Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

More thread.

< Open Thread | Predicting Ohio in the General Election >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yay! (3.66 / 3) (#1)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:41:41 PM EST
    I am gonna repost here in case it got lost in the shuffle...

    Taylor Marsh has a great clip of Wilentz on Tucker talking about the race card comments.  Ending is especially good as Tucker tries to say Wilentz is a good friend of the Clintons and Wilentz laughs and says, "I barely know them!"  Pretty funny stuff.  Whoever writes Tucker's scripts has some 'splainin' to do!

    BTD, would love your response to what he says regarding the Big Dog's JJ remark.

    I know I'm in the tank for Clinton (3.66 / 3) (#16)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    but Sean Wilentz seemed dead on!  I especially liked the part of his story in TNR about who got turned away from Clinton by the race card.  Not just AA but white liberals and college students.  Deadly tactic by Obama's campaign.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:42:53 PM EST
    Doing some real work right now.

    Maybe tomorrow.


    real work... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:47:31 PM EST
    yeah, I used to do that...can't remember what it's like, but I'm certain I wasn't allowed to do it in my pajamas.

    no wonder I prefer TL!


    Tucker Carlson (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:04:20 PM EST
    Would have been perfect to play patrick bateman in the movie, "American Psycho."

    He would not have had to act one bit.


    Probably not voting Obama (2.33 / 3) (#6)
    by SeaMBA on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    For the first time in the 20 some years that I have been able to vote and the 30 something years that I have been aware of politics I might not support the Democratic nominee if it is Obama.  

    I have never gotten particularly involved emotionally at the primary level, other than thinking someone might get beat by the Republican candidate. But I never thought that a leading candidate might actually be a bad choice if the actually won.  I don't see him pushing a progressive agenda.

    If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I might just have to suck up the idea of loosing to a Republican and write in some other Democrat.

    Unless something else changes, I really don't think I can support Obama.  And I think it is primarily because of the supposedly progressive blogs.

    I am certainly not feeling united.

    wholeheartedly agree with you! (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:58:58 PM EST
    I'm sorry but that's just absurd (none / 0) (#45)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:17:14 PM EST
    Do you really think that McCain's Supreme Court picks will be better than Obama's.  Do you really think that he is more likely to get us out of Iraq? I could go on but it so obvious it seems pointless. I will happily vote for either of them.  I simply can't comprehend this.  What is it that you think Obama would do that would make him worse than McCain.  And what on earth makes you think Clinton is a progressive.  Her vote for the war?  All of her husband's great policies like gutting public assistance and rushing back home as governor to execute a retarded man.  Get some perspective here.  They are essentially the same on policy and what they can get done in substance will depend a lot on what happens in the house and senate races.  Whatever happens McCain is the far worse option by any rational progressive calculus.

    hey fuzzy, you don't give 1's just because (none / 0) (#68)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:44:31 AM EST
    you don't agree with the post. please read the rules.

    Obama's lack of accomplishment (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    One way for the Clinton campaign to point out that Obama's accomplishments (lack thereof) don't match his self-aggrandizing rhetoric is to remind voters that

    promises without performance is like faith without works ..... empty.

    LA Times/Bloomberg national poll (none / 0) (#5)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:54:35 PM EST
    Interesting internal.  Obama is really going to easily beat McCain in the GE.  Yes, he can?????

    "McCain runs ahead of Obama on every issue except health care. The Arizona senator has a 13-point advantage on Iraq and a 37- point lead on terrorism."

    OMG and thats before any negative press!!! (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:57:08 PM EST
    More interesting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM EST
    Is that McCain BEATS OBAMA on economy, but Hillary beats McCain handily.

    And gee, I wonder if economy will be a big issue in Nov if this keeps up....

    Why is it that democrats always have to pick the candidate that is destined to lose?


    Gotta just be a bad habit (none / 0) (#13)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:12:42 PM EST
    but Democrats keep doing it.

    McCain took a shot at Obama today for saying he'd be willing to go back into Iraq after we withdraw if Al Qaeda came there.  Wondered why we were leaving since Al Qaeda was there now.  

    Obama's response was that Al Qaeda wasn't there before we invaded.

    While true I wonder if it dawned on Obama that answer has nothing to do with the reality now?  McCain can hit that back out of the park.  Jeez.


    i thought Obama hit it out of the park (none / 0) (#47)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    He ridiculed McCain for claiming that he was unaware of AQI, given that he has repeatedly stated that he would use remaining forces to go after them, and then he drove home the point, which will be repeated endlessly, of how McCains supposed judegement got us into this war in the first place.

    Who you rooting for anyway?


    I'm agnostic (none / 0) (#60)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:57:33 PM EST
    in this between Obama and McCain and don't have to shill for either.  Just saying what I see, based on where I stand.

    So far this primary the democrats (none / 0) (#17)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:18:59 PM EST
    haven't picked the losing candidate...but the independents and the crossover republicans have done it for us....Hillary still maintains a lead amoungst democrats according to BTD...

    Not to worry... (none / 0) (#18)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:19:30 PM EST
    For two reasons.  First, there are other polls that are markedly different - and which show Senator Obama handily beating McCain.  But all of these are probably not terribly indicative of anything at this point in the campaign.

    Second, Senator Obama has yet to go to work on McCain, except in very limited ways.  (Did you catch  his response today?  Very adept.)  I trust it's obvious that he's "kept the gloves on" to this point against his Democratic rivals, but has no reason to do that should he become the nominee and be facing a Republican.


    Yes. His response today (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    was dead stupid.  Did not acknowledge the current reality at all.  Looked a lot like a child doing a playground taunt.  Glad you liked it.  :-)

    I disagree; I found it quite skillful. (none / 0) (#24)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:29:10 PM EST
    I believe it's a harbinger of what's to come: note how he phrased it, pointing out that it's "George Bush and John McCain" who are responsible.

    When you can shackle your opponent to a president with an approval rating headed for the sub-basement, you have an immediate advantage.

    And while perhaps McCain's staff will come up with a counter overnight -- McCain himself is far too slow-witted to do it himself under time pressure.  If this exchange happened in real time in a debate, he'd be helpless.


    Helpless HAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:52:29 PM EST
    All he has to say is something like...

    "Senator Obama we're talking about the current facts on the ground in Iraq, not what might have been.  Or don't you realize that?"

    Obama's retort was an applause line for a rally.  Don't confuse it with what will happen in the GE.


    i thought it was a pretty good reply too (none / 0) (#43)
    by tworivers on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    me three (none / 0) (#49)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:25:06 PM EST
    helpless? the media is just now (none / 0) (#69)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:48:51 AM EST
    getting started on obama. and it won't be pretty. mccain is their guy. don't forget that.

    stupid? (none / 0) (#33)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    In fact, he was responding to a more-than-stupid statement by McCain.

    And Obama was dead-on in terms of the tack he, or Clinton, will have to take in order to rebut the predictable attacks the GOP candidate will make against HRC or Obama about being soft on Iraq.

    The Dem candidate is going to have to remind the public, over and over again, that our security situation is worse than it was 7 years ago, and it's the fault of Bush and those who supported him, like McCain.


    I concur completely -- and will add... (none / 0) (#36)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:03:47 PM EST
    ...that as well as laying the unmitigated failure in Iraq at Bush/McCain's feet, the candidate should lay the failure of the VA at their feet.  There are a great many military families and veterans who are furious over the treatment that returning soldiers have experienced.  John Edwards' comments resonated with them and should be adopted by the nominee.

    McCain said that Al Qaeda in Iraq (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    are in Iraq currently.  What's stupid about the truth for the current situation?  If the rebuttal is what Obama said today, let's give up and go home.

    That applause line works for a fan rally but not for the GE.

    Just for grins, I doubt that McCain will let him forget that he voted to fund it since he's been in the senate and that counts as support for the war.  Kucinich or Feingold are the only ones who could make your argument.


    It's not my argument; I'm not a candidate ;-) (none / 0) (#44)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    It's an argument that the Democratic nominee will end up having with McCain.

    And whether that nominee is Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, I very much like their chances.  Both are smart, both have an excellent command of the facts, and both have had a lot of recent practice.
    McCain on the other hand, has never been the sharpest tool in the drawer and I really do think age is starting to take its toll on him: I've been carefully listening for the last 8+ years and he doesn't seem as crisp to me as he once did.

    Entirely subjective, of course.  But wait and watch: see if his campaign starts limiting his off-the-cuff speaking opportunities as this heats up in order to prevent self-inflicted damage.


    McCain actually said (none / 0) (#52)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:30:02 PM EST
    "I've got news for you, Al Qaeda is in Iraq" as if Obama didn't know that.

    A stupid comment (and, for heaven's sake, we all know that Obama -- and HRC -- was trying to answer  a stupid Russert-hypothetical), that deserves a simplistic response.

    I think it's perfect:

    Q: Hey dummy, Al Qaeda's in Iraq, didn't you know that

    A: Yeah, not only do I know that, but I know that your policies helped put them there

    Sorry.  I think McCain comes out the loser in that exchange.


    you're right that mcCain will go after Obama's (none / 0) (#54)
    by tworivers on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:37:00 PM EST
    funding votes, but otherwise I disagree.  The point that there was no al qaeda in Iraq until Bush's disastrous decision to wage an unnecessary war there created conditions chaotic enough for al qaeda to thrive in is a valid one and bears repeating.  It seems to me that Republicans are trying to rewrite the history of this war (through an evolving set of justifications they use for getting the US involved in this war, suggesting in misleading ways that al qaeda being in iraq was the reason we fought this war, etc.). We mustn't allow them to do this.

    The Iraq War is primarily a Republican disaster (although Democrats are guilty of caving into them all too readily and enabling them through funding, esp. of late) and the Dems need to try to remind the voters of where the responsibility for it lies.

    All that said, I think it highly likely that neither an Obama nor a Clinton presidency would lead to any rapid end to the Iraq War.  Both would reduce troops somewhat, yes, but in any sort of meaningful way?  i doubt it.

    It sucks to say, but I think we're in Iraq for a long long time.

    I wish Feingold or Gore had run.


    Feingold especially! (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:59:01 PM EST
    Most people know by now (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:25:27 AM EST
    that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded, except for the 20% who still think Saddam had WMD :-)  The war is definitely mostly a republican disaster.  The question now is "who will do the best job of getting us out?".

    I have never heard McCain say Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded.  Others have but I don't expect him to ever say that, he knows better.  I doubt he will even deny where the responsibility lies because that's a fool's errand.

    What he will say is that he criticized the way the war was prosecuted, which is true.  He'll also say he called for Rumsfeld to be fired, which he did but he was late doing it.

    The argument that he will make is that his years of experience, in the military and in the senate, have prepared him better to competently prosecute the war and get us out as winners.  That will be a compelling argument.  That's what needs to be rebutted and I don't know if either candidate can do a great job of rebutting it.  We'll have to wait and see.

    Honestly, I think the military realities will halt most combat operations in Iraq in two or three years no matter who is elected.  The military can't do this forever and even McCain knows it.  We'll probably have a troop contingent there for a long long time either way as well.  Juat no good way around that I'm afraid.

    Feingold or Gore would have been so much better.


    I disagree his response pointed out his main meme (none / 0) (#67)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:36:48 AM EST
    McCain lacks judgement.  Why would you want someone who lacks judgement making decisions about the same issue in the future?

    Josh Marshall showed his "balance" (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    again. He links approvingly to the story of the little old lady who is prejudiced and endorsed Hillary.

    I sent him the following email:

    So.. Obama getting support from a domestic terrorist
    organization (as designated by SPLC) is equivalent to one old lady's personal opinion?
    Passing on this is your idea of journalistic equivalence?
    Have you considered applying for Joe Klein's job?

    That lady is 84 years old (none / 0) (#19)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    I think she's got a right to hold whatever opinion she wants.  84 yr old lady=domestic terrorist group,  sure why not?  :-)

    Whatever it takes to get Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    elected. We're all Democrats for  a Day now!

    Got one email back from JMM already (none / 0) (#25)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:30:14 PM EST
    .. asking for more specifics.
    I don't know if I'll stay up late enough to read his reply.
    I've noticed a pattern over the years. If you want Josh to read your email, send it after 11 p.m. EST.

    DC Wonk: re Feingold (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:23:39 PM EST
    the previous open thread closed before I could get back to it (yes, I actually got some work done). Your last was: __________________________________ sorry, not an official endorsement (none / 0) Atrios here listed him. But because you asked I looked for more sources, and I see in the Wash Post it said of Feingold: "he has said he personally voted for Obama and will support him as a super delegate" So, my apologies. If that's not a real-enough endorsement, than subsitute "Dodd" for Feingold ___________________________________ It's not a real-enough endorsement -- Feingold specifically said (when this story was in his and my local papers, several days ago) that he was not making an official endorsement. Cagey of him, agreed. But when my senator wants to make it official, I'm sure he'll tell Atrios. :-)

    Yep, it wasn't an official endorsement (none / 0) (#29)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:52:01 PM EST
    But he did say he voted for Obama, and will vote for Obama as a super-delegate.

    Now, again I have to say (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:58:13 PM EST
    that at least to his constituency here, Russ still was hedging on what he would do at the convention -- not a "will" but a "probably" or something on that order. And again, if you have a link that he's saying something elsewhere he's not saying to us, pls. provide.

    Repost of: Boycotting MSNBC's Advertisers (none / 0) (#23)
    by IndyCatherine on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:24:49 PM EST
    Reposting this from earlier today; thanks for the open thread:

    On one of the threads today someone (Kathy?) suggested that it might be possible to go after MSNBC's advertisers rather than the network in terms of applying pressure (especially in light of the alleged women/Hillary-bashing). I looked for the post, but sorry, I couldn't find it to post it there.

    I just came back from my gym where they have MSNBC on one of the TVs (ugh, but captive audience) and I was watching for the advertisers. During a 25 minute period, here are the companies who advertised:
    -Schiff (a glucosamine supplement)
    -General Electric (think women buy kitchen appliances?)
    -Apple (iPHone)
    -Campbell's soup
    -Procter & Gamble: Actonel (osteoporosis drug: for women only)

    Does anyone know of a site where this information could be posted/gathered together?  I know this isn't the appropriate site (forgive me), but I thought one of the posters might have a suggestion.

    Having come in late to the party building (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:32:08 PM EST
    discussion, I just wanted to say ...doesn't support for Democrats always rise tremendously during Presidential elections?  Kerry got a lot of people working for the Dem Party while he was running.  I'm sure not as many as Obama.  But getting people to care about their local Congressman or woman two years later can be like pulling teeth.  Independents and Republicans don't in many cases have to change their registration to vote for Obama...we don't get their support in writing so to speak.  So how does their support become support for the Party?  
    Of course time will tell.  
    Turnout has been promising though.

    I just read on another blog (none / 0) (#27)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:48:39 PM EST
    that MoveOn has sent an email to its members to vote
    both primary and caucus, double their vote. They can vote twice.  The blog says MoveOn is encouraging all members to get out and encourage people to flood the caucuses and primary (125,000 people)and to tell everyone else about the way the system works.

    Is this legal? Can they encourage people to game he system like that?

    Perfectly legal in Texas (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:56:45 PM EST
    but not legal anywhere else.  We have a really stupid democratic primary procedure here.  Yuck!

    Yes it's their system (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:04:00 PM EST
    Obama and Hillary are telling voters the same thing.  The primary is during the day, then the caucus begins when the polls close. 1/3 of delegates will be those chosen at caucus. Voters should go to both.

    Obama count me out (none / 0) (#28)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:49:15 PM EST
    Good article

    Count me out

    Wow, that is exhaustive research (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:12:11 PM EST
    and devastating, all pulled together in one.

    devasting b/c it's selective (none / 0) (#50)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:26:02 PM EST
    He leaves out all of HRC's votes which harm his thesis -- including all the times (see my other post on this) that he takes Obama to task for voting one way, where HRC voted the same way.

    And, hey, anybody remember HRC and the flag-burning bill?  Note: she didn't just support the bill to criminalize it, she actually co-sponsored the bill.

    Hmph . . . he left that one out.


    There's good and bad in that article (none / 0) (#46)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:20:16 PM EST
    The good part -- no name calling.  An actual discussion of issues.

    The bad part -- neglecting to say where HRC stood on most of the instances he cited.

    E.g., the first votes he mentions are:

    Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration's various false justifications for going to war in Iraq.

    Isn't that also true of HRC?

    Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005

    I couldn't find this actual vote.  Did HRC vote differently?

    And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.

    HRC also supported Lieberman in the primary!  She didn't endorse Lamont until after Lamont won the primary.  Same with Obama.

    So, on all these issues (I stopped reading after this far) Obama and Hillary are the same.  So, that's a strike against Obama?  

    And, FWIW, Lamont is campaigning now for Obama.

    So -- I don't get it.


    Oh, I agree -- but I knew HRC's record (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:37:16 PM EST
    and the point of the piece is that the author was looking into Obama's record, having somehow gotten the impression that Obama was a stellar peacenik progressive, etc. Maybe the author will do the article you want on HRC next.

    Hmm . . . perhaps (none / 0) (#58)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:41:02 PM EST
    I need to look at the article again.  I didn't think that was his point.

    No matter.  I've always thought that Obama's and HRC's voting records overlap something like 95% -- I didn't have any illusions that one is significantly more progressive than the other.


    Thanks I just started a thread on his article (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:41:59 PM EST
    Gonzales is a heavy progressive -- ran a great campaign for Mayor of SF in 2003 -- got 47$ of the vote running as a Green candidate. He's a former public defender and former Democrat. He was the change candidate and Newsom was the establishment Dem. candidate. And now he's saying Obama's change meme isn't backed up by his record and he's not buying it.

    As for those who might think he's a Clinton supporter, think again...Bill Clinton went to CA to campaign for his opponent in the mayor's race.

    Here's the new thread.


    Obama leading in Texas and Donations (none / 0) (#31)
    by Aaron on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:55:36 PM EST
    Texas RCP Average 02/16 - 02/25

    Obama  -- 47.7

    Clinton -- 46.5

    2008 Texas Democratic Presidential Primary Pollster

    1,009,174 and counting, that's how many Americans have donated to the Barack Obama campaign, with an average donation of $109.  

    Hillary's been busy raising money too (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    A few million this week. She's trying to raise another $1.9 million to match the ads Obama just bought in Texas and Ohio...she started this morning asking for $1.9 mil and is at $882k right now, about 12 hours later.  Two days ago she had a fundraising thing up for $2.2 mil and she made that.

    So both sides are raising money, but of course Obama is raising more.

    Thanks, Aaron, for leaving the usual tag line off your comment, it makes a big difference and is appreciated.


    I can win either way, now can I? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Aaron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:24:39 AM EST
    As you know my support of Barack Obama goes back some six months, but when I posted a comment without identifying myself as a supporter of Barack Obama, you made a point of pointing it out.  Now you're praising me for not showing the colors, I realize it's a no-win situation for me hear these days, but some consistency of criticism coming from you would help.  :-)

    PS I still think Hillary should get the VP spot.


    Article about the Texas campaign (none / 0) (#38)
    by Shawn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    A few days old but pretty incisive article from, of all places, the Huffington Post.

    Pertinent quote:

    Gardner Selby, the veteran political columnist for the Austin American-Statesman, said he is baffled by some of the commentary about the Texas campaign he's seen from "East Coast media" on cable television and the Internet.

    "The presidential race is not over. Anybody who says they know what is going to happen here is drunk on their own (ego)," Selby said.

    And where have we heard this before?:

    But if Clinton wins, the entire dynamic of the race will shift. She'll be able to claim she is best suited to be the nominee because she consistently wins the big states: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Texas, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. He'll go from front-runner to the candidate who only wins small states; but more problematic, he'll be the candidate who has failed to show any significant support among Hispanics.

    (Remember, that in addition to California, Clinton carried Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Obama barely got 50 percent from Hispanics in his home state, Illinois.)

    The latest Latino TX poll has her ahead (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:13:43 PM EST
    of Obama by registered Latino voters in Texas by a whopping 62% to 22%.

    But it's still a problem for her because the heavily African American districts in Texas will get more delegates than the heavily Latino districts because they had a bigger turnout in the past two elections.

    And, although the early voter turnout in TX has been huge, voters need to remember they also have to caucus that night. 1/3 of TX delegates will be awarded according to caucus results.


    I am skipping a tip to NYC (none / 0) (#70)
    by sumac on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:38:42 AM EST
    with my husband, in part, so I can caucus. I admit this will be my first caucus experience, but it should be educational.

    I agree (none / 0) (#56)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:38:31 PM EST
    if Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, the entire dynamic will shift.

    The problem I have with the argument that "HRC wins the big states, Obama doesn't" is that it looks at only one variable (size) in the equation.  It also could be a function of time -- that is, Clinton won some on Super Tuesday and earlier, Obama has won since.

    But I don't want to get into an argument about that -- because -- Texas and Ohio will help settle that.  If Obama can't win either, than this big/small dichotomy stands.  But vice versa, too.  

    I'm perfectly content to let the voters speak on Tuesday, and then everything will be re-evaluated.


    RIP, William F. Buckley (none / 0) (#48)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:24:53 PM EST
    I disagreed with a great deal of what he said and wrote; but he forced me to think about why I disagreed and to sharpen my arguments.  He was witty, charming, erudite, and a very hard worker -- it seems fitting that he was found at his desk.

    And the man could write.  Even while reading something that made my fists clench, it was impossible not to notice that the prose was  meticulously crafted.  And I learned to always take the library's copy of National Review to a seat near enough the OED to make frequent reference to it convenient -- his vocabulary was astounding.

    In intellectual combat, he was truly a worthy adversary, and I salute him.

    BTD was right (none / 0) (#53)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    After dodging the question during the debate, Obama is getting hammered on his campaign financing pledge.

    That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

    Campaign finance experts said the issue was a major test of Mr. Obama's commitment. It is also a first glimpse of what might come in a general election fight between two candidates who have championed public integrity, opening themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.

    On Wednesday, the McCain campaign stepped up its criticism of Mr. Obama after his statement at the debate.

    "The fact is, Senator Obama signed a piece of paper and pledged to take public financing for his campaign if I did the same," Mr. McCain said. "I believe that Senator Obama should keep his commitment also, which means taking public financing. The rest of it is ground noise. The rest of it is irrelevant."

    At this point, Obama looks bad no matter what he does. Might as well choose the option that also gives him a bunch of extra cash.

    Tano/Halstoon (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:38:40 PM EST
    It appears Tano and Halstoon are the same person. Please pick a name and stick to it. Readers are entitled to know your comments represent the views of only one individual.

    I KNEW IT!!! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:07:09 AM EST
    Holy crap, I wish I'd placed money on it.  It was the modifiers!

    Here's an interesting take on something (none / 0) (#62)
    by frankly0 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    that came up in the debate. It was a reaction I also had at the time.

    In last night's debate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked if there were any "words or votes you'd like to take back." Clinton described, in gut-wrenching detail, her regrets over her Iraq War vote. When it was his turn, Obama noted that all senators had implicitly allowed the federal courts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo feeding tube case, and he wished he had spoken up against it. With a quivering air of self-castigation, Obama explained that the episode taught him the dangers of inaction.

    Fair enough: Clinton chose to discuss a vote that has made some people hate her and imperiled her presidential campaign; Obama referred to a non-action in which he was only as culpable as every one of his colleagues.

    But hasn't Obama been congratulating himself on the campaign trail for offering blunt, self-revealing answers to those kinds of questions, while his colleagues opt for what he calls the Washington "okey doke" response of admitting something that gives offense to no one?

    The Writing on the Wall (none / 0) (#65)
    by Aaron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:29:33 AM EST
    Congrats to the Gators... (none / 0) (#66)
    by KevinMc on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:35:16 AM EST
    Congrats on the Gator win tonight.  No one agrees with me but I'm picking them to win the SEC Tournament... Thanks for the open thread I wanted to put my prediction in print.

    Slate.com's Delegate Counter (none / 0) (#71)
    by sar75 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:39:26 AM EST
    Slate.com has a fun delegate counter that gives you some idea of just how hard the math delegate math for Clinton is at this point.  The folks at Slate calculate she needs to win the remaining primaries by an average of 16 points each to claim the lead in pledged delegates. That seems pretty impossible.

    I gave Clinton a 5-point win in Texas and a 10-point win in Ohio and Pennsylvania, a very optimistic scenario, and very conservative Obama wins in most other states (except West Virginia) and in the end she was down 100+ pledged delegates.

    Anyway, it's an amusing time-killer for political junkies...