home

Just Win, Baby

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:23:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Tomorrow is a day for winning. Not for tales about "running out of time" or "the celebrity endorsements" or for any excuse period.

No excuses for the Clinton campaign. No excuses for the Obama campaign. Everybody has had their shot.

Winning means winning.

They might be Giants. They might be inspirational. But now they have to win. And no, it is not just about delegates. Indeed, it is more about winning than delegates. Especially in California.

< Michelle Obama: I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee | Why Edwards Won't Endorse Obama >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Just Win, Baby | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I disagree that (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    Obama is the one that is bringing out new voters, I think it is the anger at Bush's policies...big difference...particularly when you look at Florida numbers....Hillary won that by a 17% landslide....huge!!!

    4 hours of calling (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:51:18 PM EST
    Just did 4 hours of calling at SF Hillary headquarters.  They have new automated system.  You cannot believe the number of Democrats who said that they hated how Obama is attacking the Democratic core.  They were saying that they will have no faith in this new party to stand for working people.  

    Best part was the number of people that already voted for Hillary and the high proportion of Latinos, who love Hillaria.  I speak a bit of Spanish and the love was there.  

    Best line:  "Listen, I am a Democrat, and I know on when I see one"

    These new calling techniques are something, I wonder how the compare.  It was hard for some of the hard core older volunteers to figure out the buttons.  But we all helped each other.  More calling tonight, you can do it at home.  Go to hillary.com, it's easy and fun.  

    Parent

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    my granny would say "you're doing the lord's work!" (she would've loved to have seen Hillary get the nod.  She only voted for Bill because of Hillary)

    Good on ya, girl!  Go, Hillary, go!

    Parent

    My perfect dream (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    I want Hillary to win and for the first Supreme Court appt, I want her to appoint Bill....That way I could observe the republicans and netroots heads exploding :-)

    Sadly. . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    I think Bill's way to the Supreme Court is barred by the disbarment he suffered as a result of the Starr investigation.

    Parent
    Five Year Ban Is Over (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:01:06 PM EST
    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The five-year suspension of Bill Clinton's Arkansas law license in connection with the Monica Lewinsky affair ends this week, but an aide declined Tuesday to say whether the ex-president is seeking reinstatement.

    [snip]

    Any lawyer under suspension can ask for reinstatement at any time but even after the suspension period a reinstatement is not automatic. Clinton would have to apply for reinstatement and his application would have to be reviewed by a committee, said Stark Ligon, executive director of the professional conduct committee. Ligon would not say whether Clinton has applied for reinstatement.

    link

    Parent

    ever here of the word (none / 0) (#76)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:19:57 PM EST
    nepotism?

    Used to be an absolute cuss word amongst progressives.

    Parent

    The sun is a mass. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    of incandescent gas.

    Whatever else people feel about the result tomorrow, these are two candidates who've fought for the nomination.  Any concerns I may have had about either candidate running lightweight campaigns (primarily the less-tested Obama) are pretty much gone.

    Doing My Part (none / 0) (#2)
    by KevinMc on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    Tomorrow I will be working the polls and holding a sign for my candidate.  My partner Michael is also taking the day off to pitch in and help out with whatever is needed... Holding signs, driving voters to the polls, delivering lunch to poll workers, etc.   Finally when the dust settles and we know who our candidate is, we will continue to do our part to make sure the Democratic candidate is the next President of the United States and Leader of the Free World.  We were inspired to volunteer after seeing our candidate speak at TSU here in Nashville.  I hope when these primaries are over we all can stand together in unity to take back OUR country so that the United States can once again be the shining light for the disenfranchised throughout the world not just the "dim bulb" the Bush Administration has turned it into.

    "The genius of the United States is not best or most in its executives or legislatures, nor in its ambassadors or authors or colleges, or churches, or parlors, nor even in its newspapers or inventors, but always most in the common people".
    Walt Whitman (1819 - 1892)

    Re: (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    One of the clear benefits of this high-turnout primary is that it tells us a lot about what we can expect for November.

    If Obama can bring out enough new voters to carry the day under the far-flung conditions of Super Tuesday, then we know he's going to have a great turnout machine in November as well.  Conversely, if he proves unable to replicate his performance in Iowa (where he had like 6 months to set up the perfect GOTV apparatus) then we'll know it was all a mirage.  The record turnout and unprecedented media attention make this a meaningful test, for once.

    What is a win? (none / 0) (#4)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    If Obama squeaks out a popular vote advantage but loses some delegates is it a win? dunno

    If Hillary wins popular vote by 15% but loses some delegates, is it a win? dunno

    If Hillary loses popular vote but wins delegates is it a win? dunno

    By the way why is 100 delegates a magical number? Whatever happened to the idea of momentum?

    I guess we get to magically make up who wins. Whatever.

    There has been no momentum so far. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:19:53 PM EST
    Obama wins Iowa, and then tanks in NH.
    Clinton loses Iowa, and pulls of a stunning upset in NH.

    Obama loses a stunner in NH, and manages to go from 25 points behind to a six point 'loss' and one-delegate win in NV.

    Clinton wins the media spin from NV and the 'popular vote' in NV, and with two wins in a row takes the momentum into SC, where she gets the beating of a lifetime.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    It's been up and down, up and down.

    But really, if Hillary wins nationally by 15% but obama closes delegate gap to say 110, does Hillary have momentum? does she win? It depends.

    And assuming that, what happens on feb 15 is unpredictable. How solid is Obama's support in those other states? Will Obama collapse or not? Who knows?

    Parent

    Obama should beat her handily in (none / 0) (#29)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:44:02 PM EST
    DC, MD, and VA.

    Just like she should beat him handily in NJ, NY, and MA.

    Parent

    I grant you (none / 0) (#37)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    Obama's got a shot. I think it's a long shot, but I've seen stranger things occurr.
    However, Hillary seems to me fairly strong nationally, and if she can increase funds has a probability of holding him off. If she holds him off nationally by double digits and doesn't suffer too much erosion in delegates, she might very well pick up funding. That will make feb 15 interesting.

    Parent
    Wisconsin looks good for Obama too. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST
    With at the polls registration we always get a decent turnout from newly eligibles.

    Parent
    That's Madison, Ben. No recent polls (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    for Wisconsin, that I can see; can you?  Seriously, if you are aware of any, pls advise.  All I can find are from months ago. . . .

    And down by Mwokee, I see a lot of Clinton support.  Not signs yet, but buttons and events beginning tomorrow night -- with our wonderful lt governor, an early endorser -- so that may give me a better sense of what is happening here in the big city . . . the big source of Dem support.

    There certainly is Obama support in the inner city of Wisconsin's only majority-minority city, as I know from friends of color.  And of course, my Congresswoman, our only Congresswoman of color, endorsed Obama.  But our first Congresswoman ever in Wisconsin, yours, endorsed Clinton.

    Most important for Obama, it would seem, would be campuses.  And I (and the JS, as it reported) have seen nothing -- no rallies, no GOTV effort, etc. -- on campuses here yet, campuses that combine for much more of the "youth vote" than you have in Madison.

    We'll see what happens as of post-Super Tuesday, when we'll be little more than a dozen days away from our primary.

    Parent

    clinton buries obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    in florida, getting more votes than than barry has put together all together so far.  

    but oops including that would put a wrinkle in the barry's got momentum storyline.

    to me, it looks like the only reason this clown is still running now is because he's got "momentum".  even if he loses, he'll still have "momentum".  maybe he'll get more "momentum" later on.  who knows?  the point is barry's momentum sure is a lot more fun to talk about than the actual problems this country has to face.  

    he's staying in the race because without him there is no race.  the media wants a race to cover.  the longer he stays in the more damage he does to himself because the whole thing shows to me he has no integrity and i was for edwards until south carolina when he sat by and let the clinton's be called racists in the media.  i knew he was a fake right then.  

    Parent

    Is there an Ignore function here? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    really, anyone who calls him 'Barry' is a troll.

    Parent
    I think you should be glad (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:46:39 PM EST
    there isn't one.

    Parent
    YMMV (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by rilkefan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:34:26 PM EST
    But I think Geekesque is a valuable voice here.  The comments are getting a little knee-jerk pro-HRC in my opinion.

    Parent
    In my view, since Sunday, the comments (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:35:54 PM EST
    have turned into a mindless free-for-all.  

    Parent
    oculus (none / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    I am with you.  I said something on another post about this.  I think some of them got tired of screaming to the choir so they moseyed on over here to do some damage.  While I welcome dissent, and value a well-thought-out opinion (even if I disagree) some of this crap has been really annoying.  I left Dkos and HuffPo because of this nastiness.

    Parent
    I deputize you to (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:02:44 PM EST
    crack the whip.

    Here's your deputy badge . .

    Parent

    I kind of liked your recent comment that, (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:28:31 PM EST
    given a free hand, you would eviscerate a commenter.  I couldn't type like that w/a straight face.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:43:28 PM EST
    Geekesque has been quite reasonable here since BTD put a stop to his or her obamania. On the other hand Clintonitis has been more than knee-jerk, imo. Trashing of BHO seem rampant and has gone under the radar.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    Call them out.

    I do as much as I can.

    No doubt the Clintonistas have been the bigger problem at this site of late.

    Parent

    but i never (none / 0) (#79)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:20:36 AM EST
    attacked another poster did i?

    no, i didn't.

    i called him "barry" to make a point.

    a republican can beat him.

    they didn't start to swiftboat kerry until after the dem convention.  or did you forget about that?

    if obama gets the nomination, among many other vile disgusting things the right will do to him will be to rename him "barry" obama and talk about how inexperienced and young he is.  

    obama would have no chance with older voters.  

    call it over the top if you will, but i didn't make any kind of attack on anybody posting here.  

    Parent

    Eh. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    If people want to ignore me, no skin off my nose.

    Parent
    Have english teachers (none / 0) (#50)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST
    officially abandonded capital letters? And punctuation? And logic? And embraced run-on sentences?

    Parent
    Texting (none / 0) (#53)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    has now taken over English. You should have seen some of the job resumes I received a few months ago. I was amazed. This is part of the generational differences. c u later :+}

    Parent
    The election doesn't end tomorrow. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    February 5 is more pro-Clinton, with all of her big states lined up (MA, CA, AR, tri-state of NY, CT, and NJ).  The rest of the month is more favorable to Obama.

    So, she'll probably do better than him and collect more delegates.  Pretty much everyone expects that.  The real question is the margin.  Does she run up the score on him in NY and NJ, or does he keep things close enough so that he can retake the delegate lead on February 12?

    It's not a football game tomorrow, it's two-dozen pitched battles in a much longer war.

    It was Suffolk that showed him (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    within two.

    Other polls have showed him behind by a wide stretch there.  I don't believe 15 points leads disappear in one week.

    Parent

    I agree with you on surveys (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    and will go so far as to say I am guilty of only really believing the ones I like, so keep that in mind with this link, which shows a Survery USA poll from the last two days:

    MA-
    Asked of 651 likely democratic primary voters
    Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 3.9%  

    If the Democratic Primary for President of the United States were today, would you vote for...(names rotated) Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Or some other Democrat?  

    56% Clinton
    39% Obama
    3% Other
    2% Undecided

    They also give her a 53/41 edge over Obama in CA.

    So, like I said, this is the one I want to trust, until the next one comes out, which will make me sad, and then thankfully, another one will come out and I'll be happy again.

    It's called "Manic Depressive Polling" and I am sure Pfizer will have a cure for it soon enough.

    Parent

    A friend wants to know what to do (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:17:24 PM EST
    The friend is an Edwards voter.
    The friend can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries tomorrow.
    The friend is committed to supporting the Democratic nominee and has no strong opinion one way or the other as between Obama and Clinton.
    Should the friend vote:
    (a) for Mitt the Dog Torturer, so as to help keep him in the race and not allow McCain to win outright?
    (b) for Edwards, who'll still be on the ballot?
    (c) for Obama or Clinton?

    Tell (none / 0) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    your friend to vote for the angelic socialist.

    Parent
    If your friend cares about health care (none / 0) (#17)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    then your friend should vote for Hillary. Read Krugman's column in the NY Times.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ref=opinion
    This is consistent with everything I have ever read on the issue (and I have read a lot over the years). Mandates are a must to keep costs in check.
    Fixing health care is not only the moral thing to do, it would help our economy. Currently we are wasting far too much money on the system we have. Everyone needs to participate if it is to work.

    Parent
    I emailed Krugman to all my friends today (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    That did it for some of them.  

    Parent
    sweet little diary (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:06:46 PM EST
    on Mydd: My Closing Argument for Hillary Clinton.

    Meanwhile, I am seeing TONS of Hillary signs around my 'hood in Atlanta.  For so long, it's just been me and my one little pokey sign and bumper sticker, but coming home from the gym, I counted FORTY!  YAY!!!

    Parent

    Tell 'em to (none / 0) (#51)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:24:51 PM EST
    figure it out for themselves.

    Thats the glory and responsibility of democracy.

    Parent

    Why this headline? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST


    Because BTD's on a football high (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    and "Just Win, Baby" was (and, I think, still is) the motto of Al Davis, owner of the Oakland Raiders.  History was, he didn't care what kind of indiscipline his players got into so long as come Sunday, they won.  

    Parent
    Hmmmm. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:34:02 PM EST


    Parent
    The numbers for Clinton's Jan. fundraising (none / 0) (#10)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    are finally out.  10 million.  She needs a big day tommorow or it does become an uphill battle for her.

    Did you see the map on Huff Post? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:29:49 PM EST
    Beyond me why anyone would contribute to any political candidate if the contributors name, address, and contribution are public info and easily sorted by zip code.  

    Parent
    Why give a bribe (none / 0) (#25)
    by rilkefan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    without a receipt? /joke

    Parent
    I'd be inclined to think in terms of quarters (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    not months.  Yes, Obama had a big month, however, he may have just drained dry certain factions of his camp.  We'll see what happens into February.

    Parent
    I heard that Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:32:42 PM EST
    outraised him in the last quarter. That has not gotten much attention.

    Parent
    That's because (none / 0) (#24)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:37:01 PM EST
    It wasn't by 22 million...

    Parent
    I've read that Obama's contributors (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    aren't tapped out to the max as many of HRC's are.  

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    In theory all those people who bought a $5 button, and are therefore listed as donors, still have $2,295 they can contribute towards the primary.

    Parent
    why mock a campaign .... (none / 0) (#36)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:00:59 PM EST
    that raised 32 frickin' million in one frickin' month?

    I gave 100 bucks, and I will probably give 100 more before the season's over.

    Parent

    I do not mock the campaign (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    I mock those who make silly claims about it.

    Parent
    Because it's so easy to (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    mock when a campaign is dishonest enough to count the sale of a $5 button as a contribution, unlike it's been done in the past.  Just one little piece of dishonesty in a boat load of it.


    Parent
    Changed FEC rules? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM EST


    Parent
    The latest (none / 0) (#14)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    survey USA poll have Clinton leading by 12 in California. the more I see these polls jumping all over the place, the more I distrust them. Many of these pollster are motivated to push their own candidate of preference. I support Clinton to the end of time, but whoever one supports, don't be discourage, or motivated by polls, because many dirty tricks are being conducted by pollsters.

    My friend and I noticed (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:39:52 PM EST
    that many in the media are saying Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat without clarifying that they are talking about a national poll. It often sounds like they are referring to Super Tuesday. I think they want to make it a better race by ginning up momentum for Obama. It is not paranoid to think this because several journalists have said that they do try to make it a more exciting race. This is deeply unprofessional. They should only be reporting, not manipulating politics, but it happens all the time. I truly believe that the media should get the bulk of the blame for the tone of our politics. If they made a point of refusing to just repeat spin campaigns would not do so much of it.

    Parent
    I don't believe the polls (none / 0) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:54:03 PM EST
    People are confused, but not the hardcore voters.  

    Parent
    Thank you for the help (none / 0) (#15)
    by jen on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    on last thread with trying to read comments expanded.

    I can't get the page to load now at all, but just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring the appreciated the advice.

    Helped Me Too (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:09:21 PM EST
    SUO also mentioned that if you go to 'your preferences' (under the 'search' box right hand side of main page) set the preference for overflow to 'nested'. That way the change will stick.

    Parent
    Kevin Drum going for Obama (none / 0) (#23)
    by rilkefan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    Maybe a harbinger.  His choice is partially motivated by Bill being too mean and Krugman too shrill, which is pretty surprising to me - but if that sort of thinking is getting traction among recently-HRC-leaning high-info voters then SC might be more important than I realized.

    Krugman criticised Obama (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    on the fact of his policies on Social Security and health care. From everything I have read over the years, Krugman's points are valid.
    If that is shrill than all criticism of Obama must be off limits. What are we Republicans? I thought they were the party that marched in lock step, not us.

    Parent
    You must not be paying attention (none / 0) (#52)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    to the Republican race.

    Our job in the fall is going to be easy. Just takes notes on what they are saying about eachother now.

    Parent

    New Rules Say (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:57:18 PM EST
    Anyone who criticizes Obama is either too mean or too shrill.

    Funny, seems I remember hearing the netroots described as too shrill on numerous occasions.

    Parent

    You don't think. . . (none / 0) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    the netroots are shrill and mean?

    Parent
    I don't care about the netroots (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:10:47 PM EST
    or if they're shrill etc.   Also Kevin Drun's endorsement means as much to me as Joab Baez.  Suffice to say, that's not at all.


    Parent
    This fellow does: (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:11:00 PM EST
    LEE SEIGEL

    Parent
    Some Are And Some Aren't (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    It varies depending on the blog, the topic discussed and how shrill is interpreted.

    Quite often the definition of "shrill" is someone who is making strong points that you disagree with.

    Parent

    I used to be (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    NOt allowed to be anymore.

    Parent
    Earlier you said Net roots are dead (none / 0) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:52:40 PM EST
    Add to it Air America.  They have really polarized.  

    Parent
    I did not mean. . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    to imply you are shrill and mean (if I have something negative to say about you you may rest assured I'll be forthright)!

    Parent
    Mean maybe, but never shrill. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:30:38 PM EST


    Parent
    22 states voting... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    ...not just the 8 or 10 that keep getting talked about.  So, let's say Clinton wins most of the "big 8" states, albeit by a smaller margin(let's say 5 out of 8).  Let's say Obama wins most of the smaller states, some by a decent margin and some very close(let's say 9 out of 14).  Let's assume the delegate totals are reasonably close, with Clinton up by between 50-150.  
    that's pretty much going to wind up being a "spin war".  Clinton's campaign will insist that they won by getting the most delegates, which has a ring of truth to it.  However, they will neglect to mention that they were hoping to win by a larger amount, because subsequent states are more favorable to Obama.  Obama's campaign will insist that they won by outperforming expectations and keeping things relatively close.  They will neglect to acknowledge that the media will likely provide some momentum to whoever gets the most delegates, and that it will take a while to wipe out a margin on the larger end of that range.

    They might be Giants, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:14:10 PM EST
    they might be Patriots.

    Winning is the only thing.

    Is someone having a super bowl hangover here?
    :)

    Now this is nothing but (none / 0) (#69)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:35:27 PM EST
    plain old Hubris...The man uses the past tense about the primary as if he has won already....

    ugh (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    I just got over hating him during the debate, and now it's built back up again, but THIS TIME it's because of crap from his own mouth, and his own wife's mouth.  They just ran part of that interview on ABC news, and they had him on NBC news, and all I could think was, "arrogant, arrogant, arrogant."

    And then MO had the gaul to imply that she and Barrack had a better marriage than the Clintons, and they didn't worry about "control" or anything like that.

    To which I got off the couch and screamed:

    "Excuse me, but I am the wrong person to be tellin' that to, sister!  I read your husband's website about him having to meet your future employer before he'd let you take a job!  Don't you go tellin' me no crap about control!  Bill and Hillary have been married for over 30 years.  Talk to me about a good, solid marriage when you've been through it that long!"

    And then I noticed the cats had left the room, and I was alone.  And pointing at the television set, which had an Activ-On commercial going.  You know, "apply directly to the forehead."

    I have to admit--it was less annoying that what MO had said.

    Parent

    Eesh (none / 0) (#72)
    by Eva on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:53:10 PM EST
    Wow.
    Um.
    Hillary will lose to McCain.
    McCain will get independent voters; Hillary will not.
    Hillary will summon out the Republican voters (who otherwise wouldn't be motivated to vote) because they, right or wrong, think she's the devil.
    Hillary will not get the liberal wing of the liberal party to vote for her; they remember unions fared under Bill, etc. etc.

    This isn't mere conjecture; look at her huge polling negatives. The Republicans relish the thought of running against her.

    You've got to be smart.

    Sorry , We Can't All Be As Smart As You (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:13:54 PM EST
    Believe It or not, some of us actually think that Hillary has a better chance in the GE than Obama.

    Parent
    Just Win, Baby | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment