What Now For Hillary?

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for me only)

The final number looks like a double digit win (the spread is currently 11 points and the current delegate split is 13-8, and likely to be around 42-32 at the end) win for Obama. That is bad for Clinton. But the bad news comes from two other results. For the first time in a primary outside of Illinois and African-American dominated states, Hillary Clinton lost Democrats to Barack Obama by 51-48.

She lost her base tonight, even though she narrowly defeated Obama among women voters. If this is a real change, then Clinton will be defeated on March 4 in Texas and Ohio and Obama will secure the nomination fairly, decisively and squarely.

The Last Stand is upon the Clinton campaign. It is the Lone Star state of Texas and in the Buckeye state of Ohio. She must win both. Or it is over.

Update (TL): Comments now closing. Thanks for your thoughts.

< CNN Projects Obama Wins Wisconsin | Late Night: A Medley >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • I want you to... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:42:27 PM EST
    ... start voting tomorrow in Texas.  That's some confidence :P.

    Kuebler-Ross five states of grief: (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM EST
      1. Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
       2. Anger: "Why me? It's not fair."
       3. Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my children graduate."
       4. Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
       5. Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."

    Even (none / 0) (#278)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    if McCain is president.....

    What now? (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by rdandrea on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:55:31 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign (I'm not holding Hillary 100 percent responsible) will go even more negative in desperation, and will make things even worse for themselves.

    The harder they push, the more the electorate seems to push back.  It's like being behind 3 touchdowns in the last quarter and having to throw the ball on every play.  It's risky to start with; even riskier when the other side knows it's coming.

    Some Truths (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Seneca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST
    Okay, here are some hard truths.

    1. Hillary must not only win Ohio and Texas, but she must win them BIG. This is not going to happen, unless Obama implodes utterly. Doubtful.

    2. The so-called "plagiarism" scandal is no scandal. It is ridiculous to speak of plagiarism in the context of political campaigns. No candidate is totally original: they borrow from speechwriters, other politicians (i.e. Hillary co-opting "yes we can"), the press, the web, etc.

    3. Obama is not unvetted. This is a pure myth. He has been scrutinized by the Clinton campaign closer than any candidate this election season. So, give it a rest on this "unvetted" line.

    4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH (McCain) (none / 0) (#227)
    by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:24:35 PM EST
    Unless people wake up.  This is not a popularity contest.

    If you vote for an empty suit with a smile the war hero with the experience destroys him and you end up with 4 more years of Bush.

    At least put up a fight with the warrior with the experience, Hillary.


    Done (none / 0) (#269)
    by sumac on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:05:30 PM EST
    I donated money and bought my Hillary shirt and bumper sticker today. I may be the only person in Austin supporting her, but I am gonna try.

    Bless you! So did my daughter (none / 0) (#273)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:00 PM EST
    with her hard-earned pay, minus having to pay her own health insurance, too, in the job market these days for your generation.  That's the number-one issue for me as well as for her in voting for Hillary.

    (p.s. Did you see the gorgeous brown t-shirt on hillarygear.com?:-)


    Did you notice McCain hinted at that? (none / 0) (#280)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:12:05 PM EST
    I watched 2 minutes but he got the biggest applaud when he said to the effect that a person speaking eloquently of change but empty promises. I do not have the exact words but at the time hearing this, people knew who he was talking about. I was thinking, It has already started and they are going to keep hammering their point home. This is not going to be fun.

    Well, sure (none / 0) (#286)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:16:13 PM EST
    he was speaking in front of the Elks lodge. Sneering about false hope to a group of ancient rich white men isn't a very appealing tactic.

    yeah, the exact same point (none / 0) (#288)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    that has proven to be such a winner for hillary.

    Dont let people like John get you down. Obama can win this thing, and he will do so far easier than Hillary would have.


    Good God I hope he can't win (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    the last thing this country needs is another inexperienced empty suit like Bush.

    Encouraging sign (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:21:07 PM EST
    Did you notice that in McCain's speech that he basically telegraphed the lines he intends to take against Obama?

    I'm the experienced one.
    False hopes.
    Empty rhetoric.

    I.e. all the negative stuff that Hillary has tried and has totally flopped.

    McCain has an immense (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    advantage compared to HRC.  He's male.  

    The media hasn't picked it up when (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:52:57 PM EST
    Hillary said it.  My sister had a long standing problem with her ex-husband.  She would tell him something and he wouldn't believe her.  Then some man would tell him the exact same thing and suddenly it became believable.  

    The media loves McCain.  They won't unless there's some real change go after him.  So Obama will have to live with the same things HRC has had too.  He will try and get the media to go after McCain and he will find them not amplifying it for him as they were when he was up against HRC.  

    Will the media still love Obama?  We've heard how Obama has been standoffish to the media.  One thing the media loves about McCain is how he is very open to them.  They protect him.  Which side do you think the media will fall on?  I think Obama will have to also get used to the media also picking on every little thing he does and says just like HRC has had to live with.  

    I really hope this starts up now because we need to know if he can handle this now before he becomes irrevocably our candidate.  If he's going to fall apart better now then in the GE.  So let's all hope the media gives him the real treatment they give Democrats because he needs to learn that the treatment he's been through is nothing no matter how much he thinks he's been vetted.  


    sorry, I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    Yes, some of the negative media coverage is deserved, but much of it is not deserved.  And some of it is despicable sexism.  See Chris Tweety Matthews for exhibit A, and if you think he's an anamoly, go to MediaMatters.

    You might think Obama is the better candidate, that's fine.  You might think that he's managed the campaign better (that's probably correct).

    But it's quite possible for the above to be true and that Clinton has gotten an unfair shake in the media.

    Interesting - from WA (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST
    Looks like about 800K turnout in the utterly meaningless WA Dem primary (I didn't even realize they were having one - delegates were chosen from already held caucuses).

    500K turnout for GOP. Wasn't really competitive either, but still, it was their official delegate selecting event.

    Also... (5.00 / 2) (#289)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:20:27 PM EST
    Just emailed this to BTD:

    There's a huge disparity in the caucus results, and the primary results on the democrat side here in Washington...

    WA Primary: (62% counted)
    Obama:   50%   214,250
    Clinton: 47%   197,980

    WA Caucus:
    Obama:   68%
    Clinton: 31%

    More evidence we need to get rid of caucuses?  A 37% spread as opposed to a 3%?  And this wasn't due to early voting, the absentee ballots were sent out only a few days before the Caucus.


    Yes, why all the negativity? (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:11 PM EST
    I have seen more than one post on this site tonight along the lines of "ding dong, the witch is dead."

    Great summary (4.80 / 5) (#10)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    The way I look at it (as a Clinton supporter) at this point is this:

    Either Sen Clinton will put her base together and manage to pull two solid wins to stay in the game, or honestly Sen Obama would have won the nomination on his own terms and deserves it. Obviously (and hopefully) we will all support the nominee.

    My only fear (and I hope I am wrong) is that Sen Obama will lose to Sen McCain. I am not a fan of Sen McCain, but I thought his speech tonight made some very effective attacks against Sen Obama. And I don't even think he has begun.

    Think of it this way (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:27:45 PM EST
    You Hillary supporters are helping the future nominee (if it is Obama) by working the refs.  You're basically getting the message out there that the media will be biased against Obama and be favorable to McCain.  I know you're doing this to help your candidate--Hillary--but it also has the added benefit to making the press aware of the bias.  You guys will be champing at the bit to say "I told you so" so you will hopefully watch the media like hawks and get on their case if this does come to pass.

    So thanks for helping the Democratic team out.  You are setting the goalposts at a very favorable position for the future Democratic nominee.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:29:57 PM EST
    The message we're getting out is that the media adores Obama.

    Yes (none / 0) (#216)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:17:52 PM EST
    you're probably right that the ardent Hillary supporter will not be as motivated to defend Obama from unfair media treatment.  

    But Obama and the Democrats can certainly fall back on the meme that is taking shape: that the media treats McCain as a saint and is generally hostile to the Democrats.  The media is especially unfair to Hillary but will do the same to Gore or Obama or Kerry.  And it happens to be true--the media does treat Democrats unfairly--especially Hillary.

    To me--this media bias is best exemplified when the New York Times ran an investigative story last year on page A-1 about how many times Senator Clinton and the former president had shared a bed in the recent past.

    Democrats need to start sticking up for one another and fighting the media together.


    Should have told Obama ace (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:50:29 PM EST
    McCain vs Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:58:43 PM EST
    I think a lot of McCain's stuff against Obama can be rebutted.

    For starters, here is a great YouTube on how to rebut the "experience" attack.  (Note: it's Bill Clinton rebutting the "lack of experience" charge against Bush).

    And, yes, Obama has (and will have) more gaffes.  But McCain's is racking up quite a few, too (in Iraq for 100 years; don't know much about economics; voted for the tax cuts before he was against them; etc etc)

    Obama has a hard time in debates against Hillary, because she's so darn smart, a total policy wonk (and so right on so many issues).  This is most decidedly not the case with McCain.


    Great (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST
    When McCain sees that on YouTube, he will be toast!

    You mean... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM EST
    When McCain finds out what YouTube is.

    Um, I have a question (none / 0) (#108)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:23:45 PM EST
    Why do you call yourself "Practically Lactating?"

    I have a question (none / 0) (#114)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    Care to share why you call yourself "Practically Lactating?"

    what? (none / 0) (#282)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:12:54 PM EST
    not everyone hangs out on talk left as the election results roll in

    they don't?


    I think it's a bad sign for McCain (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    that he thinks he has to go negative so early.  He has no message.  He's beatable.

    it's never too early (none / 0) (#61)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:11:36 PM EST
    The Republican attack machine knows how to make their characterizations stick. What comes to mind when you think of John Kerry?

    He was for (none / 0) (#166)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:45:57 PM EST
    the Iraq war before he was against it.

    what comes to mind? (none / 0) (#284)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    what comes to mind when you think of john kerry?

    my closeted uncle that everyone ignores.


    Hunting expedition. (none / 0) (#285)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM EST
    interesting (none / 0) (#39)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:02:34 PM EST
    Found the video on CNN.
    I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.
    This is exactly what I was afraid of. We continue fighting amongst ourselves, while McCain polishes his message for the general.

    Obama won't even know what hit him. (none / 0) (#234)
    by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    The GOP machine, the SwiftBoaters, and McCain will attack him from so many sides he will go down like a ton of bricks.

    Hillary should stop being so soft on Obama.  She should give him a taste of what he faces if he wins the nomination.

    I'm still hoping Hillary wins TX and OH and we don't have to suffer under 4 more years of Bush.


    I think he would know what hit him (none / 0) (#262)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:56:54 PM EST
    Do you really think it will be effective for either McCain or Clinton to get more negative right now?  They both have the same argument.  Obama has no experience.  False hope.  Fancy speeches.  Can't lead right away like them.  

    What else can they do though?  What would a dirty trick entail, exactly?  Because I really can't think of anything that would work.  What nefarious politicking could they do?  Go around telling people he's black?  Say Mrs. Obama hates America.  His middle name is Hussein?  His father is from Africa and his grandma has a pet chicken?

    Really.  Just seems like a loser to even do those attacks.  Certainly won't work on the younger voters.


    Right and a Vietnam veteran (none / 0) (#277)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    with medals for his heroism wasn't going to have to worry about attacks on him from a virtual deserter.  Just because you can't think of how they can do it doesn't mean they can't.

    That was terrible (none / 0) (#293)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    It was unbelievable how Republicans were able to beat their chests and claim to be tougher than the Democrats around 2004.  It was particularly offensive, as you note, to have war avoiders lecturing those that actually served, like John Kerry.  But the Democrats have themselves to blame.  The Democrats encouraged this abuse by not standing up to the Republicans.  The Democrats did not have the courage of their convictions, if they did have convictions, and they always looked weak when they backed down from the Republicans.  And the Democrats haven't learned.  There's a reason the current Senate censured MoveOn.org on the Senate floor but failed to censure Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld or even Bush.  The Democrats need to get better at fighting.

    Once again, what dirty trick do you imagine hurting Obama?  What constituency will be susceptible to these attacks?  You haven't given a concrete example of how a "dirty trick" would hurt Obama.  

    Nothing Hillary has done has worked.


    HRC has had the media working against her (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    Don't assume that BO will continue to have the media working for him like he has so far.  HRC has had to work against the media while BO has had the media working for him.  If he gets the nomination he more than likely will end up in HRC's position.  He will not have the media amplifying his attacks while ridiculing hers.  It will then be the opposite.  He will have to learn very quickly to deal with a media amplifying the right wing attacks while ridiculing him.  One of the danger signs I've seen is that he is standoffish to the media.  Who do you think the media will pick?  Obama who is standoffish to them or McCain who is open with them?  McCain is a long time favorite of theirs.  Obama is a new fad.  

    I can think of lots of attacks.  Rezco is one.  Whitewater was nothing more than a losing land deal for the Clintons and it was turned into a huge scandal that never went away.  Major reporters kept that alive in our most respected papers.  Do you really think that an issue like Rezco can't be made into something?  That's an easy one for the sleaze masters on the right to build on.  When they go there Obama won't be able to just try and blow it off as he has been able to now.  

    We can run this election on hope that BO will get the same treatment he has against HRC.  I'm really hoping that's not how we're going to do it though.  That's why I want to know before we're stuck with him if he can handle it.  Because while I don't want him elected if he's on the ballot I'll hold my nose and vote for him but I don't want to see another election lost because he runs another Kerry like election and I can see that coming with his rhetoric and unrealistic talk about how he's already been vetted.  He either doesn't have a clue or he's really just hoping he can con his way through.  


    Google for (none / 0) (#294)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:02 PM EST
    Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn.  Don't know if it will be something that brings him down -- but Kerry was swiftboated on no evidence.

    is Dohm the professor occupying the (none / 0) (#297)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    Edward Said chair at present?

    Yawn (none / 0) (#306)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    So Obama served on a charity board along with this Ayers guy.  Big deal.  Didn't Hillary serve on the board of Wal-Mart?  I don't know about this Ayers guy but he's not in prison so his "domestic terrorism" can't be too much worse than the acts of economic warfare Wal-Mart has committed against the American people.  So I don't think Hillary supporters want to start evaluating the worth of the boards they served on.

    And any Republican that uses the Board argument will likely fail as well.  How many Republicans have served on boards with criminals?  Ken Lay was one of George Bush's top supporters!  At least Obama was serving on a board to give grants to children.


    I think that (4.66 / 3) (#71)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:32 PM EST
    nothing has really changed from what we were saying last week, which is that Clinton needs to lock up TX, OH and PA.  We all expected her to lose WI and HI.

    I, for one, am hoping that Obama has a gaffe or starts to show some cracks.  I still firmly support Clinton and she's still got my money and my time.  This is certainly not a point to give up.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    the only new thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that some of the demographics in the exit polls don't look great for Clinton -- but I also, while I think that demographic data is useful, think that demographics interact heavily with more local political lines, which can vary a lot state to state even in the same region. So it's hard to say whether the demographics in this poll are about the demographic groups, or whether they're about WI.

    Otherwise, I also figured it was likely that TX and OH would be Clinton's next wins, and she does need them. If she loses one of them, she's done. If she wins both, she's got a shot still if she takes PA. Her path is narrowing heavily, but it's not entirely blocked yet.

    It'll be interesting to see where the narrative goes now. Obama was having his first really, genuinely bad couple of news cycles right before this, so will the WI win end that, or will it continue? Hard to say.


    don't forget that (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    according to Cream, our embedded poster (haha!) lots of republicans were openly encouraged to cross over for Obama to make sure that Hillary did not win.  If this is what happened, then we might see the exiting polls skewed as a result of this gerrymandering.  This is one of the reasons I haven't called it quits.  I think that what was said last week is still correct: TX, OH and PA are the big ones.  

    I wonder--do those states have closed dem primaries?


    The Texas Primary... (none / 0) (#128)
    by sweetthings on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    Is open. Given that the Republican race will essentially be over, look for lots of Republican participation in the primaries, though I don't know which way that will break. I doubt very many Republicans will bother with the caucuses. (which are in theory closed anyway)

    I'm not sure about the other two.


    I think OH is open (none / 0) (#143)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    but am not sure on that.

    Note that only 9% in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM EST
    exit polls said they were Republicans.  That is so preposterous that I had to clean my computer screen.  This was the closest state in 2004, this state had GOP governors for two decades until a couple of years ago, this state is so red outside of the large urban areas that there are Confederate flags.

    This was significant GOP crossover tonight, encouraged on the front page of the largest paper in the state and on conservative talk radio shows.  

    The important question is whether Obama has won them over and would they stay Dem in November.  Probably enough of them to make Wisconsin not as close as in 2004, probably it will stay blue -- but not enough to create much coattail effect here.  That will hurt where it counts, in our economy which is suffering so seriously here . . . in Milwaukee, anyway.  And when we don't have a Dem legislature, Milwaukee suffers even more.

    But not that the Milwaukeeans who turned out for him will figure that out, while they live on "hope" of "change."


    9% in the Democratic primary (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:03:22 PM EST
    thanks, Cream (none / 0) (#191)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:04:44 PM EST
    good to get your perspective.

    Don't give up on Clinton.  She is not giving up on us.


    A couple (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    of weeks ago, she was leading in HI. I just think she can't win without the support of her party. They've all but come out and endorsed Obama. I think people start thinking, how can she work with Congress if the Democrats don't want her. It's one of the dirtiest things I've ever seen in politics. Certainly give me a new perspective on the Democratic Party. I can see the history books now.

    he won hawaii (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:40:00 PM EST
    because he blasted the airwaves with ads reminding them he's a favorite son and grew up there and his sister, who still lives there, campaigned huge for him.

    Senator Innouye endorsed Hillary. He's a Democrat.


    I expected her to pull of (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:33 PM EST
    one February state. Just one.



    She did: New Mexico (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:13 PM EST
    not that it got covered by the media.

    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#186)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    That was a 2/5 state.

    And the "2" (none / 0) (#237)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST
    means it was in February.  Per your comment about . . . February.

    My implication was post-Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#258)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:54:33 PM EST
    I'm well aware that Hillary won big on 2/5.

    BTD and I (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    both predicted she wouldn't win any in Feb. It's always been all about March for her.

    I know (none / 0) (#160)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    but my concern was always that she would collapse for lack of a win--like Giuliani. Different campaign, but same principle.

    Giuliani (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    Didn't go into Florida having won CA, NY, NJ and MA.  I don't know why that comparison keeps getting made. He had NOTHING but Florida.   Clinton goes into March as a close second and-currently, at least-polling very well.

    Being starved for a win (none / 0) (#190)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:04:31 PM EST
    is being starved for a win.

    the comparison isn't perfect (none / 0) (#203)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:10:03 PM EST
    but it's not completely unfounded either.  The similarity is this: they both seemed to cede a few weeks of primaries to their opponents.

    It's possible, as I wrote above, that Clinton didn't have much of a choice.  Nevertheless, it's a bit risky.


    "hoping that Obama has a gaffe" ?? (none / 0) (#148)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:38:58 PM EST
    You are "hoping that Obama has a gaffe" ??  Is that how you hope Hillary Clinton wins?



    yes, I am hoping that he has a gaffe (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
    What do you not understand when I say that I want Clinton to win the nomination?  Is that somehow not clear to you?  I will state it again: I hope that Obama has a gaffe because I think that he is a bad candidate and that McCain will pulverize him in the ge.  I also am an ardent Clinton supporter and believe that she is the best choice for our party to lead us forward.  

    Honestly, don't you get tired up there on your high horse?  I have seen you make many, many snide, personal comments about Clinton before, then turn around when someone like me says something that in any way can be construed as not pro-Obama.  This is politics, plain and simple.  We all want our candidate to win.  Voicing that opinion is not wrong.  It's actually DEMOCRATIC.


    excuse me (none / 0) (#187)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM EST
    I have seen you make many, many snide, personal comments about Clinton before

    No you have not, because I have not made them.  I have been respectful towards her because I think she is awesome, and I have defended her -- even on this blog, including today -- against unwarranted attacks.  That's called playing fairly.

    Wishing ill against another Dem candidate -- when both candidates are against the war -- is, in my book, going too far.  I would think that you would want to win on your candidate's own merits, rather than trashing the other.

    But then, what do I know?  I try to err on the side of civility.

    Nevertheless, your characterization of my posts is simply incorrect, and speaks volumes.


    I am not going to get into a contest with you (none / 0) (#197)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:59 PM EST
    you have your opinions and I have mine.  

    yes, we each have our own opinions (none / 0) (#217)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:34 PM EST
    but please don't assert stuff about me that's not correct.  I have tried my best to be respectful amidst a crowd that doesn't seem to friendly to me; and I have always, on this blog, been respectful towards Clinton.  I meant what I said: I think she's an awesome candidate.  And, fwiw, I truly think she's been a awesome Senator, terrific campaigner, and that it's blindingly obvious that she's qualified to be president on the first day.    I think even most Obama supporters believe that last point.

    (And that's exactly why I have not made snide comments about her).

    I think what's happened to her is a combination of appallingly unfair media treatment (which I have stated many places here) and a confluence of circumstances (and, perhaps, lousy campaign senior staff).


    Pfft (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    like every gaffe made by the Clinton campaign hasn't been jumped all over by Obama supporters on the internet.

    This is politics, of course people hope their opponents mess up.

    I'm actually fine with Obama as nominee -- I really don't care one way or the other all that much and find both stunningly mediocre -- but some of his supporters online are almost enough to push me far over the edge with their vitriol. So watching a few of y'all every now and then pull the Shocked! Shocked, I say! thing is pretty funny.


    Oh this is so exciting. (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:44:48 PM EST
    I cannot wait to start the General

    We'll need to see two things (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    out of OH and TX in the next week to ten days. a) does Obama get a bounce to even or ahead; and b) will that bounce last until election day?

    The trends are for him, but now he gets to face a super tuesday as a frontrunner. That should be fun.

    the problem... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    with Clinton's strategy (which is not too unlike Rudy's strategy) is that by declaring an "ultimate battle" a full four weeks after Super Tuesday, is that she's lost enough states in a row that the perception of "loser" starts to creep in.

    Perhaps she made the best decision she could, given her finances at the time, or the demographics.  But, in any event, ceding four weeks worth of losses is tough for any candidate to overcome.

    I don't think this is over.  Plenty of time for unexpected events, gaffes, etc.  But the momentum is genuine, and the trend lines are going in his direction.  It's going to be tough for her to win both Texas and Ohio -- those are expensive markets (especially Texas).


    The problem with Clinton's strategy (none / 0) (#163)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    is that she didn't fire Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes too.  If there were a an unexpected event, one of these three would find a way to reverse any positive from it for Hillary.  I have never seen such an inept group when it comes to the press.  

    It isn't over yet but it does not look good.    


    Harold Ickes? (none / 0) (#189)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:04:11 PM EST
    Harold Ickes?  You mean the guy who, as a member of the DNC, actually voted to strip Michigan of his delegates?

    (Does anyone see why this looks pretty bad for Clinton to now argue that MI results should count)?


    The One and Only Good Thing (4.50 / 6) (#44)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    It is always better to win than to lose and I agree the exit polls hold definite warning signs for Clinton.  

    The one and only good thing that might come out of tonight is a media belief that she is through.  Why is that good?  If you believe, as I have come to believe, that the MSM is never going to let Clinton win the nomination, then that means Obama has to lose it.  He has to fall.  

    I think there is a feeling that Obama is due to come down, that he's gone too high, too fast with little media criticism.  He isn't the second coming no matter how many times Chris Matthews says he is.  Yet the media is likely to delay the inevitable backlash, the inevitable questioning so long as they think Clinton is still in the race.

    With her loss in Wisconsin, it makes it more likely that the media will focus more on Obama - because they think Clinton is done.  They might feel freer to tear down what they have built up.  I suspect the Deval Patrick stuff will continue.  I don't think it was just one or two instances.

    Now the media might play it safe and wait until after March 4 before really going after Obama.  And if that's the case, she really is dead meat.  She might be able to beat Barack Obama, but she has no chance at beating Jesus Christ.  

    You have such great posts. I've been hoping the (none / 0) (#57)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    Deval stuff would become an issue. So many people think Obama is a total phony, and this stuff brings credence to the fact that he is just another run of the mill politician.  I'm wondering if the stuff Michelle Obama said will get any traction from the media, not just the McCains.  

    well, clearly (none / 0) (#67)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    whatever you think of obama - he's not run of the mill.

    by the way, can someone PLEASE tell me what the deal with the Michelle Obama thing is?  I have no idea what you're talking about.


    She made a statement (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:55 PM EST
    to the effect of for the first time in her life, really being proud of America (there was more context -- look at the CNN political ticker, I think they had it earlier today).

    This was jumped all over by McCain's wife (can't remember her name at the moment, apologies) as unpatriotic. It's become a thing, though frankly I think it's pretty dumb. Dumb never stopped anything from being damaging in politics, though.


    She's finally proud to be an American, for the (none / 0) (#69)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    first time in her adult life.  And we all have broken souls and Obama knows how to fix everything.

    I guess he forgot to bring (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    "hope" to Michelle Obama during those years she was not proud to be an American and felt like she had a broken soul.

    Apparently, Change does not start in the home?


    You obviously read the Newsweek (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:43 PM EST
    profile too quickly.  He invited her to a community org. mtg., he spoke, and she was converted on the spot.  

    Is that necessary? (none / 0) (#161)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    Michelle Obama is a smart, classy woman who is not a politician and has been on the road campaigning for most of a year. She's doing her best to echo Barack's themes. She obviously has been proud of her country before and was trying to find a way to say that she's especially proud now. That it came out imperfectly is hardly surprising considering that (a) she's not a practiced politician and (b) anybody who has to do so much of this is bound to have a few tongue-tied moments.

    It's not surprising that Fox News and Cindy McCain are pumping this thing hard, but there's really no call for nasty remarks about the Obama family.



    I am sorry (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:47 PM EST
    I have a problem with her statements over the past few weeks.  She has been the wife of a politician for many years now.  If she is not ready for prime-time, I think it's valid to point that out.  Theresa Heinz-Kerry had an enormous amount of crap thrown at her for the same sort of political naivete and no one cried foul at the time.

    This is politics, guys.  You can't keep your candidate in a bubble and expect the other side to play by the rules.  Our country is at stake here-literally.  People are being tortured in our name.  People are being executed in our name.  Our soldiers are dying for nothing but an enormous pis*sing contest started by an inexperienced, cocky young guy whom everyone wanted to have over for supper.

    I don't want a best friend.  I already have one.  I want a president.


    Understood (none / 0) (#209)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM EST
    That's gracious of you, thanks. There's certainly no doubt that the Republicans will say nasty things about Michelle Obama and she and the campaign will have to prepare for it, but I don't see any reason to think she's anything other than a decent,  impressive, smart professional woman.

    "People are being tortured in our name."

    That's the most important point. Wherever you started in the primary, the GE will between a Democrat who will stop the crimes against humanity and a Republican who just voted not to.


    amen (none / 0) (#195)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:31 PM EST
    I told you in the other thread. Check my (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:16 PM EST

    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    i missed it.  thanks.

    You're welcome andreww. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    Congratulations on a big night for Obama.

    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:40:39 PM EST
    I have to admit - I'm getting really excited - and I could now officially have my heart broken.  My wife and our daughter went to springfield to watch him announce his candidacy.  I can't believe this might actually happen.

    Which thing? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:39 PM EST
    1. Yesterday she said "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and ... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

    2. Today she said: "That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

    NO (none / 0) (#141)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:36:41 PM EST
    The average American will not care about Mrs. Obama's comments.  You will lose by trying to attack her.  McCain will most likely lose by attacking her so I doubt he goes there.  Mrs. Obama will simply stand there and look pretty and have a reasonable explanation for her comments.  I mean, c'mon, what do you intend on proving?  That Mrs. Obama hates America?  That's just silly and anyone making such an argument will look like a fool.  It will only help Obama if you attack Mrs. Obama.  Same with Mrs. McCain.  The only way to attack her is by association--by saying that Mr. McCain is somehow morally suspect because he has been married multiple times.  I'm sorry.  An attack on these candidate's wives simply will not work politically.

    I know this is infuriating and not fair to you Hillary supporters.  It's a double standard.  But that's the reality.


    Want to revise your first sentence? (none / 0) (#223)
    by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    Being ashamed of America and telling us we all have broken souls seems a little more intense than comments about "Stand By Your Man" and chocolate chip cookies. Attacking Hillary for those trivialities didn't seem to hurt anybody doing the attacking.

    You may recall the latter two have something to do with how we got to where we are tonight.


    First Sentence Stays (unless edited by TL) (none / 0) (#238)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:38:59 PM EST
    One would think that Hillary's comment about a chocolate chip cookie (or her recipe choices, whatever) would be fairly innocuous.  Any reasonable person at least.  But people were not reasonable in the 90s.  For some reason people treat Bill and Hillary differently and make a big deal out of stupid comments like this.  It's crazy.  But they went nutso on Hillary unlike any other candidate's spouse.  It's not fair.  But Mrs. Obama or Mrs. McCain or Mrs. Bush do get the same rise out of people.  

    If you go around making a serious argument that Mrs. Obama somehow hates America you will look like a fool--deservedly so.  It's a double standard but I welcome a little bit of decorum and rationality back into the selection process.  So I guess this is one good change that the Obamas will bring.  Politics may not be as politicized as it is with the Clintons.


    Have to ask, BDB (none / 0) (#110)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:24:36 PM EST
    especially after the Deval Patrick kerfuffle, do you mind if I lift your post wholesale from this site and bring it over to another HRC-supporting site? (with attribution of course!)

    I think the people there would be cheered by your analysis.


    Feel Free (none / 0) (#139)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    I'm flattered.  And generally speaking, I believe that once you put stuff out on the inter tubes, it's out there, although I do appreciate attribution (or blame).

    In other words, if Obama's 26 yr. (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    old speechwriter watches YouTube of Deval Patrick's speeches, no problem.

    Well, I'm Not Using My Words (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:10:11 PM EST
    to claim some sort of unique vision that qualifies me to be president.  

    And I know it's ridiculous to hold Obama to a higher standard than random strangers quoting anonymous internet posts.  Whatever would make anyone think that a man who decries cynicism in politics should be above recycling campaign speeches while taking credit for being a world-class orator?  


    I Don't Think I've Been Especially Negative (4.33 / 6) (#259)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    at least in my posts, but I feel very negative towards Obama.  I believe he's run a Bill Bradley campaign against Clinton, using rightwing talking points and MSM misogyny to beat her.  

    But more than that, quite honestly, the more I've seen of Obama, the less I've liked him.  His rightwing framing (especially on UHC), his messianic language and imagery, and his sexist dogwhistles might win him white males and independent voters, but they are terrible for liberal causes, which is what I care mostly about, and they also don't make me like him very much personally.  I'd think a guy in my office who said that crap about a competitor who criticized his work "periodically" when she was "feeling down" was a sexist jerk and I feel exactly the same way about Obama.  And it's kind of hard for me to get excited about voting for a sexist jerk, especially one who has signaled a lack of commitment on many of the issues I care most about.

    So if trends hold, November is shaping up to be a choice between two candidates I don't much like.  I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama, but I'm not going to be all smiles about it.  In fact, I'm downright angry because I started this campaign season feeling good about all of the leading Democratic candidates.  Obama could've won the nomination in a way that I would be proud to vote for him, but he chose not to do that.

    well obviously i dont know you (none / 0) (#295)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:50 PM EST
    or your concerns. But I am a liberal democrat, and Obama has addressed all of my concerns, and has given evidence of having appropriate solutions to them. Given the small difference in their platforms, (aside from the fact that he has a more politically viable HC proposal), I can't imagine what you are talking about.

    I think the misogyny and dogwhistle charges against him are a complete crock, but we need not revist that argument.

    He has won the nomination in the best possible way - by actually exciting not only our base, but independents too. By raising hopes and expectations he is insuring that absolutely necessary ingredient that has long been missing - namely pressure from underneath, pressure from the people to keep him honest and on point while in office, and toward the elected officials in Congress, from both parties. In other words, real democratic (note the small d) involvement. It is remarkable, almost unheard of, for a presidential candidate to invite that pressure onto himself. The usual approach, as Hillary has done, is to simply claim that "I am the best", "vote for me", "see ya in four years".

    By raising hopes he is raising the bar for himself. It will not be some heartbreaking bubble burst if he disappoints - it will be focused angry pressure on him to deliver. And he knows perfectly well that that is what he is setting himself up for, and I think he welcomes that. Because he has no intention to disappoint, and he knows he can use that spirit of expectation as pressure against the Congress, and the special interests.

    I think this is masterful democratic politics, and is our best insurance against failure.


    Hillary is done (4.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Coldblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    The momentum, propelled by the media, is apparently unstoppable.

    I must admit that Obama has run a much better campaign.

    Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:54 PM EST
    run a better campaign?

    It's impossible to tell. HRC has been running against both Obama and the media for the last month and a half. Obama has been assisted at every turn by a complicit media.

    Who knows, had they been evaluated equally, who ran the better campaign?


    y'know, there is a pretty good and handy (none / 0) (#208)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:12:09 PM EST
    criterion, as to who has run a better campaign.

    Who is winning.
    Then throw in the odds, as of 6 months ago, that someone like Obama could beat the inevitabe, and I think it downright impossible to not accept that Obama has run a brilliant campaign.


    It's who is winning Republicans (none / 0) (#222)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:21:34 PM EST
    with the crossover in Wisconsin -- with only 9% saying they voted Dem.  That is a huge crossover, as this state was the closest of all states in 2004.

    And I know these people, these Republicans here, and  they really worry me.  I do not want ANYTHING that they want -- for the Supreme Court, for this country.  But in the other states, it may be more decided by Dems, and that is more comforting.


    She was asking for money in her speech (none / 0) (#26)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:57:59 PM EST
    that's a terrible sign for her.

    Has any brainy, neutral blogger or (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
    journalist figured out how Texas works yet?  Plus there is a debate b/4 the Texas primary, HRC's strength.  

    I think the debate (none / 0) (#93)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:20:35 PM EST
    will be make or break.  I think her goal will not be so much to challenge him on issues, but get him recorded on film saying one thing, so that the next day they can splice it with film/commercials where he has said another.

    It makes my brain hurt... (none / 0) (#182)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    but you can look at this post at Burnt Orange.

    My understanding is there's a primary and a caucus.  The caucus takes place shortly after the primary closes.  The link above doesn't mention it, but I believe only people who vote in the primary can vote in the caucus.

    It sounds like a recipe for complete confusion to me.


    That's premature (none / 0) (#55)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:52 PM EST
    The advantage of her otherwise-questionable March 4 strategy is that her campaign gets taken seriously through March 4.  A lot could change with two debates, the rest of the plagiarism scandal, and two weeks of Barack and Michelle in the spotlight.

    ugh... i am so fed up with the coverage bias its (4.00 / 5) (#91)
    by sammiemorris on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    not even funny. Why does this man get 40 minutes on National TV to recycle line after line to an audience that seems more concerned about talking to their friends on the cell?

    His arrogance is pushing me further away from the Democratic Party than I ever thought I'd be.

    I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kid oakland on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
    loud and clear.

    Hear that.  

    Got it.

    And many others can hear it, too.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:25:03 PM EST
    Early returns on the unity message are not promising.

    You aren't helping KO and you are (none / 0) (#116)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM EST
    definitely above gloating. Or you used to be.

    Proof is in the pudding (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    Agreed (none / 0) (#136)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    We need more than two parties in this country.  I keep hoping this campaign will result in four parties.

    Please let me know (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:42:04 PM EST
    when that new party starts up. I'm chomping at the bit to join.

    Special criteria for party: platform must include nothing about unity, hope, change, or reaching across the aisle. It must be rabidly partisan and progressive. All of its candidates should be fighters, though some schmoozing is fine by me. Oh yeah, and just because the Republicans won't like its stand on an issue should be no reason for not prominently featuring such issue--like, oh, say health care reform and mandates--on its platform.


    We have four (none / 0) (#177)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    Green Party
    Libertarian Party

    why did he get so much time tonight? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:35:28 PM EST
    I'm guessing that the fact that he won tonight had at least something to do with it.

    Doesn't look good and the media will make it (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:45:01 PM EST
    seem worse than it really is.  Too bad the real Obama is coming out.....he is a phony and his wife is not any better.  I predict roadkill when the republicans get through with him.

    sour grapes (none / 0) (#4)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    Speaking of grapes... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    We are not sour grapes, just perfectly sweetened with age and sun.  So we know a few things.  

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:37:34 PM EST
    I think this election is a generational thing. The Gen Xers love taking the nomination away from the baby boomers.

    And giving it to a baby boomer (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:40:01 PM EST
    but we have been told that math scores went down a lot in the last decade.

    That is incredibly ironic, isn't it. (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    Well to be fair... (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by sumac on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:24:02 PM EST
    Gen X'ers are not the same as the youth that are coming out in droves for Obama this season. Or at least this one isn't.

    As a Hillary supporter, I've been lurking on this site for the past week (when I finally couldn't stand reading or watching the MSM's coverage of the Democratic candidates).

    And, yes, I am a 33-yr-old college-educated white female living in Austin - why does this sound like an e-Harmony posting? Anyway, according to these demographics I'm an Obama supporter...

    And I admit that I've found "hope" in reading the posts of Jeralyn and BTD (and other supporters of both candidates) on this site. For the most part it seems a fair and adult conversation about the issues facing these candidates and the Democratic party.

    But tonight is somewhat depressing.

    And it's the future of the party that gives me the most fear. Either Dem candidate has a mountain of crap to clean up when he/she gets into office.

    If our candidate fails...what are we looking at, an ineffectual 4 years of a Democratic WH and then another 12-16 years of Republican rule?

    Since we seem to be incompetent when it comes to primaries (re: superdelegates, FL and MI, open primaries, and so forth), maybe we deserve this...(sigh)


    It is frustrating (none / 0) (#252)
    by sumac on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:51:13 PM EST
    particularly when months from now they may grow bored with this whole election thing...

    give them credit (none / 0) (#192)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:05:01 PM EST
    I applaud their getting involved

    Road kill for sure (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:24 PM EST
    Democrats had a chance to put a good candidate, but chose fluff.

    Whoa (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    This is like a backwards dKos kind of comment.

    My head is spinning.


    What is sour grapes about the truth? Obama has (none / 0) (#24)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:57:37 PM EST
    been given a free pass by the media.  They have never questioned him.  He has never been tested and the republicans will make the stuff done to Kerry look like a walk in the part.

    It hasn't happened yet (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:01:17 PM EST
    therefore it is a prediction, not truth.

    The timing of your words makes it seem like sour grapes.

    My prediction is this: Hillary OR Obama will wipe the floor with McCain. Because the GOP is not strongly behind him, and he is flatter than Bob Dole.


    I think so too (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:03:44 PM EST
    It's going to be an ugly GE, but McCain is a deeply damaged candidate within his own party.

    I really don't see a huge groundswell of support for more of the same Bush bs.


    Now that Bush and his dad are (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:08:01 PM EST
    on board w/McCain, all the latter needs a couple weeks before the GE is credible terrorist threat to win the GE.  

    an October surprise? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:19:10 PM EST
    I'm sure there'll be more show trials at Guantanamo, the terror threat will lurch up to magenta, and reps will compose political jingles that rhyme Osama and Obama. After the purple bandaids, nothing those dogs do will surprise me.

    But the party is intellectually bankrupt, the country has been bankrupted by them, McCain is a flip flopping reactionary who's not even beloved by the reactionary base, and frankly, everyone has seen that movie already.

    Still, it's a long way to Nov.


    His VP choice will matter immensely (4.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:38:54 PM EST
    and even more so because of his age.  Until I see his VP choice, I won't take a guess on this one.  If it's a good choice, the Dems will have blown it -- because McCain's talking points tonight will be an incredibly good draw with those security moms.

    nope (none / 0) (#78)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:52 PM EST
    the key word here is "credible"

    It's been long enough without an attack that it won't work this time, I predict.


    Amtrak just put a carry on search (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:23:04 PM EST
    in place, purportedly based on the Madrid train incidents.  Why wait so long?  

    it was actually pretty quick (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:08:31 PM EST
    for Amtrak

    From your keyboard to God's ears! (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    Angel (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:52:39 PM EST
    Remember, you don't want McCain to be appointing Supreme Court judges.

    The courageous Democratic congress (none / 0) (#27)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    will stop those judges.  If not, too darn bad.

    No, I don't. That is a scary prospect. I am just (none / 0) (#29)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:58:45 PM EST
    saying that the republicans will destroy Obama.  I don't wish that.  We need a democrat in office.

    None of us do (none / 0) (#31)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:59:35 PM EST
    But some of us fear that is exactly what will happen. I am really really hoping I am wrong (which is a very strange feeling to want to be wrong!).   :)

    many people (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
    feel the same way if Clinton is the nominee. I think both are wrong.

    McCain is toast either way.


    If wishes was fishes (none / 0) (#274)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST
    McCain is toast either way?

    ok, sure, whatever you say. I remember thinking that about nearly every presidential election year since 1968. If I had bet, I wouldn't have won almost at all.  

    Except for three times, Clinton twice and Carter once.


    Tano, in all honesty, I do believe it is the (3.66 / 3) (#233)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:33:12 PM EST
    media. Do you remember how frustrating it was to watch them trash Gore and Kerry while giving Bush a free ride? That is exactly how it feels. Add in the sexist language and it is worse. Plus, many of us had other sites that we read as well and the Clinton hate is only outweighed by the Obama worship.

    We'll get over it. At least most of us will. It's just that she hasn't has a fair shot for someone with as much to offer as she has.

    Please . . . (1.00 / 1) (#239)
    by Will on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:39:05 PM EST
    Come on Clinton supporters, I can't believe you're whining about media bias.  The Clinton campaign has tried race-baiting, total representation of Obama's speeches (like the Reagan ad they pulled quickly in SC), and now BS claims of plagiarism (which is ironic because so much of HRC's campaign is based on pointing to things her husband did, and claiming them as her own).

    Obama's a better candidate for president . . . admit it.  It's not a conspiracy - people just like him better.  


    If you do not see media bias (5.00 / 3) (#242)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:42:12 PM EST
    against HRC and in favor of Obama, there really isn't much to say to you.

    Will, read some objective critiques of the (none / 0) (#245)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:43:03 PM EST
    media. Shoot, in the elections last week, even Obama supporters said HC had gotten the most negative coverage.

    Hi. Aaron. Why don't you go back to DKos to (none / 0) (#283)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:14:09 PM EST
    throw away those troll ratings? Oh that's right, you don't have enough decency in your personality to get TU status.

    Yes I would vote for Mccain (3.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Danielle on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    I voted for Obama as a senator in Illinois, and he has done nothing for our state except run for President.  In Illinois, we have a higher unemployment rate than the national average and our public transportation system is always lacking funds.  In short, he has done nothing for the City of Chicago or Illinois.  And I have lived in Illinois (Cook County) all of my life.  I will vote for Hillary or Mccain, but not Obama.

    If upholding Roe v. Wade is (none / 0) (#229)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:25:54 PM EST
    important to you, please reconsider.  Although Senator McCain has waffled on other issues, he has never strayed from being pro-life.

    I don't follow (none / 0) (#244)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:43:01 PM EST
    Do you expect your US Senator to fix the unemployment rate in your state?  That's national policy.  But, still, if you do, then you might want to know that the unemployment rate in Illinois is lower now than when Obama took office.

    It's not accurate to say he's done nothing in Illinois either -- it was his bill that got Ill. to be the first state in the US to require that cops tape certain interrogations and confessions.  This has led to better police practice, a higher conviction rate for those who are guilty, and a reduction in coerced confessions; he was behind that state Earned Income Tax Credit, which has given tax cuts to poor families across the state;  he also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education.

    And, finally, most importantly, if you would rather see McCain over Obama, then you can kiss Roe v Wade, and a whole host of other constitutional rights goodbye, and get a president who supports the surge in Iraq to boot.  That's what you'd prefer???


    It's over - (3.00 / 2) (#221)
    by keylord on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:21:29 PM EST
     - for Hillary. She would have to win 65% of the remaining delegates to even regain the lead. It is time for her to end her campaign. Seneca, I agree with you 100% on all three counts. John5750 - I see the world quite differently than you; the GOP will have no idea how to handle Barack... Hillary didn't.

    The GOP will not worry about (5.00 / 2) (#257)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:53:18 PM EST
    being attacked for being racist; it will not lose them voters.  That is a major difference, wait and see.

    Wisconsin Results (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Danielle on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:41:49 PM EST
    I am sadden by the wisconsin results. I hope the tides turn for Hillary because she IS the best candidate.  As a woman, I feel she is a great role model.  Myself and many more Hillary supporters feel that they have been treated unfairly by the Democratic Party and as such will vote for Mccain, should Hillary lose this election.  I do believe Mccain will take out Obama by large margins.

    I'm sorry to hear that. (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by tworivers on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:53:36 PM EST
    Before voting for McCain, please think of the 1 or more Supreme Court picks he will likely get to make during his term.

    He says he wants to pick justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito.

    Also, do you like the sound of 100 more years in Iraq?  


    Is that sig "Trivers" (none / 0) (#240)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST
    aka Two Rivers, Wisconsin?  A lovely little town. . . .

    you would vote for mccain (none / 0) (#169)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:37 PM EST
    over obama because you are mad at the media?

    Try to understand that it's more than that (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:08:46 PM EST
    for many young women I know.  They know that it's not just about the media -- it's about the lack of other Dems, especially Obama, supporting her in fighting back against the media, especially after the attack on Chelsea Clinton, who is their age.

    My daughter was beyond horrified and angry about it, and she immediately said that a man with daughters himself would have impressed her by doing so.  So by not doing so, he really lost a lot in her eyes.

    Young as she is, my daughter talked about already having to deal with so much sexism in school, work, etc.  And she did not even know about the comments by Obama that have been called sexist.  So I showed her just some of those . . . and I would not be surprised if she did not vote at all.  She is very conflicted.  He has a lot to prove now -- or maybe not, if his strategy works, and he doesn't need Dems.

    But the Dems will need these young women, and we may have lost a lot of that generation lately.


    Does this make sense (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:17:25 PM EST
    because you feel Dems/Obama did not stand up enough for HRC against media bias and sexism, women should be punished with more Scalia and Alitos?

    Does this make sense to you? I think Hillary would be the first to tell you McCain must be stopped (preferably by HRC)


    You say this so much stronger than (none / 0) (#218)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    anyone else.  Keep up the good work.

    It does not make sense to me -- I'm (none / 0) (#231)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:27:10 PM EST
    a sadder and wiser girl, as the song says.  I'm older.

    I'm speaking up for what appears to be a young woman here, a voter the age of my daughter, to try to voice what I was hearing from her and others that age.  And it worries me -- as I also look past the next couple of weeks, or even this election, to see where Dems will be in 2012, too . . . because there always will be Supreme Court appointments and much else ahead.  And because that is how the GOP has won for most of my daughter's lifetime, by looking long-term.

    Or we could wait and see, some years from now, where we went wrong, if we lose young women -- who will turn into the women who could turn away from Dems, who have only won with more women than the GOP.


    Survive for another day (none / 0) (#241)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    to fight again is all we can say. Sexism and bias were here before HRC and will be here after she is gone. She has acquitted herself well against tremendous odds.  She picked up the torch from her predecessors and others may have to carry it further.

    McCain would be a disaster. He has made a pact with the evangelical devil for their support. I don't believe in the Nadarite theory that it has to get worse before it gets better. No it doesn't.  


    If that's all we can say and (5.00 / 2) (#271)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:07:49 PM EST
    the men of the Dem party continue to say nothing, see my post above.  

    If anyone will help with them, it will be Hillary.  She has, throughout this campaign, spoken about the future of the Dem party, not about the future of her candidacy.  We had better "hope" that Obama and the Dems ask her for help to bring these young women, with whom I worked in this campaign, into many a campaign to come.  

    But I doubt that will happen.  If any of the men were going to do the right thing about the sexism that these young women have seen -- and they have seen it and experienced it before themselves, as I said, but they are stunned that a woman of Hillary's stature would be treated this way; what does that say to them about even trying to get ahead? -- the men would have done it by now.

    Of course, the National Woman's Party still exists, in its historic headquarters in D.C.  Maybe there is the next Alice Paul among these young women, as we have seen before what a generation's gendered outrage accomplished -- or we women would not be voting today.

    And those of us who know the past just might not mind at all if that part of it is repeated.  


    Democrats are finished. (1.00 / 1) (#213)
    by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:15:44 PM EST
    Democrats don't need the Republicans to do us in.  We manage to shoot ourselves in the foot on our own.

    Sure, the GOP did their part by having Republicans vote for Obama to push Hillary out.

    But, Democrats just couldn't see the light.

    As McCain said, "eloquent, but empty".

    It's all over, Obama goes against McCain and loses, because he has nothing to offer but talk.

    Oh, don't be so negative. (none / 0) (#214)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:17:17 PM EST
    [But, I agree w/you.]

    Finished? (none / 0) (#228)
    by Will on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:25:09 PM EST
    The whole reason I'm supporting Obama is that Hillary Clinton will never be able to get more than about 46% in a national election . . . especially against someone with crossover appeal like McCain.

    What part of "half the country has hated her for 15 years" do you guys not get?  Moreover, even if there wasn't this immense disdain for her, she just doesn't have the qualities a legitimate candidate for president has:

    1. No personality (and yes, that does matter when you're running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!)

    2. Can't even manage a primary campaign (if you haven't read the Atlantic Monthly articles about how poorly her campaign has been run - and how similar it sounds to the Bush administration's top-down "don't tell the boss any bad news" environment - then it must be because your friends don't want to sent it to you for fear of ruining your life)

    3. Her "35 years of experience" claim doesn't even mention her most legitimate period of experience - her years working for the prestigious Rose Law Firm.  An honest campaign would have proudly trumpeted that she was their first female partner (in an era when that was a huge deal!) . . . but no, she had to claim she just did public interest law the whole time.  It's just embarrassing, especially when Bill says "she could have" gone into corporate law.  To paraphrase Obama, "YES SHE DID!"

    Hillary wins Washington state primary?? (1.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:26:18 PM EST
    The Sec. of State site says 100% counted but it seems early for that. She won 49-47 if so. Of course, the real vote of the people in that state doesn't matter.
    Washington Primary

    Obama up by 3 (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:42:40 PM EST
    The 100% you see at the bottom of the column is just the addition of the candidate percentages. I think the vote is about 40% in. (11:40 ET)

    Ah, thanks. I thought it was awfully early to (none / 0) (#246)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM EST
    have results.  Where are you looking to get the percentages?

    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:48:41 PM EST
    is scrolling the results on thier little scoreboard at the bottom of the screen. Prob. Fox and MSNBC too.

    Thanks. I checked their website first and (none / 0) (#265)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:59:37 PM EST
    it wasn't on it. Not that it matters, but I am a political junkie and I need to know. :)

    No, but much closer than the caucus (5.00 / 2) (#261)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:56:16 PM EST
    Caucuses suck.

    Washington Results (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST
    Are here.

    Clinton currently trails by about 4%, 50-46.  

    I will note that they have counted more than twice as many votes as there were caucus participants and that whatever the final result, it's not going to be 2-1 in favor of Obama as the caucus went.  Yet, despite this better indicator of the will of Democratic voters in Washington, my bet is the state Democrat party sticks with the lopsided caucus results.  So once again a lot of democrats come out to vote in a primary that - literally - the Democratic party is choosing not to count.  


    IF HRC is the loyal Dem... (1.00 / 1) (#260)
    by keylord on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:55:22 PM EST
    ... AND American that she claims to be, she'd get out of the way... I don't see that happening.

    If she does, I'll be very disappointed. (none / 0) (#263)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    I'm still disappointed (none / 0) (#267)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    that Edwards dropped out.

    agreed (none / 0) (#6)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM EST
    Hillary must win Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania

    Are we (editorially speaking) no (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:49:39 PM EST
    longer concerned about those MI and FL voters?

    We are stating our opinion (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:51:51 PM EST
    that Senator Clinton needs to win Texas and Ohio.

    Does Obama need to win both (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:20:51 PM EST
    or just one?  What do the plural you think re that?

    One (none / 0) (#101)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:21:49 PM EST
    is my guess. But I think she'll win both, frankly.

    I'm worried about them (none / 0) (#18)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:53:02 PM EST
    and am still concerned Hillary will try to use them.  Another reason why at this point Obama winning TX and OH would be good for the party - because at that point I don't think they would matter.

    Obama wins TX or OH... (none / 0) (#22)
    by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    ...that should end this nomination battle.

    Obama can clearly win this thing before Hillary can. Hillary would really have to drag this all the way to the convention. Now you gotta start asking yourself, how long do you want this side-show to last, while McCain keeps attacking?  


    Maybe (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:58:57 PM EST
    I'm not giving her enough credit - but I don't think Hillary will walk away until she is mathematically eliminated.  I think she could be behind by 600 elected delegates - and if she could get 601 supers to win the nomination she would do it.

    That's ridiculous (none / 0) (#37)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM EST
    According to her (none / 0) (#47)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    she has not even considered the possibility that she could lose.  So she's either lying or will take any means to reach victorious ends.

    I hope you're right - but I go back to the fact that she is part of a family that once had power.  I can't imagine what it must be like to have that power - then not have it - and then have it within your grasp again.  Seems like it could make anyone do something ridiculous.....


    Shakespearean, really. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    No candidate (none / 0) (#68)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:36 PM EST
    talks about losing during a campaign.  That tells us nothing.  I really think you're being unfair to Hillary.  

    yeah (none / 0) (#88)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:18:57 PM EST
    It's like everyone saying they don't want the VP slot. Of course it's nonsense. Nobody wants a clip of them talking about losing playing over and over again.

    maybe (none / 0) (#107)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    we'll see.  i don't think obama would say that he's never considered the possibility that he might not win.

    third option (none / 0) (#109)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
    it's not in her best interest right now to consider if she loses.

    Even go into a job interview considering that you won't get the job or won't take the job? If you have, chances are it was a crappy interview.


    It seems to me that, assuming McCain (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:00:40 PM EST
    continues to focus his attention on Obama, HRC stays in until the convention votes for Obama.  Maybe McCain will convince voters and the media and the Super Ds to take a closer look.

    I think that you may be in stage 3 (none / 0) (#73)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    (See your earlier post) :)

    I'll think about that (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:31:19 PM EST
    and get back to you. (Kids are out of college, finally.)

    Been there. (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:56:18 PM EST
    FL and MI won't matter (none / 0) (#23)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    If Obama wins TX or OH.  Hillary might drop out. The super-delegates will coalesce around Obama.  FL and MI will be seated at the convention.  

    if hillary keeps losing... (none / 0) (#21)
    by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:54:00 PM EST
    ... it really doesn't matter. Florida and Michigan can count too. Things get contentious when this thing is close.

    The nomination will only be close IF hillary wins OH, TX, and PA by good margins.


    Just winning may not be enough (none / 0) (#13)
    by barryluda on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM EST
    I think Hillary has to win decisively in order to change the momentum.  I'm not sure a squeaker is enough since everyone's assuming she wins all three.

    interestingly (none / 0) (#14)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:51:39 PM EST
    should hillary manage to win both, it would turn this thing on a dime.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#16)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:51:58 PM EST
    Hillary is going to have to hit Obama very hard now to have any kind of shot.  The 100-year-in-Iraq question is how that effects the GE.

    I suspect (none / 0) (#25)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:57:52 PM EST
    I suspect that Obama will win now. I was leaning slightly to him over Clinton. But I would have no problem voting for her if the situation were reversed.

    What my greatest fear is is that now Clinton will be so desperate to make up the delegate gap and try to turn things that things will get lowdown and ugly and that will help the Repubs. If I'm not mistaken it was Gore who first mentioned Willie Horton in 1988.


    That is a lie about Gore (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:10:26 PM EST
    perpetrated by, of all people, Bill Bradley.  The Daily Howler has documented this extensively.

    This is what so many of us mean when we say Obama is running a Bradley campaign.  


    Do you really think Clinton can hit him harder (none / 0) (#33)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:01:10 PM EST
    than McCain will?  haha

    That wasn't what I said (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:03:22 PM EST
    But since you asked, yes, I think she can.  Don't know if she will.

    then you're wrong! (none / 0) (#51)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    Ummm (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:05:59 PM EST
    Is it me or is this speech from Obama dragging a bit too long?

    Not watching, but he does drag. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:08:40 PM EST
    I turned him off, literally turns my stomach (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    Not for the first time since '00, I'm glad I'm an Independent.  

    I think I just became (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    an Independent.  I keep wondering when we will see the Deval Patrick version of this speech on Youtube.

    CC, do you suspect BTD may be (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:33:29 PM EST
    slipping our way just a teensy tiny bit?

    so, is the criticism now (none / 0) (#144)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:37:30 PM EST
    that he had too much substance in his speech?

    I'm just stunned (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    they cut Hillary off the instant Obama looked like he wanted to say something, and now we're going to hear like 30 minutes of him versus 5 minutes of her.

    Can you imagine how angry they are? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:58 PM EST
    She had a new speech to point out their differences. I'll bet she lets it fly in the debate now.

    She moved her speech up from 5:30 to 6:15pm (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Meurs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:17:24 PM EST
    Serves her right, if that's the case.

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:19:30 PM EST
    If she doesn't schedule around Obama, she only gets 5 minutes and he gets as long as he wants?  Are those the operative rules?

    did you see a few weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:29:30 PM EST
    when they cut her speech and let Huckabee drone on for twenty minutes?

    Media bias: alive and well.


    They have to cut her off in order to (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:34:44 PM EST
    say she failed to congratulate him on his win.

    Has he really been speaking for thirty minutes? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:18:37 PM EST
    Maybe this is a secret homage to Castro.

    There are 20,000 supporters (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by magster on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:21:38 PM EST
    He's giving them their money's worth.

    It's the political equivalent of a Bruce Springsteen concert.


    I trust Springsteen more than Obama (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    Because I usually know when he's doing a cover.

    Springsteen (none / 0) (#130)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:32:40 PM EST
    Clinton supporter.

    Is he? (Springsteen) (none / 0) (#138)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:35:29 PM EST
    Not sure (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:45:56 PM EST
    But Bon Jovi is.

    uhmm... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:57:50 PM EST
    Jon Bon Jovi...you mean the future Mr. Kathy?

    OUCH. Good one. eom (none / 0) (#132)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:34:02 PM EST

    there are 2 million people in Houston (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:37:14 PM EST
    the astrodome holds 46,000. 20,000 is a big number but let's keep in perspective.

    It's not you (none / 0) (#53)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:15 PM EST
    I was thinking the same thing.  I think he's talking to the people in that room now instead of having a victory speech at this point.

    the speech is normal (none / 0) (#56)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    CNN doesn't usually stick with it this long.

    Someone needs to tell him (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:12:00 PM EST

    Cut it. Cut it now.

    this is too much.


    it's extemporaneous... (none / 0) (#60)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    ...so I wouldn't be shocked if it ran a little long.
    Maybe he's trying to rebut the "no substance" meme.

    But he has it all memorized by now. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:11:55 PM EST
    Probably longer due to the (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    extensive attributions to Deval Patrick.

    This is not extemporaneous (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:12:53 PM EST
    Are you kidding me?

    well, not per se... (none / 0) (#84)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:17:44 PM EST
    ...but he's speaking without notes or a teleprompter.

    It's a weird speech (none / 0) (#94)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:20:42 PM EST
    He's basically repeating every single criticism of his campaign, and not exactly delivering devastating rebuttals.  It's like watching a lawyer list all the holes in his case.

    he doesn't know when to shut up (none / 0) (#129)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    We have seen this again and again.  He doesn't know how to roll with a punch because he's never really had to take one.  He refuses to let any slight go, which is why he ends up droning away.  This (according to my inside sources, but who the heck am I so take it with a grain of salt) is why press access with the Great O is so restricted--because he wants to address every single attack and make sure everyone knows he is right and that they love him more.

    There's going to be an article within the week about his early life and his feelings of abandonment and how that has led to this particular trait, which is total pabulum and doesn't really belong in political discourse, but there you have it.  ET will pick it up, I'm sure!


    Ben Smith (none / 0) (#140)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:36:23 PM EST
    says the speech was 45 minutes long!

    This is one way to address the criticism that his whole campaign is about nothing but giving good speeches, but still...


    He really is channeling Bill Clinton. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:41:29 PM EST
    Free air time (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by lily15 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    He was smart to take time...it was..after all.. a free commercial.  He's playing hardball...except for one big problem...he's alientating the constituency that he needs to win the election.  This creates very hard feelings, especially among women...I for one...am furious...at the left...at the press...at the disloyalty of the Democratic party...Obama has not faced the Republican machine...We already have a taste of his vulnerabilities...Michelle Obama, who is not very patriotic and the less than authentic Obama...national polls already went down for him...but not in time for Wisconsin...and Republicans and Independents could vote.  But as Pat Buchanan pointed out...Hillary is taking the Reagan Democrats...and Obama is taking the part of the Democratic party that Republicans can't get anyway.

    Watch what you wish for.


    Is this new? (none / 0) (#255)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    Sen. Barack Obama introduced a seemingly new line in his campaign speech on Tuesday, an acknowledgment of sorts of recent criticism that his supporters have painted him as a quasi-messianic figure.

    "As aware as I am of my imperfections," he told the crowd, "as clear as I am that I am not a perfect vessel, I would not be running if I did not believe that I could lead this country in a new direction, that we have a unique moment that we have to seize, but I have to tell you Houston I cannot do it by myself. No person can."

    "Just " choose one: (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:40:08 PM EST

    wasn't that Bill Clinton's through (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST

    I do remember reading that Hope, AK, (none / 0) (#210)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:13:22 PM EST
    was a hot springs mineral water tourist draw back in the day.  

    Whatever new "attacks" HC had ready for (none / 0) (#48)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:07:05 PM EST
    tonight's new speech will be presented in the debate now.

    lol, Begala just said he's the (none / 0) (#171)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    only Clinton supporter on this whole network (CNN).

    ruthy (none / 0) (#184)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM EST
    I am with you.  I will not give up until it is over.  Look at what Clinton is facing and she is still going strong.

    It is amazing how much easier it is to still feel good about her possible presidency when you don't listen to the crap coming out of the msm (and of course watching Sarah Conner/Terminator last night really helped, too...)

    Clinton supporters: it ain't over 'til it's over.  DO NOT GIVE UP!

    is the Sarah Connor stuff any good? (none / 0) (#193)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:05:01 PM EST
    The icky poster turned me off of it.  

    oh, man, it is fab (none / 0) (#206)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:11:02 PM EST
    Really good stuff--stays true to the movies but has really great subplots that grip you.  Oh, and the crazy sister from Firefly is a machine!

    Uhm, go, Clinton (to keep it on topic)


    Connor./Terminator is really good show! (none / 0) (#249)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:48:03 PM EST
    Didn't a commenter (none / 0) (#202)
    by magster on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:09:16 PM EST
    say that Milwaukee and Madison are last to report?  If so, will Obama hit 60%?

    Well, I didn't want to rebut that, but (none / 0) (#236)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    you can see for yourself in the county-by-county results on jsonline.com

    It is over. Tom Hayden has spoken: (none / 0) (#226)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:24:11 PM EST
    Obama is the nominee.

    The point here is, does she deserve it (none / 0) (#253)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:51:39 PM EST
    for her gender?

    no (none / 0) (#264)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM EST
    We won't know how well (none / 0) (#270)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:06:14 PM EST
    Obama can run his campaign until he has to face some real attacks.  I know some of you Obama supporters think he's faced the worse with HRC but really he has had it amazingly easy.  When he has to finally face even 1/2 of what HRC has faced we'll see if he can really run his campaign.  

    and we will all be rooting for him to do well (none / 0) (#275)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:05 PM EST

    No, we haven't finished the primary's yet. (5.00 / 1) (#290)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    Or are you going to suddenly start rooting for HRC to regain her momentum.  I stated a fact.  BO hasn't been vetted yet.  He has had an easy ride with the media.  So he hasn't had to really deal with the worst.  We need to know before he's chosen if he can handle it.  That doesn't mean that I'm hoping he'll come out well and win the candidacy.  I don't like his form of politics and while I have problems with HRC I think she will do much better then him so why would I start rooting for him?  This isn't the GE where it's do or die.  If he can't handle the media and the attacks from an opponent then we don't want him for our candidate.  We have 2 candidates so if he can't handle it better HRC takes it from there than we lose in the GE.  

    HRC has shown she can take it and keep on going.  While she has had problems in her campaign we don't know the same about him.  See he hasn't had to run his campaign in a seriously adverse environment like she has.  So we don't know if he's running a good campaign or a poor one.  Not until we see him in a real campaign situation.  Think Kerry, Gore or Clinton.  


    Check out Digby. (none / 0) (#272)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    Latest post says congrats to Obama but, of course, she is not encouraging HRC to quit.

    Next post discusses those blue color males in Ohio.  Looks like McCain will be their man.

    thats ok (none / 0) (#279)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:11:21 PM EST
    we will take the whites, the reds, the browns and the blacks. McCain can have the blue color people.

    Blue man group: they are (none / 0) (#281)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:12:21 PM EST
    everywhere now.

    To all who say Dems won't beat McCain (none / 0) (#287)
    by magster on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:17:00 PM EST
    John McCain was in 3rd place tonight.  Hillary beat him and of course so did Obama.  The interest is all on the Dem side so far.  McCain is going down.

    Quote of the night (none / 0) (#292)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:26:05 PM EST
    "... I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. ... .."

    John McCain

    ha, though that was Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#296)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:32:26 PM EST
    hard to tell these days....

    Washington Primary? (none / 0) (#298)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:36:07 PM EST
    I suppose nobody notices that it is:

    Obama: 50%
    Clinton: 47%

    That with 53% reporting.

    :D I noticed... (none / 0) (#303)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:43:47 PM EST
    Do I get a cookie?

    Comments Closing, New Thread (none / 0) (#305)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:46:19 PM EST
    new thread on tonight's election results is here.