret ballot, yes.  So it's sort of a pseudo-primary, it seems, and that helps assess it a bit more than some of the states with really crazy caucus and/or caucus-cum-primary rules.

    As Minnesota does matter, you bet -- a blue state with a red governor is interestingly purple, too, and worth watching 'til November.  Plus you led the country in youth turnout in 2004!  It's just that a caucus doesn't give as good an idea of what could happen in November, does it?  Or maybe so.

    Any impact, do you think, of the bridge collapse?  So sad; I was on it not long before on the way to the wonderful Twin Cities.  Anger at the federal government, as in NOLA?  Or at state government, and could that win back the governor's seat?


    Thats not what he said... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:16:41 PM EST
    how about discussing, instead of attacking?

    You know... (none / 0) (#118)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:52:03 PM EST
    it really is getting to be a predetermined value that Obama followers attack attack attack when presented with facts that don't fit their mindset, their paradigm.

    Sure, people get angry when Hillary is attacked, too. But they usually bring up points of reference, sources to show how the attacker is wrong. No such luck from Obama followers.

    I suspect many of them are independents who voted for Bush the first two terms and hate McCain so much they'd rather have Obama. The attack vs. debate method fits W's base so well.


    Actually I know a very good many (none / 0) (#127)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:01:49 AM EST
    Obama supporters that were 2x Bush supporters...

    Of course that is anecdotal, and in noway am I suggesting that this is the norm (mainly because I don't know what the norm is for his support outside of a few demographic groups, I haven't seen any research done on who his supporters supported in previous elections)


    By the way... (none / 0) (#49)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:43 PM EST
    if it's Hillary v. McCain in the general election, you'll see Minnesota vote for a Republican for the first time since 1972. Why? Because of the large independent vote.

    I've been to Minnesota (none / 0) (#64)
    by badger on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:32:09 PM EST
    but I lived in Wisconsin for over 40 years.

    I never confuse the two.


    "Great white north" north is the subject (none / 0) (#74)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:39:38 PM EST
    By the way, HRC fans, keep dissing caucus states as not worthy of being counted and you'll be sure to win friends and influence elections.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#89)
    by badger on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:02:06 PM EST
    If you look upthread, I asked about Wisconsin.

    And I live in a caucus state now, and I like it. I like participatory democracy.

    In fact my vote cost Obama a delegate (I wasn't going to bother going, but my one vote for Hillary made it  3 to 2 for Obama instead of 4 to 1). And my wife is a Clinton delegate to the legislative district convention (I was a Dean delegate in 2004).


    Not dissing; just can't figure out how (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:50:07 AM EST
    they tell us what primaries can about what could come in November.  As I said, Minnesota is more assessible, with a far better setup than so many caucuses (I've also said that if we keep them, the others ought to look to the Minnesota model).  But from what I read, it still wasn't a primary-level turnout -- and that means big turnout in Minnesota.

    Or was it?  Were the reports not correct, and was the turnout as good?  It seems that for caucuses, we get delegate numbers but not clear turnout numbers.


    Exactly. I think they got one kind of (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:19:35 PM EST
    Lutheran and Wisconsin got another.  Well, actually, Wisconsin has 14 kinds of Lutherans, last I looked.  And most of 'em witnessing at each other about who gets to heaven.  Of course, the joke is that there are all sorts of separate rooms without windows in heaven, a separate room for each sort of Lutheran, so they never find out the others got there, too.

    But along with many, many other faiths, both among the most churchgoing states in the country.  That could matter, too.  Of course, Wisconsin is much more Catholic, definitely a pro-McCain influence.


    Obama won huge in Duluth. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:30:36 PM EST
    Interesing. Campus vote? (nt) (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:20:04 PM EST
    Don't know (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:56:26 AM EST
    Just saw Countywide total. Something like 70%

    No (none / 0) (#152)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:29:38 AM EST
    Duluth is deep deep blue country. Think of it as the capital of the Iron Range. They have a kind of socialist history. By the way, that's a point of evidence against the theory that working class rank and file folks go for HRC,

    Sort of socialist/populist (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:53:56 AM EST
    /farmers/labor party?  That was my dad's political mix, and he was from Superior.  Plus a considerable dose of Contrarian Party when it came to any candidate, after FDR and Truman, his heroes.  

    Because they saw serious poor up there in the Depression, when his dad was a widower raising five kids alone on a teacher's pay -- or scrip sometimes.    My dad had some of the darndest Depression habits; I think it marked a lot of people for the rest of their lives.


    Racism is everywhere (none / 0) (#96)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    The difference between the south and the north is simple.

    The south it is still overt.

    The north pretends it was never there, but it is still there and "nuanced"


    Pssst, every state in the Midwest had (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:21:47 PM EST
    slavery, too, even though it was only legal in one Midwestern state, Missouri.  It did disappear here fast, though.  And then the Midwest was home to some of the major Underground Railroad routes -- Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote about what she saw here. . . .

    95%-plus of all AAs in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:51:21 PM EST
    about 6% of state population, are in one congressional district in Milwaukee, my district in one of the most segregated cities -- and states -- in the country.  But Milwaukee is the only majority-minority city in the state with many Latinos/as (mostly Mexicano but others from across the Caribbean and S America) as well as Asian Americans and, of course, the first Wisconsinites -- Native Americans, many in Milwaukee (since urban relocation programs decades ago).  NAs are about 2 percent of the population across the state, too; we have more reservation land than any state east of the Mississippi, so I read.  (And many, many more of us are metis, the Great Lakes equivalent of Creole.)

    That's the city.  There are some somewhat more integrated burbs now (Brown Deer, where the Milwaukee Bucks live, and Shorewood and the border area of Tosa, which is where Wallace won in '68; I was there then, and there are more stories to tell).  But most are still quite lily-white.  More are going liberal blue by a bit, though, until you get to scary, super-red, fundie Waukesha County.
    I'm betting Waukesha will vote for Huckabee.  He'd be right at home in their massive evangelical churches there.  But there could be the usual wacky Wisconsin crossover to confound it all.

    You are right that we make fun of FIPs, flatlanders, and especially Chicagoans, the snobs who call us cheeseheads.  And Obama certainly is not a Midwesterner; we don't talk Hahvahd here.  But there will be some regional pride -- although Clinton actually is from here.

    Other blue areas are Madison -- a lot of Easterners and Illinoisans and other furriners there -- and Green Bay and La Crosse and Janesville/Beloit.  That's about it.  Sometimes the ol' Populists of Up North in Superior can surprise, though.  

    Oh, one other thing: With the oldest VA home and hospital in the country here in Milwaukee, a lot of people are vets, work with vets, care a lot about vets -- and McCain is their first and probably last chance for a Viet vet in the White House.  However, Clinton's service on the Senate military committees might work well, too.


    Stevens Point and Wausau (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    also heavily Dem lately.

    Saw that, for the legislative races (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:22:42 PM EST
    -- suspect it will hold this time, too.  Most of the UW campus towns went Dem, didn't they?

    Both have had Dem representation for (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:31:48 AM EST
    quite a while, now they're going heavily Dem on Statewide races too.

    My best municipalities v Kohl were townships east of Stevens Point, near  site of the Renewable Energy Fair. 40% or so.


    All the Wallace Dems are Repubs now. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:59:29 PM EST
    '72 didn't have a Republican contest.

    Nope (none / 0) (#15)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:27:55 PM EST
    The diehard 60s Dems are still Dems. The Cracker Party types (mostly business owners) did switch to being Republicans though.

    White-flighters, left Milwaukee (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:27:23 PM EST
    city and burbs around it, the inner ring of burbs that are more liberal now.  White-flighters went into the surrounding counties in the metro Milwaukee area, so yes, what were not very populated Republican small towns and farm areas are now very populated counties:  Waukesha, Ozaukee, etc.

    Racine and Kenosha to the south will be interesting.  Some AAs, some other minorities -- but increasingly burbs of Chicago for those seeking lower prices.  So the Illinois influence could have impact there, too.  Same with Beloit/Janesville, until recently the home of Russ Feingold (whose sister was the first woman rabbi in Wisconsin, btw, and now is the first woman president of the state council of rabbis; she was in Milwaukee a while but her congregation is in Kenosha).


    I understand both their reasons (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by sammiemorris on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:24:45 PM EST
    but as a lifelong Virginia resident, I am STILL extremely excited to vote in tomorrow's primary. I was too young to vote for President Clinton in 1996, and I have always wanted to vote for Hillary, and sadly, it looks like this might be my only opportunity to do so. I pray I get to vote for her again in November, because otherwise I doubt I will ever have another opportunity to vote for her. I guess I could move to New York to vote for her in 2012 when shes running for reelection as a senator, but I don't see myself leaving this state.

    Based on Obama's Campaign Literature (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    I presume if he's lucky enough to become President and the Dems lose a lot of seats in 2010, he'll do the right thing for the party and step aside in 2012.  Right?  Right?

    well I hope you are sharing with your friends (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    You have to let people who are voting tomorrow why you support Hillary.  They can be encouraged to stand up for her when they hear it from a friend.

    Good for you! and how amazing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:07:58 PM EST
    to have this voting opportunity when you're still so young.  I remember Kathy's story about the 101-year-old woman who broke down at the polls and had to sit down before she could vote, because she had to wait this long to vote for a woman.  Frankly, I didn't think it would be in my lifetime, either.

    And lucky you, you're voting for her only a few days before the date that always was celebrated by woman suffragists around the county -- and still is by some of us:  Susan B. Anthony's birthday, she who wrote the amendment that makes it possible for us to vote.  And she who never got to see that amendment made law -- but as the suffragists said, they did it for their "daughters' daughters."  That's us, and we owe them.


    We really do (none / 0) (#38)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    And that's funny you remembered my neighbor.  I was talking to her the other day about Obama getting Georgia, and she kind of got stroppy with me for my sadness and said, "Women have been fighting too long for you to give up after a few losses.  You're either in it for the long run or you're not in it at all."

    Well, imagine my red cheeks having to be admonished by a 101 year old woman to stop my whining.  There is a reason she's lived this long.

    And there is a reason I am still supporting Hillary.


    i'm a 26 year old male (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sammiemorris on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:21:19 PM EST
    but I do believe its time for a woman, and it is THIS WOMAN. Her resiliency, work ethic, and  courage is inspiring to me, and I think her victory would not only be a great example for young girls and women throughout the world, but also serve as a reminder to men that a woman can in fact be the leader of the free world.

    Kathy, that story so moved me -- (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    I've told it to many since.

    Btw, if you haven't seen it, rent from your library the Ken Burns' PBS special several years ago, "Not for Ourselves Alone," on Anthony and Cady Stanton and the suffrage campaign.  And especially watch for the start and the end of all three hours of it, with interviews with hundred-year-old women recalling their first vote in 1920.  I don't want to give it away, but one voted Dem, and one did not . . . but both, I keep in my mind on many a bad day.  

    They are the women I want to be in half a century, getting to tell my great-granddaughters about this amazing time in this country.  Of course, by then I'll probably be texting my great-grandkids who will have microchips embedded or something.  What a century your neighbor has seen (and my 96-year-old mother-in-law, too, still zipping around in polyester pantsuits and having her hair dyed red!).


    Oh please Tano (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:49:15 PM EST
    your candidate has been so hateful with his  badmouthing of Clintons, it is unbelieveable, and he will be lucky to get the base back before November...and for Obama to claim that was a vote against the war is silly...that was for funding...

    so did you actually read the entire quote? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:51:12 PM EST
    I assume not, for you would not then be saying this.

    And "hateful"? Any criticism of Hillary is now hateful?


    no Tano I am saying that (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    all this hateful Clinton speak is trashing the dems accomplishments and we resent the hell out of that...He should be trashing Bush etc but oh no he prefers to trash dems instead...and it is being noticed all over this country right now...all those caucuses added up together didnt even equal the florida vote..so you truly dont have a fair representation of our base support...not at all...

    "You can add up all the participants in Washington, Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, throw in the party-run primaries in New Mexico and Utah and you'll still only have 1.3 million participants, or about 450,000 fewer than Florida." LINK


    yes clintons (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:15:45 PM EST
    best state is one where no one was allowed to campaign, thats a good indication of the general, i'm sure mccain will agree not to campaign anywhere.

    excuse me, but (none / 0) (#71)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:37:19 PM EST
    last time I checked he was 200K ahead in the popular vote of all the contests.

    And FL? Why not mention MI too?
    There was no campaign there either.


    Actually there was campaigning in MI (none / 0) (#102)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:23:02 PM EST
    no there was not (none / 0) (#108)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    I live in Michigan, and am, as you might imagine, somewhat paying attention to this campaign.

    There were local efforts by Hillary supporters (esp. through the unions and the elected officals) to encourage people to vote for her, and, in the last week or so, there were some local appeals to vote uncommited. But neither campaign came here or advertised here.


    Semantics (none / 0) (#129)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST
    There were local efforts by Hillary supporters (esp. through the unions and the elected officials) to encourage people to vote for her, and, in the last week or so, there were some local appeals to vote uncommitted.

    I think to make discussion easier, we need to set some agreed on definitions. For example, I view the above as campaigning. And I would venture that most Obama supporters are with me on this...after all they did claim Hillary attending a fund raiser in FL was campaigning (in breech of the agreement)...they did say that the NV Teachers Union suing over the impromptu polling locations was an extension of the Clinton campaign, and they held Hillary personally responsible for their actions...Surrogates and supporters of Hillary popping their mouths off, were considered to be part of her campaign, and she was held personally responsible for their ill advised albeit out of context remarks...so, if we're going to say union actions, surrogates, and fund raising is campaigning, then by all means, and judging by your above statement, we're in agreement...there was campaigning in MI.


    Link? Not a number I've seen (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:29:33 PM EST
    -- as she was ahead more than half a million before the last caucuses, and they never get much turnout, and Louisiana had incredibly low turnout. . . .

    Enjoy the sunlight (none / 0) (#37)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:10:31 PM EST
    It's pretty bright here. You might have to wear shades.

    I'll see that and raise you (none / 0) (#150)
    by andrewwm on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:29:23 AM EST

    Clinton's team set up her site after Obama had set his up.


    tano, there are so many other ways (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:15:05 PM EST
    you've could have made your points without the out of control remarks.

    and frankly i don't appreciate your comment re:"the worst stereoytypes about the type of campaigning that the clintons engage in." so i ask you just why do you have to relate in that manner? thank you!

    the thing about me, mindless (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:23:32 PM EST
    is that you don't have to play "What Kathy meant."  

    I've made myself clear on this point to you and the boys, and I am finished explaining myself.

    And on that note, enjoy your evening.

    And Wisconsonites, I want a full report on everything that's happening (I did some phone banking, too, and got some excellent results!) And for the love of all that is holy, wear your mittens!

    This is pasted from the quote (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:26:01 PM EST
    and is complete BS.  It leaves a completely false impression and he's smart enough to know it.  Denying it isn't doing you any good either.

    "So one very difficult decision was deciding to vote against the Iraq war."

    uh,uh  what he really meant was ...

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:32:38 PM EST
    He's  also  out  there  now  telling people  his healthcare plan is    universal  health care.  It's not.  

    So  he  colors  the  truth.  

    This  game  is   called  WORM, folks......What  did  Obama  Really  Mean?    

    Nobody  really  knows  anymore.


    Huh (none / 0) (#151)
    by andrewwm on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:40:00 AM EST
    Neither plan is really universal health care. Real universal health care means showing up at the hospital or doctor's office and not even need to show insurance information before being treated.

    There are a number of ways to evade coverage if one so chooses in either plan. It's a little bit harder in the Clinton plan but not much. Her enforcement mechanism is garnishing people's wages. Okay, so that catches all the people that wouldn't want to pay but are working. On the other hand, Obama mandates that all people working be auto-enrolled in health care. So that also catches the people that are working but don't want to pay. The people that aren't working (homeless, etc) or are working in the shadow economy (undocumented immigrants, etc) aren't going to be covered under either plan.

    So I wouldn't exactly get all high and mighty about Clinton's plan being the one true universal health care plan. They're both better than what we have now, but far from the ideal.


    Latest email from the State Party (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:43:43 PM EST
    has Obama also accepting the invite to the Founders Day dinner in Milwaukee Saturday night.

    This is more a play for our uncommitted Superdelegates than votes. Tickets $100 to the State Party.

    Heard that, but the debate looks to be off (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:57:52 PM EST
    that was going to be in Milwaukee, and on ABC.

    Maybe Clinton will just have that hour to herself for those of us here to see her on local tv (and streamed and on statewide public radio).


    any idea why? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:00:58 PM EST
    It seems odd to have all these debates go unaccepted (or un-denied) for so long.

    To be fair, he could have flu or (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:25:17 PM EST
    the horrible cold we all have been getting here.

    Or he is making new ads, or it's one his girls' birthdays or special school event or -- there could be so many reasons, along with that debates are just not his forte.  And that Wisconsin does not have anywhere near the delegate votes that bigger states do, and he's already focusing on Ohio and Texas.


    They should invite Gravel. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:20:48 PM EST
    Youth turnout in WI also huge in '06 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:55:15 PM EST
    propelled by the silly marriage amendment. While the Amendment passed with lots of votes from older Dems, the turnout from colleges flipped numerous seats in the State legislature.

    Especially notable, the Eau Claire area, where the Repubs had gerrymandered the Campus into 2 Senate Districts, assuming they'd overcome the students with rural votes. 80% turnout in campus wards led to both seats flipping, along with 2 of 3 area Assembly seats.

    We just were talking here, many of us (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:56:30 AM EST
    at a kaffeeklatsch :-) about that stupid amendment, the hullabaloo of the neocons for it . . . and now, pffft.  They moved on to the immigration issues.

    I guess if you're a gay illegal alien, you're still a target for the idiots here who want to take Wisconsin back to what it was before all the immigrants here.  Y'know, the ancestors of almost every one of our legislators.


    sorry for the O/T (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    but Obama just said this in the politico interview which isnt really true...

    Question: What I wonder is, since you came to Washington, what's the toughest decision you've had to make? What made is so hard? And what does that tell us about you as president?

    BO: Well, obviously legislative decisions come up all the time. So one very difficult decision was deciding to vote against the Iraq war.

    not true? (none / 0) (#7)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    so is this article making things up?

    that wasn't a vote against the war (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:19:41 PM EST
    That was a vote against funding.  Clinton voted the same way she did.  Does that mean Clinton can go around saying that she VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR?

    This is madenning.  He spins the same way as Bush.  I know that's verbotem around here, but it's true.  This is the exact same crap Bush got away with in 2000.  He could've snorted coke off a hooker's a*s in full view of the press, claimed he was studying Bible verses, and the headline would have lead, "Bush takes time out for religion on campaign trail."

    Impossible.  Just impossible.


    no... (none / 0) (#10)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:12 PM EST
    ... this is what he said:
    So one very difficult decision was deciding to vote against the Iraq war. I had consistently said that I wanted to make sure our troops got the adequate and training in the war effort, despite the fact that I opposed the war at the point that the president decided to double down and send more troops. It became clear that he was not going to sit down and negotiate some sort of exit strategy. I had to vote against funding as a way of bringing it back to the table.
    Context does wonders, doesn't it?

    And what is your point that Clinton did the same thing?  He wasn't contrasting himself with Clinton there.  


    It changes nothing (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:40:11 PM EST
    I read the full context before I posted.  This is right up there with spinning Al Gore into saying he invented the internet.  He did NOT vote against the Iraq war.  He voted against funding.

    So many people have no idea that Obama was no in the US Senate and not on record as far as his opposition to the war.  He knew exactly what he was saying, and if Clinton went around saying she voted against the Iraq war because she said no to funding, she would be reviled.

    Next, he'll be saying Sadaam was behind 9-11


    Dishonesty a lot lately with him (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:01:25 PM EST
    and what's up with that?  Yesterday it was him on CNN saying he's the one for universal health care.

    And of course, media didn't challenge him on it.

    I am so tired of baldfaced lies from the White House, lies that so many in the public just lap up. It is going to be harder and harder in November, if he is the nominee.  Must repeat to myself -- Supreme Court, Iraq, Supreme Court, Iraq, Supreme Court. . . .


    and I am tired (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    of men calling women hysterical when they get upset.  Next, it'll be shrill.

    Still, Cream, we cannot let McCain win.  I know it'll be hard if it comes to that, but you have lived long enough to know that voting for the hypocrite who will keep rabid right wingers off the Supreme Court is better than voting for the hypocrite who wants to continue the war for another thousand years.

    And, I, for one, have not given up on Hillary.  She is tougher than some give her credit for, and she is not out of this by any means.  We cannot let them win just because the battle is long.


    I'm not giving up, either, no way (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    -- hours tonight on the phone for Clinton, with a statewide conference call with organizers and others (and emails I still must do tonight) plus many calls with organizers now in Milwaukee and setting up so much in so little time.  Amazing people, all. . . .

    I've got to get out my woolies and wash 'em, though, for standing out in the cold downtown to welcome Clinton to Milwaukee in a couple of days.   It may break 30 by then -- balmy!


    who called you hysterical? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    It was YOU who said - next thing you know you will call me hysterical.

    Not waiting for anyone to actually do so, now you say, next thing you know someone will call me shrill.

    I guess by tomorrow you will be tired of people calling you shrill.

    For the record, I did not call you either. I charge you with making ridiculous claims about what you impute Obama to be saying in one sentence while ingnoring the next.

    Why cant you argue for your candidate based on REAL things? Why base your arguments on a silly claim that - he said this, and I think I can find a little window in here to pretend that he means that.


    Stop bullying (none / 0) (#111)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:33:12 PM EST
    She wrote:
    and I am tired of men calling women hysterical when they get upset.  Next, it'll be shrill.

    I don't see ANY reference to you in there...not everything people write is about you :)


    I don't know if I can do it (none / 0) (#110)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:29:55 PM EST
    I've really been wavering the last week or so...I may just end up writing in Al Gore :-\

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:47:00 PM EST
    What you call "context" I call a deliberate attempt to plant the seed in the public consciousness that he actually voted against the war, rather than just giving a speech.  Many people aren't following along closely enough to know the difference, and saying he voted against it is a more powerful claim.  I've seen any number of interviews and focus groups where Obama supporters have said they like the fact that he voted against the war.

    I could believe it was a slip of the tongue if it only happened once, but that's not the case.


    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
    Many, many people believe that Obama voted on record during the time of the resolution.  HE DID NOT.  He  made a speech, then he ducked his head and stayed out of the way.  Then, when he got to the senate and could actually go on record, he remained silent and voted lockstep with the majority of other dems.

    Again, if what you are saying is true, that voting against funding is voting against the war, then Hillary Clinton can go out tomorrow and say, "I voted against the Iraq war."

    Is that what you are saying?  Or is there some other way you want to parse this so that Saint Obama isn't triangulating the hell out of this issue?


    Egh...this one could go either way (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:39:50 PM EST
    He chose the words he used right? The words were not clear...he said his hardest vote was "voting against the Iraq war."

    Context then goes on about supporting the troops, but it doesn't fully clarify the first statement.

    So yes, those of us that know what vote he was referring too understand the context, but the normal person (it isn't normal to be posting in threads about Obama and Clinton at 1 in the morning) will not understand the context...and politicians understand this

    This is a little white lie/misrepresentation...politics as usual...lets move on...


    how ironic (none / 0) (#80)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:45:47 PM EST
    "What you call "context" I call a deliberate attempt to plant the seed... "

    How ironic that you use this against Obama. This is what Krugman called "Clinton Rules" today - i.e.

    "the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

    I guess Obama Rules are operative around here.


    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:51:23 PM EST
    What an embarrassing argument.  Your candidate needs better defenders.

    A bit of umbrage taken (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:50:00 PM EST
    I think this community is more rational than Clintonian...(at least I like to think so...), there aren't a whole lot of political blogs left out there that try to see things for how they are, and analyze the race for what it is...

    I think a lot of confusion is made about critiquing Obama being the same as supporting Clinton...most of the Clinton folks on this blog (as well as a number of the Obama folks) will accept one anothers points of view, and debate using the facts on the ground, conceding that their candidate has flaws, misplayed hands, etc.

    No real issue here, just a bunch of angry Clinton supporters.

    Stuff like that however, doesn't...well as Obama puts it..."transcend partisanship"...(not to mention, we're all supposedly Democrats, so where is the partisan divide between Democrats? If it comes down to a candidate being the dividing point, then that candidate is NOT good for the party as a whole...think about it...)


    Evolution vs Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#122)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:56:56 PM EST
    One is based on rational, book-larnin' type studies based on facts and sources that are empirically accurate. Another is based on obfuscation of unpleasant facts, constant changing of meanings, deliberate misinterpretation of statements, and heavy religious overtones.

    Sound like something else?

    Remember folks, don't fall into false dichotomies: Just because you don't support one view does not make you an automatic supporter of the opposite.


    I second your second of my motion (none / 0) (#125)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:59:20 PM EST

    Well put. I would like to learn (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:58:54 PM EST
    from Obama supporters.  But they would have to be educative.

    Cream... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:10:50 AM EST
    But they would have to be educative

    That's a barb too! :)


    Nope, it's a fact -- there are a few (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:59:01 AM EST
    who engage on issues, explain their stance, etc.  But only a very few.  I want to understand their stances, I want to understand the Obama appeal.  But untruths don't persuade me; they only worry me about what is to come.

    he didn't vote against the Iraq war, (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    he wasn't in the Senate.  He gave a speech. There's a big difference. Hillary also gave a speech when she voted for the authorization.  Read it here



    did you... (none / 0) (#28)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:00:17 PM EST
    ... actually read the quote?

    Obama is talking about the funding.  Read the whole quote before you respond to an out of context comment.


    i for one am so sick of hearing what obama (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:06:28 PM EST
    really meant. the man speaks perfectly good english. he is intelligent. there is no need for this continued debate about what obama really meant. he voted to continue funding the iraq war. he wasn't in the senate when they voted on the resolution that allowed bush to go to iraq. it is very simple. spinning words just irritates me.

    the truth obama had many, many opportunites to stand up and be KNOWN for being against the war when he was in the senate. that DIDN'T HAPPEN!. you can look at hagel, finegold and others and know for sure where they stood, but you can't with obama. he might have voted for it but before that he was against. yeah righ!


    Its not the "politics as usual" (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:43:53 PM EST
    thats to be expected...its the hypocrisy that gets me...I wish Obama would drop the pretenses of being better/higher and mightier that everyone else and then move on...

    I can't stand hypocrisy...it would be an easier pill to swallow if the "hope" and "change" stuff wasn't such a charade/marketing slogan...


    it is so critical to have the (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:49:20 AM EST
    "right stuff" in the white house now. i am sorry to see obama go negative. if this is his basic method of operation, then i think we need to see it now.

    WORM game (none / 0) (#72)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:37:47 PM EST
    What  Obama   Really  Meant.  

    It's  becoming  a pattern, isn't  it?  


    yes it is. (none / 0) (#158)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    Kathy...what bible verse was that? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:27:27 PM EST
    I suddenly got religious!

    Oh for the love of God (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST

    egh...can't blame the media for that (none / 0) (#119)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:53:45 PM EST
    is it their job? sure, but they don't bring a list of all the "truths" so they can nail the candidate "gotcha" style...

    with that said...who the heck asks a softball open ended question like "what was your hardest vote so far in the senate?"

    Thats like "what is your least favorite restaurant" or "what is your best personality trait"...it is Ms. America questions...its ridiculous!


    Best question to date: (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    who was your favorite teacher and why?   Eh????

    Dang! Move over Charlie Rose (none / 0) (#132)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:12:32 AM EST
    lol. BTD had to be the peacemaker in the last (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:02:50 PM EST
    thread. I'm going to bed before he suspends all of you. Good night fellow Democrats. Somehow, we'll get through this and win in November.

    Oh, my, and I had to miss that -- (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:27:05 PM EST
    gotta go see.  G'night to you, too.

    I t is pretty funny actually, if you read (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:56:34 PM EST
    the whole thread.  The decider wasn't exactly neutral.

    Texas Texas (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST

    My senate district gets 8 delegates, that is some good stuff!

    Texas Poll (none / 0) (#68)
    by Rojas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:35:55 PM EST
    Only one I've found here

    Texas (none / 0) (#75)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:39:54 PM EST
    Yes.....Hillary  up  by   10  points.

    But other  polls  show if  Obama is the  candidate  against  McCain,   Texas  goes   heavily   for  McCain,   because  of  Obama's  lack  of  experience  in military  issues  and immaturity   in  being Commander in Chief.  

    Not  to mention  his support  for   driver's licenses  for illegal  aliens.  


    Got a link... (none / 0) (#78)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:43:21 PM EST
    ... to those "other polls?"

    And I really don't think you want to use polls showing OBama/McCain and Clinton/McCain.

    Because Obama has the advantage in almost every one of them.

    Further... why does it matter that McCain would win Texas?  Texas will go Republican in November regardless of who is running, and you know it.  Or at least you should know that.  


    True enough... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:52:07 PM EST
    Texas will go Republican in November regardless of who is running...

    But something for us to keep in mind:  even though McCain is the ultimate winner of the state by all rational probability, the better we perform here--i.e., the more we close the gap--the more money they are forced to spend here.  And that's money that can't be spent elsewhere.  This is why many of us think the 50-state strategy is the best longterm strategy for Dems.


    Well, the 48-state strategy, anyway (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:33:18 PM EST
    Michigan is in such bad shape, it sure could have used some of that trickle-down money.

    I hear 'ya. (n/t) (none / 0) (#114)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    As compared to (none / 0) (#85)
    by Rojas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:56:02 PM EST
    18 points on 1/30
    34 points on 12/11

    do you think (none / 0) (#95)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:18:48 PM EST
    that Hillary would beat McCain in Texas?

    I think Bill got within ~3 in 92 (none / 0) (#103)
    by Rojas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    and blown out of the water in 96.

    Neither (none / 0) (#104)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:24:23 PM EST
    Obama nor Clinton would beat McCain here in Texas, excluding some major last-minute scandal.  

    The question I am interested in is...  which one if given the nomination (and indeed if given the the GE)would force the Republican party to spend more of their dwindling money here for the next 4-8 years.


    if you think (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:02:14 AM EST
    Texas is going for Hillary, you have to be out of your mind.  You clearly don't know anything about politics.

    There is no statewide elected democrats, and while there is a large Hispanic population.  they vote in god awful numbers, even when voting for Hispanic candidates.


    Best TX (none / 0) (#81)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:48:20 PM EST
    analytics are here.  Al is presenting senatorial precinct-level details that you can really sink your teeth into.

    Analysis is thorough (none / 0) (#88)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:01:43 PM EST
    but I kind of doubt the portion where voting patterns are like Missouri.  Since they will both be putting time and money into the state campaigning, I bet that doesn't hold up.

    True. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:14:25 PM EST
    The point I have taken home from Al's analysis is that w/ leads so slim anything is possible in TX at this point w/ respect to who walks away with the most delegates and how they manage to do so.  Clinton has a solid chance, and Obama knew that he couldn't dodge a debate appearance.  

    Tano (none / 0) (#62)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    Kathy  is  absolutely  correct, Tano.  

    It  is   YOU  who glosses  over  details  and  nuances   to    promote  Obama.  

    I gloss over nuance and detail (none / 0) (#99)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:20:41 PM EST
    by requesting that one pay attention to the second sentence as well as the first when making a claim about what someone is saying?

    And this is the problem... (none / 0) (#112)
    by ROK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:33:17 PM EST
    Before this wonderful site was crawling with such venomous and angry commentors, it was full of calm and logical insight. Now, my beloved TL is a forum for misdirected anger.

    I can't wait until this process is over and the discussion regains what it used to have. The supporters of these two great candidates reflect the candidates themselves. So, before we start hating Obama or Hillary, just take a step back and calm down. We're all on the same team here and we all have to make up soon anyways.

    I fear that many of the angry people on here are fishing for fights and are doing it more for selfish reasons than for their cause. It feels good slamming your opponent, but this helps no one.


    Would it be uncouth (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:56:40 PM EST
    for me to point out that many of the more...caustic  commenters have matching aliases at the Dkos?

    Very observant. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:00:13 AM EST
    Certainly not... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ROK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:47:17 AM EST
    Still, I wish TL could be our last unbiased or at least civil bastion.

    Thread cleaned again (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    There's no need for personal insults. I've deleted comments that were just bickering with no substance.

    Hooey (none / 0) (#130)
    by BloggerRadio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:08:43 AM EST
    Obama will shock with upset over Clinton in Texas, and Texas will not go McCain in the GE. You heard it here first.

    Voters in Texas know that they owe their country a make-up call for sending us Bush.

    It is humorous how comments here question Obama's experience and ability as a commander in chief of the military. Are you kidding me!? For 8 years we've had a Chimp that liked to play dress-up in a flight suit who ducked his military service to Vietnam because he is a coward that used his Daddy's influence to skate. Your Momma could be as effective at commander-in-chief as Bush.

    Well the converse argument would be (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:25:28 AM EST
    "look where that got us, we can't afford another one"

    But I think the more important argument is the fact that Bush has really done a number on the country, and I am just not convinced Barak Obama can correct the wrongs...actually I don't think its on his radar screen. Obama isn't mentioning Habeas Corpus, or signing statements, or unitary executive, or torture, or unilateral engagement, or signing un-passed bills into law, spying on Americans secretly, or extraordinary rendition, or indefinite detentions (both of foreigners and US citizens), etc. etc. etc...

    These are issues that I don't think Obama is even withing a rational realm of being qualified to handle. At least Hillary is talking about these issues, Barak is not, he's talking about platitudes and attacking Hillary (yes yes, she attacks Barak too).


    Meanwhile, Jim Webb steps up, (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:45:24 AM EST
    saying better have a lawsuit ready to go against Bush admins.; Webb says when everyone is busy at the conventions this summer, Bush will finalize his proposed agreement with Iraq to keep us there.  Good for Webb.  

    I like Webb (none / 0) (#143)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:49:50 AM EST
    I am actually happy with both my senators, considering the character flaw of Sen. Warner (Republicanism is a character flaw in my book...or at least is symbolic of an underlying character flaw)...however, I don't make any illusions that Webb is a progressive, he's not, but like I said, I couldn't be prouder that he doesn't back down from bullies, and he'll punch bush in the mouth if he has to, in order to do what is right for Virginians and Americans

    If HIllary Clinton does better (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:09:47 AM EST
    when the hype is she's losing, she should do well in Texas, Ohio, and PA: