home

Hillary Clinton Wins New Mexico

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:30:21 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's Official. Hillary has won New Mexico. She will get 14 delegates to Barack Obama's 12.

Vote total: Clinton 73,105 votes, Obama 71,396

< Signs of the New Hillary: Attacks on Special Interests and Obama | The Superdelegate Criteria >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Clinton Wins New Mexico | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa Go Hillary!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:31:48 PM EST


    Maybe now Richardson will endorse? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:35:32 PM EST


    YESSSSS!!! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jack Frost on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    Just what she needed!

    More Mo- (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    Hillary has stolen it from Obama the last 3 days...this is something she can build on to shape a narrative...

    If she doesn't beat this drum all weekend through Sunday talk shows...her new campaign managers should be fired too!

    If anything can be faulted on the past manager...they were shifting narratives to often, and allowed Obama to maintain his momentum through ambiguous stump appearances...lets hope they take this and pivot toward Wisconsin with it

    (don't worry though, the Obama supporters will swarp within minutes saying "2000 votes is nothing, they tied!")

    Swarp (none / 0) (#40)
    by carolyn13 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:20:51 PM EST
    I like that. It's very descriptive.

    Parent
    Thanks English isn't my second language (none / 0) (#171)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:57:30 PM EST
    its my first...I am sure you can tell :)

    Parent
    Bit of an Overstatement (none / 0) (#52)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:36:26 PM EST
    This is nice, but not huge.

    I do think she's bound to get some momentum back if only because of the media narrative will change.  They can't keep talking about Obama's wins for three weeks.  And, despite the faux hand wringing about Democrats tearing themselves apart, this is good for the news business.  While I think they want Obama to win, I suspect they also wouldn't be all that upset to see this go until April.  

    Parent

    Or at least until the TV shows are ready (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:38:04 PM EST
    to roll again.

    Parent
    why end the post with snark? (none / 0) (#68)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:56:51 PM EST
    why end the post with snark?

    Parent
    it just spoils (none / 0) (#69)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:57:57 PM EST
    her win

    Parent
    Why come here if (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:25:53 PM EST
    you're not going to like the posts?

    Parent
    Because that is my personality (none / 0) (#172)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    take it with a grain of salt...sarcasm even at the expense of Obama can sometimes be funny, or truthful

    no offense meant, just humor :)

    Parent

    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:46:26 PM EST
    Maybe now Rishardson will endorse. Prior to Texas it could help.

    Wow speaking of payments (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:49:18 PM EST
    look at this for Super Delegates and the money they have received...So they are selling the election??

    Obama: $694,000 (40% of his superdelegates)
    Clinton: $194,000 (12% of her superdelegates)

    Greg Sargent has more

    The cynical me, (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    the conspiracy theorist me, wonders how much the campaigns might be paying certain A list bloggers, you know, as advertising revenue, or something.

    But that's just the cynical me.

    Parent

    I was thoroughly "swarped" at DK (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:58:28 PM EST
    for a comment about an NYT op ed on high profile bloggers working for political campaigns.  

    Parent
    A link? (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:07:07 PM EST

    to that article?  (promise no swarping from me).

    Parent

    Here you go: (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:24:33 PM EST
    NYT GLOVER

    Parent
    This is even more (none / 0) (#65)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    interesting....

    Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, all seven elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama--and all committed to Clinton

    Seeking Superdelegates

    Parent

    How disappointing, but, a pol is a pol. (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:59:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#82)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    But the sign that Clinton or Obama gave the person money may also speak to some closer relationship or political affinity.

    Now, anyone who is even thinking about running for president should be spreading money around the party, that's just good politics, but I'm not sure money is the only thing that's driving these SD's choices, the money could be part of a larger pattern of mutual support.

    And with that, I think I need to step outside and get a booster shot of cynicism because clearly I'm running low.

    Parent

    These are those (none / 0) (#91)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:15:26 PM EST
    same SDs that may end up choosing our nominee... how depressing that $$$$$ enter the decision.

    But this will be lost because Sen Obama looks the worst in this situation.


    Parent

    Please look at the caveat (none / 0) (#110)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:53:24 PM EST
    "these numbers refer to donations in the 2006 and 2008 cycles"

    Until we know how much of this was donated in 2006 these numbers are absolutely meaningless. As someone that worked hard for Dem campaigns that year I can tell you this, everyone was looking to Obama for support and money in order to gain seats.

    Obama had it locked up vs Alan Keyes so he was able to donate lots of campaign money and time to other Dems to help the fantastic gains we saw in 06. He helped out Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Harold Ford, Ben Cardin, and many, many more.

    Parent

    dwight (none / 0) (#123)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    EXCEPT  Ned  Lamont,   who  was  running  against  Obama's mentor  Joe  Lieberman.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#130)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    Both Clinton and Obama backed Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Then after Lamont won the primary, both Clinton and Obama supported Lamont in the General Election.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#156)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:52:24 PM EST
    Bill  and  Hillary   CAMPAIGNED  for   Lamont.  

    Obama    was  asked,  but  couldn't  find  the  time.    

    Parent

    Neither Clinton Or Obama Campaigned (none / 0) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:02:33 PM EST
    for Ned Lamont. Clinton and Obama each donated $5,000 to Ned Lamont's campaign from their PACs. You are correct that Obama did not respond to requests from Lamont to campaign for him.

    If you believe that Clinton campaigned for Lamont, please provide a link to substantiate.

    Parent

    I'll go with Ned on this one (none / 0) (#166)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    Lamont's endorsement of Obama speaks volumes. But Obama indeed CAMPAIGNED for Lamont.

    Parent
    So you disagree (none / 0) (#127)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
    with the "Center for Responsive Politics"

    Until we know how much of this was donated in 2006 these numbers are absolutely meaningless. As someone that worked hard for Dem campaigns that year I can tell you this, everyone was looking to Obama for support and money in order to gain seats.

    PACs are a great way to support Dem candidates... but when an election will be decided by the SDs.... this just adds to the uneven hand dealt to the DEM voters.


    Parent

    confusing post (none / 0) (#136)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I was talking about how Obama helped support a lot of Democratic candidates in 2006. His popularity was off the charts after his 2004 speech and he had lots of money in his campaign fund since hardly any was spent beating Keyes. In 2006 there were several really close Senate and Congress races that he used his presence and money to help put Democratic candidates over the top.

    People are making the accusation that the money he has donated to campaigns of superdelegates was some sort of attempt to buy their vote in this primary. The numbers they cite are from 06 and 08. What I'm saying is unless we know how much of that money was donated in 06, it's irresponsible and borderline slanderous to make that accusation.

    Parent

    What I'm telling you (none / 0) (#141)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    is those slanderous people are the "Center for Responsive Politics".

    I really think they have done an analysis of the data. Did you read the article?

    Parent

    Another interesting question would be (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:54:57 PM EST
    how much of the money from Obama's PAC passed on to other peoples' campaigns is traceable to Rezko et al?

    Parent
    Yes I read it, did you? (none / 0) (#160)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    The article says 2006 OR 2008 election cycles. It does not say the amounts of money that was donated to 06 campaigns. Obama made big efforts to help the Democrats gain back the House and Senate in 2006. He did this by being generous with his time and campaign money.

    The article even makes my case stronger with the Sheldon Whitehouse example -

    "We were a top targeted Senate race in 2006 and we received a number of contributions, including those from Clinton and Obama."

    To take the figure in this article, which is not a number since the primary race started but a total that spans 2005-2008, and use it accuse him of trying to buy superdelegates (which is being made by some people on this post not the Center for Responsive Politics) is what I'm saying is irresponsible and slanderous.

    Parent

    It is really easy (none / 0) (#163)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:02:15 PM EST
    to find where the PAC money went...

    Hope Fund

    Actually it is from 2006 & 2008.

    Parent

    Aha, there's McCaskill's endorsement (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    . . . as much becomes more clear.

    Parent
    His PAC (none / 0) (#155)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:51:33 PM EST
    gave McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)  $10,000 in 2006.

    But look at this PAC $ went to Hillary in 2006..
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)  $4,200
     

    Parent

    Poster Democratic Hot Rodder (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    who has also been posting as Memekiller, whom I banned, is also banned. All of his comments under both names have been deleted.

    Don't play games here. Express yourself civilly and don't shill or post misinformation or try to dominate the discussion.

    That explains it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:56:58 PM EST
    I had suspended Hot Rod for the day.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#46)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    apparently word got out that one objective blog remained that was not overrun by ...

    ... trying to think of a descriptive, accurate, but not harsh word for them ...

    Can't.

    Parent

    Swarps (none / 0) (#109)
    by carolyn13 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Swarps (none / 0) (#124)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    it is.    That ok,   BTD  and  TL?

    Parent
    does this pass as civil? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    (don't worry though, the Obama supporters will swarp within minutes saying "2000 votes is nothing, they tied!")

    Parent
    Obama is having a bad day (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    He lost NM. He was forced to release a whining and defensive ad explaining why Wisconsin voters aren't worthy of a debate. His lies about Clinton and NAFTA were exposed. And new polls show him losing in Ohio and Pennsylvania by 20+ points. Now that's what I call momentum!

    Plus, Michelle Obama sd. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:18:58 PM EST
    this is it for Obama.  He won't be running next time.  Is that a threat, though?

    Parent
    No, it's a promise (none / 0) (#38)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    Let's hope.

    Parent
    I'd Love for Obama To Run Again (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:25:40 PM EST
    I don't think he's ready this year, but he has tremendous political gifts and could do great things for the party and country with a little more experience under his belt.

    I'm still not against him as a VP on a Clinton ticket, I think that would be an incredibly strong ticket in terms of enthusiasm and turning the Republican Southern Strategy against them.  And I think going through the fire of a nasty national campaign would be good for Obama.  Since he's never done that, I worry about him on the top of the ticket.  I know what Hillary will look like after tens of millions of dollars have been spent smearing her.  Been there, done that.  I don't know what Obama would look like and it worries me.

    Parent

    This is my thinking as well (none / 0) (#102)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:32:53 PM EST
    he's still too green now to be an effective president, but let him age another 4 years (and get some foreign affairs experience), and he'll be ready.

    Parent
    Sandy (none / 0) (#126)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:13:44 PM EST
    I  feel  the  same.  And  so do  my  moderate  Repub   friends.  

    8  years  as  VP,  experience,  seasoning,  and  then    8  years  as   Pres.  

    And  the  Democratic Party gets  16 years of  good  governing.  

    I'd  vote  for  that.  So  would  my Repub friends.

    Parent

    I doubt it. (none / 0) (#42)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:22:38 PM EST
    I can't believe anyone would subject themselves to a Presidential campaign even once. Twice? Madness.

    This is particularly true for Obama. He's the Candidate of the Historic Moment. If he doesn't get it this time, he's sure as heck not going to get it next time. Better to stick to the lecture circuit.

    Parent

    very good point (none / 0) (#43)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:24:04 PM EST
    The only hope for such an inexperienced candidate was in a climate of such a widespread exhaustion and horror after 8 years of Bush/Cheney. At no other time would he be remotely viable.

    Parent
    You overlook (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    the fact that the years between "this time" and "next time" are an excellent opportunity to obtain experience.

    Parent
    True, but also 4 years to (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    vote the wrong way, say the wrong thing, etc.

    Parent
    Reminds me of (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:47:35 PM EST
    Stephen Colbert the other night to Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC's non-voting representative in Congress:

    Wouldn't you be the perfect candidate for President?  You're black, you're female, AND you have no voting record whatsoever to attack!


    Parent
    Marvelous. Sorry I missed that (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    but thus even more grateful that you quoted it here!

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:45:05 PM EST
    has been heavily involved in THREEE presidential campaigns....

    MO needs to buck up.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#63)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:53:02 PM EST
    It's perfectly reasonable to only take one shot at the apple. Presidential campaigns get more and more brutal every year, and losing one doesn't exactly up your odds for winning the next one. There will be many opportunities ahead for Obama if he loses, virtually all of which will be less taxing on himself and his family than another run at an office he's already been rejected for.

    Parent
    One hit wonder? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by allimom99 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:58:45 PM EST
    Oh, you mean like finishing his Senate term, as he promised the people of Illinois he would? It would be interesting to see if he could get a 2nd term against a REAL opponent, not a nut job like Alan Keyes.

    Parent
    Obama is beating Hillary (none / 0) (#80)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:02:34 PM EST
    so I think he can handle himself at a state level.

    Parent
    He could stay in Senate.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:09:00 PM EST
    I'm sure the people of Illinois would support him in that endeavor. (and, given his margin of victory in Illinois, I suspect they aren't too upset about him running for President.) But that's not the only thing he could do. He could open up his own firm and lobby for causes important to him. He could go on the lecture circuit and continue giving speeches to enthusiastic crowds. Or just he could just turn pundit and play Democratic heavyweight for the next 30 years. And most of these choices aren't even mutually exclusive...he can mix and match pretty freely.

    Virtually any of those options would be far more lucrative and far less stressful than taking another run at President. Given that, I can't honestly blame him (or his wife) for ruling out another run. I don't expect Hillary to run again if she loses, and I wouldn't hold that against her either. We'll find new candidates. We always do.

    Parent

    Heard (none / 0) (#129)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:16:45 PM EST
    that  Obama   might  run  for  Illinois  governor  someday if  he loses  nomination.  

    Michelle   needs  to grow  some.

    Parent

    she doesn't like being (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:39:03 PM EST
    a political wife. She's been left at home to raise the kids while he's been in D.C. as Senator. She makes a point of saying she and the kids didn't move to DC, he has an apt there and commutes.  I think his political ambitions have interfered with her own career plans. She's behind this run, but I really don't think she agree to another one. I can't say I blame her.

    Parent
    But she isn't even through (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:00:45 PM EST
    one campaign and she's already saying no more?...what about 2012 if they win this one?

    That's my point.  She needs to prepare for what's coming next (which will be MUCH worse than what's she's already been through).

    Parent

    In fact (none / 0) (#89)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:10:59 PM EST
    Michelle Obama made a couple comments along these lines way back at the beginning of the campaign, so if she's saying it again, it's nothing new.

    The idea is to avoid giving voters an easy out.  If you lend credence to the theory that "Hillary might make Obama her VP, so if you vote for her you might get both!" or "Obama will run again in 4 years, so you'll can vote for him later when he has more experience!" then voters will avoid the tough choice.  It's good strategy for Obama to push a "now or never" storyline, because if he gives voters a "now or later" choice, a lot of them will be tempted to choose "later."

    Parent

    Not a good strategy (none / 0) (#131)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:18:21 PM EST
    Makes   Michelle  look  small and petty,  as  if  she'll  take  her  little  red  ball  and go home if  her  husband  doesn't  win.  

    Looks  manipulative.   NOT  gracious  or  interested in the long-term  success of  the  party   as  a  whole.

    Parent

    She is smart, too smart to say (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    so many of the petty things she has said in this campaign.  So I think she is sent out to say them for the campaign, so that her spouse does not have to do so and can stay "clean."

    Parent
    Kathy? (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:29:12 PM EST


    Parent
    You rang? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    Had to take a break from the trollsters--they were giving me a headache.

    News led with Clinton winning NM tonight, which was good.  No mention of campaign shake-ups, but did say she was behind in opening offices in the states.

    Overall, pretty even-handed.

    Parent

    Yes I did. I anticipated YOU (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:27:49 PM EST
    would be the firs to discuss Michelle Obama's pronouncement her husband will only run for President one time--this time.  

    Parent
    Man, I am so over Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    I just think she's the Theresa Heinz Kerry of this election--not ready for prime time.  Of course, that's been my argument about Obama from the beginning is that he needs to sit back and learn from folks who know what they are doing.  I was watching McCain go at him on the national news, and he talked about him as if he was 12.  We cannot afford a McCain presidency.

    Parent
    Movin' on. That's good. (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:59:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Larry King Live (none / 0) (#120)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    I think the people who saw her appearance on Larry King Live would disagree with your assessment.

    Parent
    I'm one of those people (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    and I agree with my assessment.

    Parent
    New interview today of Michelle (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:12:51 PM EST
    Obama in NYT also.

    Parent
    So do I (none / 0) (#133)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:20:26 PM EST
    Her performance on Good  Morning   America  was  pathetic....sooooo  tired,  can't  help  anyone  but her own  husband.    PATHETIC.  

    Parent
    My dad (none / 0) (#128)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:15:19 PM EST
    saw her on Larry King and thought she was incredibly impressive.  He is a Clinton supporter.

    She is really good at being different people for different audiences.  No one has called her on it yet.

    Parent

    Michelle (none / 0) (#134)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    Did you know  Michelle  was  appointed  to  the "Landmark  commitee"  that  approved  buying/selling   of  historic  homes in  their hometown?   (She  worked  on  Daley's  staff  for years)

    As  soon  as  the  permit  for  their own  "historic   home" came  through, and  the  sale  was  final,   she  quit  that  committee.  

    Coinky-dink?    I think  not.  

    Parent

    And she wasn't supposed to serve (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:38:51 PM EST
    more than one term on the preservation committee, with its term limits . . . yet somehow she was allowed to stay on -- although, as you say, only just long enough in her second term to get the house through the very lucrative preservation approval (which means mucho tax credits).  And then, pfft, she resigned from the committee.

    Parent
    Mucho tax credits (none / 0) (#161)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:57:28 PM EST
    Property  tax  free,  for   10  years.  

    Sweet  deal, eh?

    Parent

    Long time to wait to be devious (none / 0) (#146)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    She was on the Landmark Commission for 7 years (1998-2005), seems like a long time to wait if all you wanted to do was own a "historic home" then quit. Of course Barak was accused of planning this campaign since Kindergarten, so clearly no conspiracy theory is too crazy when it involves the Obamas.

    Parent
    dwight (none / 0) (#162)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST
    Nonsense,  dwight.    

    As  soon  as  she  got  the  paperwork  approved  (including  the "historic  home"  detail  of  property  tax  free  for   10 years),   she  quit.    

    I  wasn't  born  yesterday.  

    Parent

    A lot of us have to wait longer (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:13:18 PM EST
    to afford homes.  This really is just an odd comment.

    Parent
    Two way street (none / 0) (#170)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:27:08 PM EST
    I may be an Obama defender, but I do not put out dubious claims about Hillary. Those people that do are rightfully pillared here.

    However, what I'm seeing here is innuendo and claims of motive in regards to Michelle Obama. All of which are unsubstantiated.

    So people need to either back up their innuendo or stop being hypocritical.

    Parent

    The sequence of events (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM EST
    in her committee service, the term limit, the service beyond it to still be on the committee to vote on the application by the buyer for historical preservation tax credits, her resignation right afterwards -- as well as the home sale split between the Obamas and Rezko's spouse, her sale to the Obamas of the strip of land with the driveway on it,  and the home's considerably increased value therefrom, etc. . . . all have been substantiated.

    You could look it up.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#39)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:20:29 PM EST
    But his Super Delegates are doing a great job lobbying on his behalf.  Or not.  (I posted this in the Greg Sargent thread, but it's honestly too hilarious to be missed - ah, the ridiculousness of politics.)

    Parent
    he is giving the elected SDs tons of campaign cash (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    though--trying to buy it.

    Parent
    Eh (none / 0) (#45)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:26:49 PM EST
    That's politics.

    It wouldn't upset me if Clinton did it and it doesn't bother me with Obama.  What always annoys me with Obama is the hypocrisy - if Clinton did this, she'd be decried far and wide.

    Parent

    Donating to Dem campaigns (none / 0) (#81)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:04:06 PM EST
    years ago, is not buying delegates.


    Parent
    2006 or 2008 (none / 0) (#101)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    I would all that recent years.

    Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

    SD


    Parent

    Stop these unsupported charges (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    We will not tolerate them against Clinton OR Obama.

    Parent
    They're not (none / 0) (#135)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:25:09 PM EST
    unsubstantiated.   Look  at  the   numbers.  

    Parent
    What a riot! (none / 0) (#62)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    Ummm...shudda thought that logic through before he went on tee vee.  NOT ready for prime time!

    Heh, heh, heh...

    Parent

    what about the new mexico superdelegates? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    I assume Obama will now argue Hillary, as the vote winner and pledged delegate winner, should get those? (/sarcasm)  There are 12 of them. That would give Hillary 26 delegates to Obama's 12 in New Mexico.

    Did you check out the video (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:55:42 PM EST
    I linked to on TPM above?  It's basically an Ohio Super Delegate doing that same dance.  Would you change if Clinton wins Ohio?  Well, not me, but others should!  It's comedy gold.

    And I agree with Josh Marshall, I can't believe they don't have a better answer to such an obvious question.  But I think that's been the weakest part of the Obama campaign.  They are absolutely brilliant at dividing Democrats and playing offense.  But the minute they get a tough question, they don't have a good response.

    Parent

    No I wouldn't change (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    because I'm not the one saying the superdelegates should vote with the popular vote or delegate count. I'm the one who says if you don't like the rules, change them for the next election...not now, when the horses are already out of the starting gate.

    Right now the superdelegates can vote how they want.

    Parent

    I'm Confused or Perhaps Confusing (none / 0) (#84)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    I think my comment was unclear, I wasn't suggesting that you should or would change.  I was trying to capture the ridiculousness of David Wilhelm (an Obama Super Delegate) on the video.

    Sorry for any confusion.

    Parent

    Jerilynn (none / 0) (#138)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    I  agree with you.  

    But   Kerry and  Kennedy  have  refused  to   change  their  SD  votes  according to  Massachusetts   voters,  and  are  sticking  with  Obama.  

    It   just   shows  the hypocrisy  of  the  Obama  supporters   thinking  SD's  should  vote  with  their  states,  but  not if  they're  Obama's  SD's.    

    Parent

    Even simpler (none / 0) (#176)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:07:17 PM EST
    They think super delegates should vote for Obama period...no matter what, a calculus will be provided to explain why this state or that SD should vote for Obama...in Obama states, it will be popular vote, in NV, it will be will of the people as represented through delegates, in MA it will be "the rules are the rules..."

    They are trying to build momentum and create peer pressure for the SDs to vote Obama...the rational is "SDs should vote Obama in all circumstances"

    Parent

    Shorter Version (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:21:26 PM EST
    Super Delegates should vote for Obama no matter what.

    That guy came across as a Super Hypocrite more than a Super Delegate.

    Parent

    Right On! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by seattlegonz on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:01:15 PM EST
    Hillary is awesome. When I think of how tumultuous and chaotic the world is, I think about what kind of leader I want commanding the strongest military in the world. If it's true that supporters reflect on their leaders, than I don't want someone as reactive as Obama's supporters are with his finger on the trigger. I want someone like Hillary, who can take incoming flak and ignorant abuse with grace, dignity and a commitment to get back to the real issues at hand.

    For me, Hillary is the true inspirational leader in this race.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:33:51 PM EST
    Why does it seem like New Mexico ALWAYS has big problems getting their votes counted in a timely fashion?

    Because They Have (none / 0) (#34)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    such a competent executive.  Didn't you watch the debates?

    Parent
    I hate to say it (none / 0) (#6)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    But at this point does it really matter? I mean it was going to be with a couple of delegates one way or another, and does anyone even remember when the counting started?

    I think NM was a Super Tues. state (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    and the re counting started that week.

    Parent
    The info is in J's link: (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    Feb. 5 caucuses.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST
    Not a big deal. But it is news. We would have reported it if Obama had won.

    We have reported on all results here.

    Parent

    No...it doesn't change anything (none / 0) (#15)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:49:27 PM EST
    with any significance in the tangible campaign, but don't you agree it does give her the opportunity to change the intangibles...shape the momentum?

    Parent
    Uh . . . no? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:50:53 PM EST


    Parent
    So, in essence (none / 0) (#20)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:52:23 PM EST
    you don't think HRC can get any traction from this win?

    Why not?

    Parent

    when the result was up in the air, I (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    thought there was some thought she hadn't gotten as much support from NM Latino voters as anticipated.  

    Parent
    Cuz it was 10 days ago (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    It is a headline, but traction?

    Parent
    In my calculus (none / 0) (#25)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:01:37 PM EST
    Positive headline = positive traction/momentum

    if you see it another way, ok...but how do you see it then?

    Parent

    Well, it gets her a headline. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    That's always good. Momentum? Maybe. Depends on how it's hyped.

    And it gives a delegate. Now it's 14/12 instead of 13/12. Every little bit helps.

    Parent

    Hillary's decision to do attack ads (none / 0) (#74)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    is getting more coverage at CNN than the NM win.

    Parent
    of course because Obama is backed (none / 0) (#79)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    by the main stream corporate media....what more do you expect!!!

    Parent
    Hillary 14, Barack 12 (delegates) (none / 0) (#16)
    by TheRef on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:49:53 PM EST
    Is this the Clinton "firewall" ...a two delegate advantage in New Mexico?  The Party cannot afford to tamp down "hope".  The bandwagon rolls on.

    CNN says she has 18 (nt) (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:04:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#18)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:50:43 PM EST
    Can you please tell me if the delegates from Florida and Michigan are included in the total delegate count?  If not, will the total number needed to win go up if these delegates are seated?

    No, they are not. (none / 0) (#30)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:06:21 PM EST
    At least not if you're talking about the official counts you'll see on any news broadcast.

    And yes, if they are seated, the total number needed to win will go up. (to somewhere around 2182)

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#144)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    that's  not  true.  Only   on  MSNBC  are  the  SD's  completely   ignored.  

    At    CNN,   they  actually  contact  the  SD's.  If  they are  already  committed , they include in  totals.  If  they  are  uncommitted,  they  don't.    

    CNN's  totals  are  more  honest  than MSNBC's  are.    

    Parent

    It wins (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fultron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    a news cycle, which is a reprieve from the daily "Obama sweeping" headlines. That's about it.

    I agree with you on that (none / 0) (#27)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Not really. Countered almost (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    simultaneously with:  Mark Penn received $250,000 working for exelon.  

    Parent
    Axelrod got money from Exelon too (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    Not sure what the point of that is.

    Parent
    The point: Obama media person is (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    doing a heck of a job.

    Parent
    Personally (none / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    while I think Mark Penn is odious, and the unions certainly aren't in his fan club, I've really seen no evidence that voters care one bit about who he is or what he does.

    Parent
    Probably right. That's why (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    I think it is such a mistake to let him talk on TV, but, then again, maybe no one is listening.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    If they kept him out of the spotlight, it's guaranteed that no one would care whether a senior advisor said this or that.  I can't fathom why they would ever want him to be the face of the campaign.

    Parent
    Oh, Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:40:14 PM EST
    Penn should never be allowed within 50 meters of a television camera or a reporter.  Same thing for Axelrod, btw.  I dislike our candidates most whenever I'm reminded of who their strategists are.  Although to call Penn a strategist is a gross overstatement of his capabilities in that area.

    You know, win or lose, given the problems in her campaign, Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be one heck of a tough candidate.  Much better than I ever anticipated.  I don't mean in terms of policies, I mean in terms of figuring out how to stay in the game and make adjustments.  If she'd had as good a campaign as she is as a candidate, she'd have the nomination (and, of course, the problems with her campaign are ultimately her responsibility and so it's not unfair that she is having to work for it).

    Parent

    I'm still thinking BTD's suggestion in (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    response to my earlier inquiry has some merit:  fire Penn.  Bill works for free.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:08:32 PM EST
    my wife has much the same view about hiring a housekeeper.

    Parent
    mark penn (none / 0) (#147)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:40:48 PM EST
    didn't  write  legislation   and  then  gut  the  regulations in it   on  behalf  of  the   nuclear   energy  industry.  

    That  was  Obama  himself.  

    And  right  after  that, Exelon  donated  $200,000  to his  campaign.

    Parent

    Hey lets all raise money (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    to send Hillary and Obama into a closed room and lock the door and they cannot leave until they find a solution.....:-)

    We'd give them (none / 0) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    portapotties and snacks, considering they'd likely be there for months.

    Parent
    Or put 'em in a toxic Katrina trailer home (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:06:14 PM EST
    with a video camera and see how fast they settle it.

    And also see if he doesn't cry for Katrina, too.

    Parent

    Why raise money? (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    I have a room with a lock on it.

    Parent
    Eh, i think my Hills (none / 0) (#83)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:05:22 PM EST
    would eat him alive.  Hey, if whatever the Republicans say about her is true, it would happen.  And in that case...bring it.

    Parent
    heck yeah, bring it (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:19:09 PM EST
    Have you seen how McCain is eating Obama for lunch?  Every sentence begins with "junior senator" and ends with a snark-line.

    Preview of things to come.  

    And let's not forget there are a lot more older voters than there are younger ones, and while they can't stand up to their children at home, they can certainly root for McCain when he does it.

    Parent

    McCain (none / 0) (#106)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:44:23 PM EST
    hasn't even begun to eat yet.  He's merely sprinkling on the salt and pepper while the people who work in his kitchen sharpen his utensils.

    Parent
    McCain (none / 0) (#112)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:55:31 PM EST
    He is going to be a formidable opponent, not because of his policies, but because of his personal story.  It is the most powerful of all three candidates.  And anyone who thinks it can just be brushed off or won't have an appeal, is deluding themselves.

    I hate McCain's politics and would never vote for him, but I get chills watching the first few minutes of this bio video of his.  I worry about both Clinton and Obama against this, particularly someone as young as Obama.  I know on policies and politics he should be able to easily beat McCain, but Obama relies so much more on his personal story than Clinton does and, frankly, few people in politics can top McCain's personal story.

    This is why I was so surprised yesterday when folks at MyDD were dismissing McCain's talk of hope and the idea that he could attack Obama on it.  Dude, McCain has been to darker places than most of us could even imagine and he came through it.  I'm no McCain fan, but even I think he knows about hope, he'd have to or he'd be dead.


    Parent

    BDB, you are right (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    that's why I don't make fun of his name like others do (though it is their prerogative).  The man was tortured for serving his country.  That earns him some respect in my book--though, not my vote.

    I think in the ge, it is going to be very hard for Obama to attack him without looking like some young upstart who can't respect his elders.  While that may play with the youth vote, they are far outnumbered and outgunned.

    Parent

    If anyone attacks McCain on his personal honor (none / 0) (#122)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:10:18 PM EST
    or denigrates his service to this country, they will be eaten alive for it.  Not to mention losing a ton of votes because of it.  

    Parent
    Bush got away with it once (none / 0) (#159)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    I think anyone who tried that crap again would be incredibly foolish and extremely dishonorable.

    There are many, many more points on which to question his fitness for the White House, but his service to our country is not one of them.

    Parent

    Yep, the veterans' vote (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:48:43 PM EST
    -- and I know many were antiwar, but -- I hear this from vets, that they want to be sure that the next president does something about benefits, the VA, etc., after the destruction of the Bush regime.

    And this is not just self-serving of vets; many volunteer at our huge VA hospital here and can see the flood of disabled Iraq and Afghanistant vets headed our way.  More than we can imagine, because the incredible improvments in field medicine means so many more are being saved than in previous wars.

    But saved . . . for lives in which they will need our help.  And they're not getting it now.

    Parent

    Ha, Yes I've noticed that (none / 0) (#108)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:48:37 PM EST
    and it's really pretty darned effective.  McCain may look crazy but he's also a pretty good politician and can be genuinely funny at times.


    Parent
    Don't know about anybody else, but (none / 0) (#58)
    by Firefly4625 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:48:45 PM EST
    ever since CNN showed the guy announcing that Hillary had won New Mexico (after which they couldn't have cut away to something else fast enough), I haven't heard WORD ONE about Hillary's win.

    That's CNN, though. Anybody see anything about it on MSNBC or anywhere else?

    So much for Hillary getting anything out of winning a state from the corporate media, I guess. Should have known better...

    The big media news today is (none / 0) (#61)
    by s5 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    Romney endorses McCain, Democrats uneasy about superdelegates, and "is Clinton's base eroding?".

    Parent
    Saw Chris Matthews (none / 0) (#149)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:45:36 PM EST
    announce   it  grudingly,  roll  his  eyes, and  then  change  the  subject  back to  Obama's  "momentum."  

    Parent
    Edwards' delegates could put her ahead (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:50:43 PM EST
    by some counts.  What is he waiting for, if he really wants universal health care to happen?

    Parent
    What's he waiting for? (none / 0) (#165)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:08:06 PM EST
    Good  question.  The  article  from  a  veteran  staff  member   indicated  he's leaning  Clinton's  way  and  fears  Obama  isn't  tough enough  to get  anything  done.  

    Parent
    all of this manipulation if why I am so offended (none / 0) (#67)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    by the MSM...If Obama gets this nomination and then fails to win the election or wins the election and then crawls into bed with the republicans and doesnt produce health care etc. his name will be MUD to many people!!!!

    Myself included, (none / 0) (#76)
    by allimom99 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:01:05 PM EST
    wonder who he'd blame for cosring him the election......

    Parent
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#94)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:18:22 PM EST
    He would blame himself first, then his organization next.

    Parent
    Trolls (none / 0) (#98)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:24:14 PM EST
    I will give you that the Obama trolls are bad, but have you really never been to hillaryis44?  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    we will not let this site become Hillaryis44 or BarackisTheOne or anything like that.

    And not addressed to you, but folks, let's stop denigrating the supporters of the respective candidates.

    Keep it civil.

    Parent

    Sorry I started the swarp meme. (none / 0) (#132)
    by carolyn13 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    I thought it was descriptive of some supporters of both camps, more about how someone behaves than whom they support. I apologize if it offended any reasonable Obama supporters.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#86)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:07:34 PM EST
    They are welcome to endorse Clinton if they choose, as I believe Boxer did after Clinton's California win?    A Bill Richardson endorsement would be very helpful in Texas.  Fenty said he's working on about 10 uncommitted DC delegates to commmit after Obama's win.  I assume this would be apply to most states.

    Speaking of endorsements (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    This is a great endorsement! The campaign is on fire!

    Former Rock the Vote President Jehmu Greene Endorses Hillary Clinton
    Austin, TX - Former Rock the Vote President and Austinite Jehmu Greene announced her endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President today.

    "I have met young people all over the country who are following in Senator Clinton's footsteps, speaking out against injustice at home and abroad, courageously fighting for what they believe in not because it's popular, but because it is right," Greene said. "And they are raising their voices against the noise, to ask the hard questions and vote for Senator Clinton because their hearts and minds tell them that she is the right choice."

    "Jehmu Greene has broken barriers while encouraging our youth to be active in the community and I am proud to have her support," Hillary Clinton said. "The youth in our country are hungry for change and I look forward to having her support and guidance in spreading our message."

    Jehmu Greene was the first African American president of Rock the Vote. She will serve as a youth outreach adviser for the campaign and will be a member of the Hillblazers Steering Committee.

    Parent

    Nice, athyrio (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    Good to see young folks being called to DO something besides worship.  Greene is of the people, by the people.  I heard her speak once--what an amazing young woman.

    Parent
    That's really cool. (none / 0) (#105)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:41:59 PM EST

    Looks like this is shaping up to be a sweet little Valentine's Day for Clinton.  

    (Ahem what would make it sweeter is a Valentine from John Edwards and Bill Richardson, but I won't hold my breath...)

    Parent

    Except one of her commiteed Super D's, (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    Congressman John Lewis, is rethinking his commitment.

    Parent
    I Suspect (none / 0) (#113)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:57:10 PM EST
    All Super Ds are rethinking their commitments.  If this thing breaks open for either candidate, there will be a flood to the other side, earlier endorsement or not.

    Parent
    Not in Colorado (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
    there's an article in today's paper saying they ( 5 of them I think) are standing firm with her till its over.

    Parent
    Good Jeralyn glad some of them (none / 0) (#153)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:50:21 PM EST
    have loyalty to her....

    Parent
    where did you hear that about Lewis? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:58:53 PM EST
    He's my rep.  I'll get on the phone with him right now if he's waffling.

    Parent
    where else? Huff Post. (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM EST


    Parent
    UGH (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:02:37 PM EST
    I can't go to HuffPo.  I don't give them or any others my clicks anymore.  I'm still gonna call and tell them that this longtime supporter (through votes and money) will be extremely furious if he changes his vote.

    Parent
    Huffpost (none / 0) (#152)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:49:24 PM EST
    That  explains it,then.  

    John Lewis  was  the one  who   came out  publicly and  said  he  was  offended   Obama's  staff  had  used  the    race  card in  South  Carolina.  

    It  was  quite  impressive.  

    I  doubt  he'll  switch.  

    Parent

    And I can't imagine that the great (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    John Lewis, who suffered so much in the movement, appreciated Obama's swipe at the "excesses of the '60s."  

    Parent
    New York Times (none / 0) (#169)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:18:04 PM EST
    says John Lewis to endorse Barack Obama

    Parent
    No . . . I read the story, too (nt) (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:07:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Here too (none / 0) (#178)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:49:04 AM EST
    here

    Wow, I hate to say it, but it's a messed up way to play the race card when everyone's saying that it's wrong to play the race card:

    "The comments by Lewis underscored a growing sentiment among some of the party's black leaders that they should not stand in the way of Obama's historic quest for the nomination and should not go against the will of their constituents."

    As if Clinton's quest for the nomination isn't historic.  G-d, I'm really getting mad at this bunch of whining Obama and his campaign are going on about the superdelegates.

    Parent

    Now Hillary is going to get TREMENDOUS (none / 0) (#107)
    by maritza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    MOMENTUM!

    I feel it already!!!

    Spoken like the true Obama supporter (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    you are

    Parent
    OH wow (none / 0) (#167)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:10:56 PM EST
    did you just recently switch candidates for support??

    Parent
    Hillary Clinton Wins New Mexico | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment