Obama's Bad Night

By Big Tent Democrat

Hillary Clinton appears to have won a substantial victory in California capping off a very bad night for Barack Obama.

The three most highly contested states on Super Tuesday were Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. Obama was blown out in each of them.

Some bloggers and the Obama Network (NBC) will try to spin this away. But the respective speeches given by each of the candiates told the real tale. Clinton was ebulliant. Obama flat.

Of course anything can happen but I think Hillary Clinton stopped Barack Obama for good tonight. I know a lot of bloggers and the Media will go on and on about delegate counts but the point is Obama had his fair shot and he did not deliver today. I do not think he will have another one.

< Tsunami Tuesday: First Democratic Results Thread | Hillary Wins California >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Chango on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:51 PM EST
    Obama's bad night?

    Obama flat?

    Are we watching the same election?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:51 PM EST
    You are watching the one in Obamaland where "California is unimportant."

    NBC is your network.

    The disappointment is palpable.


    Actually BTD, Kos just said that the big (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:01:16 AM EST
    win in Alaska puts him up 14-10 in states and that Obama actually managed to make California irrelevant. If my head didn't hurt so bad, I'd laugh at his spin. He really writes with his heart instead of his brain sometimes.

    California is important, but (none / 0) (#40)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:41:04 PM EST
    but not dispostive.  We are not nominating a President of California.  

    It is important (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:48:05 PM EST
    The NEXT most important was? Massachusetts. Why? the Kennedys.

    The next? New Jersey. Why? Because Obama strongly contested there.

    He got blown out in the three most important races.

    Look, despite what NBC is trying to tell you, this is no longer heads Obama wins, tails Obama wins too.


    I thought his NJ stop yesterday was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:52:54 PM EST
    especially since he "endorsed" the patriots...then the day after they lost, he was comparing himself to the Giants...:) just thought it was funny...

    NJ was not a crucial race. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    For gawd's sake.  That was always Clinton country.  No one in the Obama campaign thought he would win it.

    You might have thought so, but you were wrong.

    Again, he was not supposed to win MA.  It wasn't going to happen.  Clinton had all the local pols locked up, and that's who turns votes out.

    You threat Kennedy's endorsement like it was some kind of magic.  It wasn't.  Endorsements get you media attention, not votes.  Ask Howard Dean.


    I did not treat it like that (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:05:41 AM EST
    THE MEDIA did. And Obama DID.

    See, you can not unring THAt bell.


    The same media that is calling this (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:09:21 AM EST
    at best a draw for Clinton?

    What's the next state Clinton is going to win?


    Hillary will win PA on Apr 22nd (a biggie) (none / 0) (#121)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:19 AM EST
    but she'll win others (smaller states) before that

    Anything in the month of February? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:03:15 AM EST
    This coming Saturday:






    February 19:


    If Obama wins all eight of those states, he will have huge momentum.


    14 to 8, 16 to 10... (none / 0) (#200)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    ...and a very good chance it'll be 22-11 at the end of February.  He may still wind up slightly ahead in pledged delegates, since the final margin in Cali was closer than it first appeared.

    But, you know, Obama "blew it".

    Never mind that he's got more money and will have a lot of positive media coming out of the rest of the month going into March 4.

    Ridiculous spin.  This IS a race for delegates.  You win by getting the most delegates.  

    The criteria for a clinton knockout blow was, what, a 200 pledged delegate margin?  
    And now Obama may actually wind up ahead in the pledged delegate count, going into Saturday?

    How the blue bloody hell is this a "bad night" for Obama?

    He won 14 out of 22 states.  The margin of victory for Clinton in the remaining 8 states was significantly lower than what she had been polling at just a couple weeks ago.  He's won 16 out of 26 official contests.  Illinois and Georgia are large states.  Virginia next week is a large state.  I'd give him a decent shot in Ohio, too.  Texas and Pennsylvania seem like the only good Clinton states left in the process.  I doubt she can win most of the remaining states.

    Those 14 states he won have uncommitted superdelegates who have to make a decision.  I think most of them will break for the guy who won their state.  Clinton already has most of the NY and Arkansas et al superdelegates pledged to her, so her pickups may be limited to Cali and a couple other states.
    The superdelegates aren't going to be breaking 2:1 for her anymore, which is a problem for her, since she's not going to win most of the remaining primaries.  The more of those she loses, the more evenly they will break between the candidates.  

    And we've barely even addressed the issue of money.  She doesn't have as much and can't raise it as quickly.

    I just don't see how this can be spun as a defeat for Obama.


    They openly were saying they (none / 0) (#98)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:12:51 AM EST
    were trying to steal NJ from her...they wouldn't have tried if they didn't think they could...that simple...they didnt....

    So, if he tries to win a state and doesn't succeed (none / 0) (#114)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:21:32 AM EST
    that's a catastrophic defeat?

    Poppycock.  It should never have been as close as it was.


    Look (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:29:07 AM EST
    Its fairly simple...no grey area...BO lost NJ...you're suggesting that he wasn't really playing for keeps, so it doesn't count as a defeat...it was a defeat...just like BO defeated HRC in ND....

    losing MA, NY, NJ, CA, are big defeats for BO...regardless of whether or not he expected to win...obviously he was trying to cut into her lead, and try to take those states, otherwise he would'nt have had such a big push in NJ the last number of days, or worked so hard to get Kennedy/Kerry endorsement...You really need to look at this with a bit of logic, there is cost benefit that goes into this...

    Clinton knew that ND, ID, etc...weren't worth her money/time...so she didn't put much or any resources there...she gave them up to BO...on the other hand...BO put resources into NJ, MA, CA (he sent Oprah there and they had the headline grabbing Kennedy endorsement there, etc.) if you can't recognize that then you have been blinded by Obamalust/Clintonhate


    To be fair to both candidates (none / 0) (#137)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:29 AM EST
    let us remember that putting effort into a state does not equate with trying to win the state overall.

    Delegates are often chosen at CD level. Obama, for example, was trying to win some delegates in NJ, not win the whole state.

    And, to be fair, I am sure that applies to some of the efforts Hillary made in some states.


    realistically, the goal was to get as close as (none / 0) (#138)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:38:44 AM EST
    possible to Hill and get as many delegates in NY, NJ, MA and California. I've never seen any credible polls in the last couple of weeks indicating Obama would win those states.

    Clinton tried to win a bunch of states (none / 0) (#152)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    she lost tonight.

    Obama won either 13 or 14 states.

    If NY and NJ were big defeats for him, than IL and GA were big defeats for her, right?


    Actually...you're right! (none / 0) (#184)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:24:53 AM EST
    They were...they were delegate rich states she got beat in...

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#190)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM EST
    That's the election I'm looking forward to.

    i must disagree (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:40:41 PM EST
    i can't speak to the other states you mention, jeralyn, but calif is not a winner take all state.

    obama could get lots of delegates.

    i'm blown away by the idea being presented here at this blog that obama has been stopped.  i've never known this blog to spin, but it has definitely not been decided tonight.

    as of this writing, cnn projects that clinton has 367 delegates, and obama has 287.  considering that 2,025 are needed for the nominatin, plus the fact that obama is outraising clinton 3 to 1 in money, i'd say that it's far from over.

    let me be clear.  i am not supporting obama.  i haven't decided yet whom, if anyone, to endorse.

    i simply endorse the truth, and the truth is, hillary did not walk away with super tuesday.

    i know you guys like hillary, and to each their own, but i think you are getting ahead of yourselves here.

    You miss MY point (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    if you think you are disagreeing with me.

    Understand what I am saying before you say you disagree with it.


    We understand, but it's asinine (none / 0) (#183)
    by jr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:32:02 AM EST
    Find a calendar.  Look at the states coming up.  Look at fundraising reports from the two campaigns.  This is going to be a big month for Obama, and he's likely to erase any delegate lead within a week.  It takes a pretty myopic, fantasy-based interpretation to think that anything was put away tonight.  I know your irrational Obama-hate has basically driven the site's content for the past three months, but now you just sound dissociative.  Get ahold of yourself, and go back to being the rational jerk you've been since the early days at Big Orange--for some masochistic reason, we miss that guy.

    question (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by lepidus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:55:12 PM EST
    because I'm really confused.

    On CNN they have repeatedly said that one of McCain's biggest flaws is that he's winning in blue states, but losing in red states.

    The reverse is also the case for Obama and being described as his biggest strength.


    Good points all around (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:58:53 PM EST
    focus should be on the swing states (none / 0) (#99)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:01 AM EST
    They should talk about the states that could have gone either way in 2004 or could be in play in 2008- Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

    bad night? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:56:54 PM EST
    What a bizarre statement. Not one pundit has said anything close to this in papers, on the radio, on tv, on any major blog.

    wow (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:01:16 AM EST
    No TV pundit agrees with me so I must be wrong.

    Like the way you think.


    I assume it was a snarky joke (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM EST
    Really (4.33 / 6) (#76)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:03 AM EST
    I'm shocked, shocked that no other pundit or blogger has said that Obama had a bad night.  Usually they're so quick to say bad things about Obama and praise Clinton.  How great for Obama that they've switched to his side tonight after weeks of beating him into the ground with baseless and ridiculous criticism.  Oh, wait, that was what they did to Clinton.

    I swear the longer this goes on, the more convinced I am that Clinton is the toughest potential nominee the party has had since, well, since her husband.   Actually, I think she's tougher than her husband because on top of the Clinton hate, she also gets the misogyny.  


    and that porbably means it's true (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:48 AM EST
    and not some BS media spin

    so EVERYONE is wrong? (none / 0) (#117)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:22:55 AM EST
    Ok I'll give you that the press is tougher on HRC than it is BHO, but to a limit. To claim that the entire press corps is in the bag is insane. Not one person out there is calling this anything less than a tie. Not one is saying Obama is done. That kind of talk is a knee jerk overreaction.

    pundits? (none / 0) (#192)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:11:31 AM EST
    That's because all but about 3 pundits are rabidly for Obama. Pay attention.

    Obama never expected to win NE, or Cali (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
    My god, the spin from Big Tent! No intellectual honesty at all.

    Obama was never expected to win the northeast or Cali. Nor did he need to.

    At the end of the night, all that matters is the delegate count, which Obama may yet win.

    And oh yea, he still has more momentum, enthusiasm and hard cash than Hill.

    And oh yea, Louisiana, Virginia, and DC are coming up, which Obama should win handily.

    Seneca, his RCP had him up in Calif. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:26 AM EST
    with him winning four of the last five polls. You may not have, but a lot of people thought he would win California. Plus, people who aren't as focused on politics as we are saw nothing but Obama and his huge rallies and endorsements this week. This can't be spun as a big win for Obama though I don't think he is out of the race yet, at all.

    I cannot believe that BTD is saying this! (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST
    Everything tonite when exactly the way of expectations with one big, and one minor exception.

    CT, originally solid for Clinton, closed in the last week to tossup. And it went for Obama.

    Missouri is a big upset win for Obama.
    Oddly, it hasnt made it into many developing narratives for the night because the early returns were all from Hillary's strong areas - in fact one service actually called it for Hillary.

    But this is huge.

    Mass a hotly contested fight????
    Are you kidding me? Show me one poll that showed it close!

    NJ did have one late poll showing it close, but it was a Clinton blowout as late as a week ago, and it is prime Clinton territory. Seems pretty clear to me to be one bad poll, rather than any real contest.

    California I'll give her props for. But once again, it was only in the last week that anyone thought Obama had the slightest prayer there. Then we have had a slew of polls all over the place.

    My bottom line for the night.
    One big swing state upset for Obama, Hillary barely hangs on to lots of states she was supposed to win going away.

    Obama wins 13-14 out of 22 states. and probably wins the delegate haul for the evening.

    Sorry BTD, your take is totally nuts.

    The expectations that need to be met are (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:18:33 AM EST
    the current ones. Not last week or last month.

    Because of apportionment (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:16:46 AM EST
    Obama is far from toast. In fact, because of the proportional rules, he'll largely split those big states with Hillary, depending on the district outcomes. She failed to break 60% anywhere except AR, while Obama broke 60% in 8 of his wins. That means he'll leave those states with a more clear advantage in delegates, while Hillary will still only split with him in NY, MA, NJ, CA, etc.

    Considering all that, it's really hard to say she stopped him tonight. She did prove that she won't go quietly, but by no means did either of them end it this evening.

     If Obama wins the Chesepeake primaries big, and then picks up LA and MS, he will be very formidable, if not victorious.

    problem is (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by NJDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:18:43 AM EST
    how can BO claim to be surging when he can't win NJ, NJ, CA and MA?  HRC is much (and freakishly consistent) closer in his big win of Conn. the whole night?  Bringing up North Dakota, et al., is like Bush saying "and remember Poland."  [No offense my fellow democrats in those states].  

    The people in HRC's corner aren't going anywhere, so how will he able to make up this deficit?  It's probably best to wait until the final popular and delegate numbers are in for all the states tonight (and let's not forget America Samoa).

    HRC got 57% in NY (none / 0) (#119)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:02 AM EST
    that's hardly a resounding victory on her home turf. Also, with all the absentee voting in Cali, it was probably more of a longshot for BO than the MSM acknowledged.

    At a Obama campaign meeting in Westchester, NY (none / 0) (#144)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:46:44 AM EST
    last night, we were told that the goal was to hold Hillary to 58% of the vote or under. The goal was met in NY. Westchester County was important because the county gets six delegates instead of the usual five. We were told to hope to win Westchester County to get the three delegates instead of two. We did. The point is that no one was spinning pie in the sky scenarios of wins in California or NJ or Mass. Everyone was realistic, grounded and in it for the long haul.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#218)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    for supporting my claim. It's nice to have some validation! ;o)

    As for ND, (none / 0) (#134)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:31:28 AM EST
    Obama got more votes than all the GOP combined. That says something, even if it is only 3 electoral votes. Al Gore would have killed for those 3 votes....

    Am Samoa for Clinton (none / 0) (#143)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:46:02 AM EST
    one of the two caucus states she's won.  3 delegates.

    Obama has won most caucus states, Hillary the primaries and most of the big ones.


    LOL... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Elise on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:19:52 AM EST
    So, Hillary won where Hillary was expected to win - based on her 5 - state strategy (MA, NY, NJ, CA, and AR)... relying on her 20% national polling differential as a "buffer" to help her in a few other states - and you call that a win?


    Take a look at that map - and take a look at the margins where Obama won. He can win anywhere (including Red states), and he wins by bigger margins - showing that his supporters are MUCH more excited than hers.

    In addition - he closed a 23% advantage in MA to 14%. He closed a 20% advantage in NJ to 10%, and he kept her down in NY as well.

    She's the one begging for money in her speech tonight. She's the one begging for debates because she has no money to get her non-existent message out. And every single remaining state in Feb looks good for Obama (perhaps with the exception of LA). And so much for the "white people won't vote Obama" meme - since he whooped in MN, CO, ID, UT, etc. And he makes up ground among women and Latinos.

    Obama wins 13 states, Clinton wins 8.

    Looks to me like Obama's the one who won tonight...and it looks to me like he's poised to win most of the remaining states in Feb.

    Oh - and just so you know, he's also closed the gap in TX in the past 7 weeks - by gaining 24% on her...and he's the only candidate with offices there.

    I don't know what results you're looking at here - but Obama had a GREAT night. Clinton's the one who had a bad night.

    HRC will win the popular vote by a large margin, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:57 AM EST
    so it seems people must be listening to her "non-existant message."  Obama wins in states with high African-American populations and lily white populations.  HRC wins in states where there is great diversity among races and incomes.  Both candidates had good nights in some respects and bad nights in other respects.  I thought Obama needed to win CA, Mass, or NJ to have a knock-out punch.  And I thought HRC needed to hold her own, which she did.  And she is apparently going to win CA.  And it's basically a tie in MO, less than 1% difference.  The delegate counts won't be known for a long time so who actually "won" tonight is up for debate only.  None of us knows how this is going to play out.  

    Nice try... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Elise on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:51 AM EST
    but IL and GA and MO and MN and NM have incredibly diverse populations. And he's up in WI, WA, VA, and MD - also diverse populations.

    Hillary wins traditionally blue states where the establishment Dems come out for her. That's it. She has no organization on the ground outside of that - and she has no money to put people on the ground after tonight. Obama has people on the ground in OH, TX, and nearly every state that's coming up through March. He's sending the guy who helped him win and organize in Iowa to OH. Obama needed to tie delegates tonight in order to "win". He has momentum - he has donors who haven't maxed out, and he's got the edge in states coming up all throughout Feb. She'll go into March with wins on Feb. 5th...and maybe one or two other states throughout the rest of the month - if she's lucky.

    She goes into the remaining states with no momentum and lacking on money - not a good mix.


    Also (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:32:44 AM EST
    It should be fairly clear by now that Obama, not Clinton, is the establishment candidate...he has the establishment's "endorsement" for what its worth, while Hillary (typical to a Clinton) is reviled by said establishment

    Hi, Elise. What do you think of (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:27:01 AM EST
    this quote?  (Really pisses me off.)

    "She has ceiling issues, and the people who aren't for her we think are very available to us," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Tuesday.

    why does it piss you off? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:46:27 AM EST
    seems pretty accurate.

    When you have such an advantaged candidate, quasi-incumbent almost, who seems to everyone to be inevitable, then you can usually conclude that people who support someone else have probably first concluded that they dont want the inevitable one. So if their candidate drops out, they are much more likely to go to another alternative.

    Hillary obviously has negatives. Everyone in the entire country knows her very well. If, after 15 years in the national spotlight, you dont support her, you probably aint gonna start now.


    It pisses me off because Obama's (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:56:09 AM EST
    campaign mgr. is playiing the gender card.  As you doubtless know, "glass ceiling" is a term reserved for women striving for upward mobility.  

    gee, I missed the word "glass" (none / 0) (#216)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    if you follow the jargon of political campaigns, the term "ceiling" is a very common term for a candidate who one percieves to have obstacles to gaining more than a certain amount of support.

    I think you are either stretching for a reason to be offended, or else just not aware of the jargon of the field.


    O.K. you win. I definitely added (none / 0) (#217)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    teh word that subsequently pissed me off.  

    Don't fool yourself (none / 0) (#185)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM EST
    Clinton has a very strong ground game too...in fact it is debatable, Clinton does very strong int he primaries (GOTV) where as Obama is doing very well in the Caucuses ("Organization")...both have very strong ground games, and very strong grass roots...don't be blind to that, blindness to that is what caused Obama and supporters to be so shocked by NH

    right (none / 0) (#193)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:14:30 AM EST
    This is exactly right. Obama is winning in Red states where there are not that many Democrats and they are mostly blacks. Then he has a few Blue states where people are voting for him because they're fascinated with the idea of a black president and scared of a woman president.

    Bad Night? No. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by scatcat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    Bad night for Obama!?  Not at all.  Obama wins the majority of the primaries tonight.  He meets expectations in all of them, and exceeds in several.  The ones he loses -- CA, NY -- he was expected to lose.  At worst, he roughly splits the delegates.  He goes on from here with a huge lead in money, and with his national  recognition/approval rising rapidly, he is in a perfect position.  

    I would be far more worried if I were a Clinton supporter than I am as an Obama supporter.  Very good night, I'd argue.

    An alternative theory. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:29:38 AM EST
    BTD is Mark Penn himself (Is that crossing the line? Perhaps. Like calling someone Lucifer).

    The delicious irony of it all is that one of the candidates tonight really IS a "big tent democrat" that could haul in cross-over votes and independents and thus, I believe, secure a Democratic majority for the next eight years and beyond.

    Another candidate will doom the democrats to eight more years of partisan turmoil and marginalization.

    Hey BTD, how about supporting a real BTD!

    No Luck (none / 0) (#142)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:45:58 AM EST
    BTD has already said he supports Obama.

    Believe me, I've tried to get him to see the light and that McCain will kill Obama in a general election, but he won't be persuaded and insists on supporting Obama anyway.  


    tepid. don't forget the tepid. :) (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:48:16 AM EST
    Wow, this post is a real stretch (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by daveUSA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:13 AM EST
    It's a real stretch to say that this was a bad night for Obama.

    Obama is going up against someone with a president's name, who the country has known for at least 15 years, in a contest that was tailor made for her to win.

    Despite all this, Obama

    1. Won more states than Clinton
    2. Probably won more delegates than Clinton
    3. Won in states where Clinton was leading big recently
    4. Did better in New York than Clinton did in Illinois
    5. Won in Clinton's "backyard" (Connecticut)
    6. Virtually split the popular vote today
    7. Won late-deciding voters

    You can say that Obama didn't do as well as some of his cheerleaders hoped (in other words, he didn't win California). But it is dishonest to say that this was a bad day for him and that Clinton stopped him for good.

    After standing toe-to-toe with Clinton tonight in a virtually national primary, Obama will go on to win most of the remaining states, the nomination, and the presidency.

    Several Problems (3.66 / 3) (#147)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:50:30 AM EST
    It's not enough for Obama to do better than expected, that's not winning the nomination, it's simply doing better than expected.  And I don't even think that's true given the margins in some of the states that his "surge" was supposed to put into play.

    He didn't nearly split the popular vote.  He nearly split the popular vote before California is included.  Hillary is on track to win California by as much as one million votes.  

    Obama won Connecticut, but lost Massachusetts by a pretty good margin despite having the Kennedys, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick behind him.  It didn't matter.  All that behind him and nothing changed in Massachusetts.

    He also did not win late deciding votes.  He won voters who decided in the last three days.  Clinton won voters who decided in the last day - undecideds have been breaking for Clinton on election day fairly consistently.  


    Hillary has problems now (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by daveUSA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:00 AM EST
    Obama didn't have to win the nomination tonight. He needed to stand toe-to-toe with Clinton and keep the delegate count close, which he did.  I think the remaining primary schedule favors him.  

    Also, it doesn't make sense to imply that Obama underperformed because he didn't win places like New Jersey, Massachusetts, or California, where his "surge" was supposed to help.  These have always been Clinton states. They were only considered as "in play" during the past few days, and that was based on bad polls and the wild hopes of Obama supporters like me.  You can't set the bar that ridiculously high and then knock Obama for not reaching it.

    My question is this:  With all of her advantages, why was Clinton unable to put the race away tonight?

    If Obama were going to be stopped, this was her time to do it, and she failed.


    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:41:19 AM EST
    People act like this is the first election ever.

    1. Hillary is the front runner, the job to "knock-off" someone was Obama's. Hillary kept on track, took the delegate lead and is moving forward. Obama lost the delegate lead and failed to knock out Hillary when he had the chance...he is running from behind now, so obviously he lost that part of the "game"

    2. Clinton supporters have not raised any bar for Obama...in fact, if anything, they have continually tried to lower it with talk of the inexperience, not ready to be president, etc. etc. etc...The Obama campaign raised their bar so rediculously high, that they started spinning the night before in order to reset the playing field to something attainable. And even when they scrambled to do so, the Clinton campaign stepped out of the way, stayed mainly silent, and let them. If anyone is changing the bar, changing the criteria for what success is, it is the Obama people

    3. Any fool that took polls 3 months ago and predicted that those would  be accurate doesn't know what they are talking about. Almost to a T elections narrow to small margins by election day. ..that is WHY people campaign...to narrow the margins...so the idea that Hillary "blew" wide margins is ridiculous.

    stretch (none / 0) (#195)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:16:47 AM EST
    You forgot to say that Obama has faced no criticism from the media or the Dem establishment as they tear Clinton to pieces and she is not even allowed to defend herself. In an equal contest, he'd already be out.

    Still think it was "Obama's bad night"? (none / 0) (#219)
    by daveUSA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    Ok, it's a day later.  Do you guys really still think last night was a bad night for Obama?  For Obama, Super-Duper-Tsunami-Tuesday was at worst a draw.  And for Obama, even a draw on February 5th is a win in the long-term.  

    So the next states are Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, and Obama will likely win all three.

    Then we have the Maine caucuses, which Obama  will probably win, just like he has in all the caucus states but one.

    Next come DC, Maryland, Virginia: Obama, Obama, Obama, based on the large proportion of African-American voters in each of these.

    Then Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin. Obama will definitely win Hawaii and probably win Washington. Wisconsin will be competitive, but will Obama's momentum from all these wins sweep this state too?

    March 4th is being billed as Clinton's firewall because it includes Texas and Ohio.  But these voters will have watched almost a month of nothing but Obama wins and will have been spending that month getting to know him better. (Keep in mind there are still people who think he's a Muslim who was sworn into office on the Koran.)  All indications are that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they like him.  The same cannot be said for Hillary.

    Notice that the wheels are already falling off Clinton's campaign. She's lagging in fundraising and loaning herself money. How are things going to improve for her the rest of this month?

    Democrats across the country are going to start realizing that Hillary cannot win the general election.  She would excite Republican turnout, depress far-left turnout, and win fewer independents than any Republican nominee.  That is a recipe for defeat, and we Democrats have a responsibility to nominate the candidate who can beat a McCain-Huckabee ticket.

    BTW, I was right (above) about Obama "virtually splitting" the popular vote.


    Media Darling (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:05:44 AM EST
    So what say you now, BTD?  Are you still a tepid (heh) Obama supporter because of his media darling status?  In the last two weeks he's had the media and a large part of the Dem establishment in the tank for him and he still can't knock Clinton off.   What does that mean for his ability to beat McCain?  Sure, it's a democratic year, but should a media darling have to depend on that?  And an awful lot of the people he'll need in November are in states he lost, unless you think Dems are going to carry Idaho and Utah.

    huh? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:28:03 AM EST
    Obama had the Dem establishment?

    Hello....Hillary and Bill ARE the Dem establishment. Sheesh

    What does it mean for his ability to beat McCain?
    Gee, I dont know. Means nothing as far as I can see.

    "an awful lot of the people he'll need in November are in states he lost"

    Oh, you mean that all the people who voted for Hillary will NOT be voting for Obama, if he is the candidate? Sorry, but that is just dumb.

    IF OBama is the nominee, he will win CA, NY, NJ etc. AND some of the red states.


    BTD and kos in diametric opposition (4.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:22:24 PM EST
    I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

    One thing I think we can all agree on is that SUSA is a decent polling outfit.

    Kos is right, clearly. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:29:11 PM EST
    BTD thinks Clinton winning states she was supposed to win is a dramatic development.

    Never mind that the total looks like this:

    North Dakota

    That's thirteen, pending NM's results.

    If he wins 14-8, that's not a loss.


    Of course it is (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:50 PM EST
    go sell the he "won in Idaho and North Dakota" at daily kos.

    And Colorado and Minnesota and Missouri (none / 0) (#26)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:21 PM EST
    and Connecticut and Georgia and Illinois.

    Big, coastal states with media centers aren't the only ones that count.

    This is classic coastal liberal myopia.


    Missouri? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    Oh is it about delegates  or states now?


    Those were the key states. Obama knew they were. and so do you.

    He lost them. All, Badly.



    One Million Votes (4.50 / 2) (#57)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    There's a decent chance Clinton will beat Obama by one million votes tonight.

    To me, the most telling thing is that the voting patterns have remained the same.  He's done well in small states and caucuses and states with large African American populations.  Otherwise, Clinton tends to win.  Not always, but generally speaking that's what happens.

    Obama OWNED the last week, all the press was about his momentum and closing the gap in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California.  And it turned out to be completely untrue.  He gained a bit, but Clinton won them comfortably.  

    And Clinton may not have as much money as Obama, but she still has money and will probably raise more.  Again, not as much as Obama, but I'm not sure she needs it.  

    I'm really beginning to warm to my theory that Clinton is the media anti-toxin.  It simply doesn't matter what they say about her - it has no effect, she wins where she's supposed to win anyway.


    media anti-toxin is right (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:59:41 PM EST
    That's one of the reasons I strongly prefer her.  I want the media to be completely humiliated and stomped into submission.

    Oh, so well said. (none / 0) (#162)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:22 AM EST
    Here's blowing a kiss your way!!!

    It's delegates now but popular vote matters (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    a lot in people's minds re who can win in November.  

    (And people know that there are more cattle -- and elk and moose or something -- than people in North Dakota and Idaho. . . .)


    Sorry, but the popular vote does NOT matter ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:50:07 AM EST
    ... or Al Gore would have been elected in 2000. It's all about delegates. And in the General Election (unlike the Democratic Party primary) you have to actually win in a State to get those delegates. It does not help to be the favorite local Democrat in a whole string of little States where the Republican voters are in the majority.

    Of course it does now. Don't confuse (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:26 AM EST
    these delegates to party conventions with delegates to the Electoral College.  That's then, and we have yet to see how some of the crucial states go, such as Ohio.

    This is now, and taking the huge states now tells party leadership and potential donors (there is overlap there, of course) that Clinton could take the popular vote in November, and decisively.


    Taking the HUGE states now ... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:54:01 AM EST
    ...is significant. Especially if they are blue states. But taking a lot of little red states is not so significant. That's exactly my point. States are not all created equal, so it is meaningless to merely count states.

    To sum up -- we agree.


    Funny how neither I nor any Obama people (none / 0) (#61)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:53:31 PM EST
    I talked to expected him to win Mass or New Jersey or California.

    Your bizarre fixation with the states that Clinton NEEDED to win is hard to understand.

    Obama has a favorable calendar and a significant fundraising advantage.

    Obama split the delegates today with her.  She is the one who needed to do better than that.


    Geek I think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by hookfan on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:10:59 AM EST
    I think it's very even right now. Obama did better than expected. The result I fear is it's going to the convention. Somebody better start now sorting that out.

    I never read any credible reports that (none / 0) (#133)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:12 AM EST
    Obama would win California, NJ or Mass. He was always behind. The goal was to close the gap in those states and pick up as many delegates as possible.

    Oh please, (none / 0) (#198)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:24:54 AM EST
    don't talk to Hillary supporters about "liberal myopia." I think we've seen that aimed against our candidate from day one. Don't like a taste of your own medicine? And of course, if you don't like it you could go to one of hundreds of blogs that are all Obama all the time.

    It's the delegates, not the states (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
    With California called for Hillary, and NY, NJ, Mass and AZ, it's a bigger win for Hillary.

    Delegate count will be fairly close. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:32 PM EST
    Obama had blowout wins in MN, CO, KS, GA, and IL.

    Clinton doesn't get every delegate from CA.


    I disagre with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:35 PM EST
    that it is about delegates.

    Now unlike the Great Orange Satan, I did not change my criteria because Obama lost by that criteria. that was the Great Orange Satan.

    But I am the bad pundit.

    And the thing is you look ridiculous defending this "California is unimportant" talk,


    Clinton was SUPPOSED to win (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:50:15 PM EST

    If she lost California, she was toast.

    If she lost New Jersey, she was toast.

    She held her serve, for the most part.  

    The deck was stacked in her favor tonight.  The rest of the month is stacked in his favor.

    You give her credit for doing what she needed to do.


    Clinton Is SUPPOSED to be the nominee (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:54:15 PM EST
    Look maybe I am wrong, but this is what I think.

    I was not kidding with my prediction this morning.

    I was expecting to be writing a post tonight urging Hillary Clinton to withdraw. that she does not deserve the treatment she has gotten from so called loyal Democrats.

    It is what I expected.


    Well that is the bottom line then (none / 0) (#105)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:18:17 AM EST
    Your nutty assessment is all about the fact that you had pretty bizarre expectations this morning, and you judge the result against that.

    Here in the real world, Clinton underperformed tonite, by losing CT and MO.

    And Chuck Todd's estimate is that Obama wins the delegate haul (ok, by 4 dels :) ).

    Try to make an assessment on the actual race, not your mistaken expectations.


    Look, (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:46 AM EST
    There is still a long way to go. But there is one thing.  At this late stage of the game, could we please stop the expectation crap?? So if Clinton was expected to win 22 states, and she won 20, you'd declare victory??

    At some point, this is about the big leagues, and about looking the part of the job.  You better act like grown ups who are in the final.  This is about more delegates and more votes, pure and simple.  

    And yes, thanks BTD.  Clinton does not deserve the treatment she gets from the democratic establishment after all she did for them, and the crap she put up with for their sakes.  What asses, pardon the expression.


    so, who won more delegates, mr. grown up? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:01 AM EST
    Seems to be Obama.

    Clinton survived tonight, but she did not prevail. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:26:43 AM EST
    The problem is now she has a better funded opponent who will enjoy almost a month of building momentum and who will be accumulating delegates faster than her.

    And, now what happens on the Super-delegate count if Gore says it's time to rally around Obama.


    if your guy (none / 0) (#139)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:39:57 AM EST
    had one burning issue that made it some moral imperative to keep going despite the fact that he's not going to win, that would be one thing.

    but preserving his own momentum is not a moral issue.

    the longer he stays in, the more integrity he loses.

    this election is not about him.

    it is about unseating the republicans in washington and breaking their death grip on the people of this country.

    obama is in the way of fighting that battle.  his candidacy distracts from the real issues.

    momentum is not an issue and it is not a sufficient reason for him to stay in.  

    your reasoning is childish.


    repeat after me, gore will never ever ever say (none / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:53:45 AM EST
    he endorses obama and neither will edwards. next

    California was important (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
    Because if Obama won CA tonight, Clinton was toast.  It was a tie tonight. It was a tie going into tonight. Obama has a favorable schedule and Hillary has Dem. machine superdelegate connections with MI and FL hanging out there.

    And MSNBC just called MO for Obama.


    You see (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:55:31 PM EST
    that is not how it works.

    His MO is dead, never to be resurrected.

    Despite the attempts of his allies in the Media.

    there is nothing left for him now but losing the nomination.

    And then becoming the VP candidate,


    MO is Mizzou, not momentum (none / 0) (#101)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:55 AM EST
    The media isn't treating this like a defeat (none / 0) (#130)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:27:55 AM EST
    for him.

    So why would that kill his momentum?

    Also, you don't think winning seven states in a row is going to build momentum for him.


    Kos is talking from his heart (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    The idea that this is a HUGe night for Obama is  simply an embarrassment for him.

    This was a bad night for Obama and the faces of Obama and Axelrod showed it.

    They thought they had a shot to finish her. They missed their shot.

    they will not get another.


    Have you looked at the rest of the (4.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:06 PM EST
    calendar in February?

    Obama could very well run the table between now and March 4.

    Clinton is out of money, and tonight was HER chance to put Obama away.  She didn't.


    Link? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
    She raised less than BO, but I don't think she's even close to being broke

    Clintons cut off media freebies (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:06 AM EST
    and made them start paying their way on the campaign, a couple of weeks ago.  And media darn well deserved it.

    But that began the media spin that the Clinton campaign is broke.  It's pi**sed-off media b.s.


    broke (none / 0) (#189)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:07:11 AM EST
    One of the news sites headlined how much she took in during January, it was significant.

    He's just being the anti-Kos (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:47 PM EST
    The most accurate assessment is on Open Left where this thing is going to be a mess decided by superdelegates with a civil war over FL & MI.

    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:38:43 PM EST
    unlike Kos, I did not change my criteria after seing the results.

    I said this would be the result - one way or the other.

    Indeed, I EXPECTED it would be Obama delivering the KO blow tonight.


    Consistency does not matter if (none / 0) (#69)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    your premise was wrong in the first place. MSNBC is projecting a 4 delegate win for Obama tonight.  Obama's fundraising will continue to pour in, he's got a ton of time to carpetbomb Texas Ohio and Pennsylvania with organizers and ads, and he is going to crush the rest of this month.  He had big mo' going in which was reflected in the caucus states where there was no early voting.  1/3 of the ballots in CA were early voting from when Clinton was crushing.  Kos was wrong, your wrong. Nobody can pretend to know where this is going.

    NBC is a joke (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:08:36 AM EST
    I do not believe a word they say.

    Nor do I care.


    Will Obama be for disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:39:23 PM EST
    of the MI and FL voters? Probably, but it will kill him to flip-flop on principle so baldly.

    And? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:37:37 PM EST
    that will mean nothing now.

    there is no mo. There is no more spin. there is winning.

    He will NOT win Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania.

    It is over.


    texas has over 200 delegates. (none / 0) (#44)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:42:39 PM EST
    her numbers here in texas are very good.

    BTD California (none / 0) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:45:39 PM EST
    I am nervous about California, the first votes are always the absentees...am I right to be nervous?  

    No (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:56:02 PM EST
    OPEN the champagne... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:13 AM EST
    This spinning the money is getting old (none / 0) (#125)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:25:14 AM EST
    Clinton ending cash per FEC 12/31/07 - $37,947,874
    January contributions                   13,500,000
    Cash on hand                            51,447,874

    Obama ending cash per FEC 12/31/07  -  $18,626,248
    January contributions                   32,000,000      
    Cash on hand                            50,626,248

    And how do they compare on disbursements for the entire election cycle?
    Obama   $85,176,289
    Clinton $80,353,785

    I don't see much difference between the two campaigns on funds.  How much do you think that Super Bowl ad cost Obama?  


    Obama win (none / 0) (#199)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:27:36 AM EST
    If he's in such good shape then why was his speech sour grapes and hers was gracious? Just like Dubya, a sore winner. Don't need another one of those.

    I respect your opinion a lot (as you know) (none / 0) (#153)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:01 AM EST
    and I am a huge Clinton fan.  But I still think the road ahead is tough for her (and for Obama; it's a slug from here).  What makes you think that Clinton won big?

    She had a good night.  Of course, my personal view is that she is amazing to be where she is, despite the press she is getting (perhaps even worse than Al Gore got in GE2000, and that's saying something).  Don't forget also, the democratic establishment seems determined to stop her this year.  Despite that, she is getting votes!!


    lol, exactly the opposite. Don't you wish BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:26:50 PM EST
    could cross post this there?

    Speeches (4.00 / 4) (#126)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:25:26 AM EST
    I think the difference tonight wasn't just in how they looked when they gave their speeches, it's what they said.  Clinton not only looked radiant (if tired), she didn't really attack Obama - that's someone who feels like a frontrunner.  Obama went after Clinton, that's not what someone who thinks he's the frontrunner does.  Also, apparently his campaign is spinning the number of states and the money differential - that doesn't sound so confident to me either.  

    The delegate spin coming out from NBC and the Obama campaign worries me a bit, because I've worried all along that the delegate winner won't be the popular vote winner, but so far the Obama campaign and candidate aren't acting like winners.  They're acting like people still trying to figure out how to grind Hillary down.  And we still have to deal with Florida and Michigan (two other big states Clinton won and, no, I don't care that Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot, that was his choice).  It'll be tomorrow or later before we know the delegates from tonight and even longer before we know about Michigan and Florida.

    duel (none / 0) (#204)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:33:45 AM EST
    I think Obama knows he's the creature of the Dem Establishment in D. C. because they desperately don't want a woman and the thought of a strong woman president has them up nights. I believe these old dinosaur men in the Dem Party asked themselves "Who could beat Hillary." The answer: a black man. No one can criticize him or it's racism and the Democratic Party itself dredged up the old Republican smears on the Clintons to hurt her.

    This is what Democrats do that is the dark underbelly of this party. Never forget that Bill Clinton could not have been impeached if 13 Democrats hadn't voted with the Republicans, but Democrats don't feel loyalty to their own. Democratic men don't have a vision for the country, they look ahead to what will keep them in their seat.


    Well (4.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:15:35 AM EST
    Let me go on record as saying I think this overstates the case quite a bit.

    Did we not learn our lesson about proclaiming the race over after Iowa?  There's a lot that still can happen.

    Obama wins in loser red states (3.66 / 3) (#94)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:10:28 AM EST
    Clinton wins in swing states where Dems can win the general.  The lying MSNBC never tells anyone that all those small states with tiny populations that Obama won were either caucuses or primaries in RED states that will never go Democratic.  She won in states where Dems can possibly win in the general, like Tenn. Arizona (where the Democratic governor supported Obama).  In Missouri, where she barely lost...Claire McCaskill and many high profile Democrats supported Obama, plus he spent over $300,000 more in ads.  

    Why do these people lie to us?...Why does it matter what happened in Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Alabama, Georgia,Kansas...they will never go Democratic..MSNBC is worse than Fox.

    This is the key -- those states won't count ... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:03:31 AM EST
    ... in the General Election. And this is exactly why there is so much support for Obama. It is a campaign being orchestrated behind the scenes by those who prefer to run against him as the Democratic candidate.

    And even if he wins the elecion, as President he will be much easier to work with than Hillary would be, because his need to prove himself as a "unifier" will make him more amenable to compromises. So supporting Obama against Clinton is a win-win proposition for anyone on the right.


    Dem turnout (none / 0) (#108)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:19:27 AM EST
    was higher in GA tonight, so unless the GOP really coalesces, it's not a fairy tale to think that the Dems can win here. ATL is half the state, and it's heavily Democrat.

    IMO (3.33 / 3) (#163)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:08:46 AM EST
    the states that Obama won, are traditionally Red states and his win probably was helped in part by republicans crossing the aisle, which might not happen in the GE...and we rarely if ever win those states anyway.....but Hillary won the traditionally blue states...which means the traditional dems went for her in a rather large way...do you agree BTD??

    Yes! (none / 0) (#208)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    That what's great about Clinton for Democrats, she has the support of traditional Democrats, she's espousing the values and policies that Democrats want. That's why I'm for her, that and the fact that when Bill Clinton was in office, he delivered. In my lifetime, I can't think of another president who did that.

    This is horrid punditry (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:25:36 PM EST
    You think New Jersey is a great victory?

    You apparently are the only person who thinks Clinton was supposed to lose NJ, CA, and MA.

    There were 22 states tonight.  Obama won most of them.

    And he will win most of the states this month.

    Clinton winning three states that she was supposed to win is not a crushing victory.

    Obama won the vast open spaces of (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:01 PM EST
    Kansas and North Dakota.. are we going to compare square miles the way the Republicans did in the last few elections? Get real.
    Clinton delivers big wins in big states, except for IL.

    Obama is playing the Bush map (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:56 PM EST
    it's kinda funny, actually.

    Bush map? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:35:15 PM EST
    It's that willingness to write off half the country that has made the Democrats a party of Presidential losers for an entire generation.

    There you go again! (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
    Count people and not square miles, ok?

    I doubt Jeralyn would argue that states (none / 0) (#45)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:42:57 PM EST
    like Colorado should be irrelevant.

    and Georgia (none / 0) (#115)
    by kid oakland on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:21:37 AM EST
    and Missouri.

    Also, count the votes in CA, give them time, esp. regarding delegates.


    Despite Blogosphere Spin - Hillary Has Momentum (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by cdalygo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:26 AM EST
    Obama won Georgia by a huge margin as expected. But MO was basically a tie despite all of Obama's  endorsements.

    The only thing Obama gets out of MO is a comeback theme based on the media's incompetence in calling it early. However, even the media wasn't that far off on the popular vote. Moreover the Obama campaign would have issued the same press release.

    Delegate counts are important to final outcome but so is narrative of popular vote. Several of us are still really pissed that Florida's voters don't count. Please don't tell me that those voters didn't know Obama when they voted.

    BTD is right -- Hillary will likely carry the big states of Ohio, Penn and Texas. Both Ohio and Penn have high concentrations of rural and union voters. Please don't forget too that Texas not only has high Hispanic population but also Asian. (Disclaimer: my partner is an Asian American raised in Texas and she leaped at chance to vote for Hillary.)

    What Hillary needs to focus on now is getting out to voters without the media/blogosphere in front of her. I know she won me and my partner over by just being herself It will be interesting to see if Obama ducks the debates.


    CNN reported 49% BO, 48% HRC, with the (none / 0) (#166)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:12:41 AM EST
    delegate count:

    HRC - 15

    BO - 6

    So much for "winning" MO.


    hold on, now (none / 0) (#191)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:11:15 AM EST
    When he "won" Nevada with one more delegate, that mattered.  Hilary "winning" with seven more delegates is petty and ungracious and she should be ashamed.

    What a crock (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:50:14 PM EST
    You know how many days Obama will spend in Idaho in a GE?

    ZERO, Go back to daily kos for your kool aid.

    I was REALLY expecting to declare this race tonight - FOR OBAMA.

    I thought he was going to win California.

    He did not. He lost all the big ones.

    He LOST tonight. It is over.


    I did not expect him to win CA. Or NJ. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    Or MA.  

    The problem is that you had unreasonable expectations.  

    I know people who were working on the ground in CA.  and in NJ.  None of them expected him to win those states.


    Then your problem (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:06:32 AM EST
    is with the Obama campaign letting that expectation come into being.

    Only you and Chris Matthews expected him (none / 0) (#122)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM EST
    to win Massachusetts.

    Cue Aravosis

    Hillary has always been ahead in Massachusetts. She's been ahead for 14 months. She was 11 points ahead only 2 days ago. For the pundits - especially Chris Matthews - to keep trumpeting Hillary's victory in Massachusetts as an "upset", as though she was expected to lose, is absurd. Yes, she won - and kudos to her for that. But it was expected for the past 14 months. A good week after Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama, Hillary was still up by 11 points. Was there some thought that Obama might upset Hillary and take the state? Yes. But not losing a sure thing does not an upset make. It's just not an upset when you win a state you were expected to win for over a year

    By the way, no comment on Clinton losing CT in her own backyard?


    Are you a Democrat? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    and WJC was president for 8 years...40% of a generation...

    Ach (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:41:25 PM EST
    When all else fails, go with latte libel.

    If the coffee mug fits. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST
    Dismissing states like Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado just because they're not on the coasts is not justifiable by any measure of logic.

    I do not dismiss them (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:51:21 PM EST
    they simply are not as important as California NJ and Mass.

    ON ONE disagreed with me this morning on that.

    Tim Russert sure did not. Or KO.

    I am sure they are walking it all bakc now.



    Those were chances for him to knock her out. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:56:48 PM EST
    They were not chances to knock him out.

    He was never ahead in New Jersey.  Or Massachusetts.  Clinton had the local machines in those states, which is more important than top-down endorsements.

    Can you name a single state that Clinton won tonight that she wasn't favored to win ten days ago?


    You Did Say (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:10:28 AM EST
    That MA was very important this morning, and that Obama would win CA based on a poll.

    I think Massachusetts will be the first real indicator of the night.

    oh for the love of all that is holy! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:17:03 AM EST
    Yesterday, we were talking about Zogby polls showing an Obama sweep.  Now, people are saying that no one expected him to win the big states.  This past weekend, with the Oprah-Maria-Michelle trifecta, people were  saying California was a lock.  The same people who railed against Bush for working the electoral college are now making excuses for Obama losing the popular vote.  "He won Alaska!" is fast becoming, "You forgot Poland."

    Then, people started saying Hillary was out of money.  Then, someone showed that, actually, she has about the same on hand as he does (and I would like to add that anyone who thinks Obama will continue to raise 30mm a month going forward is on something that must be highly illegal)  The point is that even with all that money, he didn't get the big states.

    We are wasting time and money here.  We need these war chests to be spent on fighting republicans.  Obama needs to take the VP slot.  Dean needs to strongarm him if he has to.

    I am going to watch ABC tonight and see what George Snuffaluffagus has to say about his "Obama must take at least two of the three following states: MO, CA and NJ" to keep his momentum going.

    We'll see what he says now.

    And if I hear one more time "Obama won more states" I am going to go apesh*t.  If Clinton was saying it, they'd be calling her pathetic.


    He wins where Democrats are afraid (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:30 AM EST
    of Republicans.

    Obama won by less than 10,000 combined (none / 0) (#51)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:45:53 PM EST
    votes in Idaho and ND by lost by close to 300,000 in CA.

    I wondered, reall y I did (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:28:12 PM EST
    what you would think.

    No I did not. you think is was a Huge Night For Obama no doubt.

    It is over. Tonight.

    It may take us to Pennsylvania but it is over.


    This is the worst punditry I have ever (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:30:51 PM EST
    seen in my life.

    Obama wins 13 or 14 states out of 22, including every state he was supposed to win, and you declare the race over.

    You apparently don't think states in Fly-Over Land count.  

    Seriously, this is embarrassingly bad on your part.


    I say it is over (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:33 PM EST
    because I BELIEVE it is over.

    "wins every state he was supposed to" is the flip side of "Hillary is inevitable."

    So tell me, was it a HUGE night for Obama?


    Well, you think he had to knock her out. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:18 PM EST

    She had to knock him out.

    She had all of her big guns going tonight.


    She was the front runner (none / 0) (#28)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:42 PM EST
    and now she has expanded her delegate lead (counting Super Delegates)...the onus of a knock-out punch was on BO...not HRC

    How many more delegates did Clinton win? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:47:12 PM EST
    I am not counting super-delegates as delegates 'won.'  Given that there are hundreds waiting to wade in, premature to count them.

    Also, if one candidate wins on pledged delegates but another wins because of super-delegates, the party will deserve the desertions and humiliation in November it will suffer.


    So far she's 55 ahead (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:50:13 PM EST
    This doesn't count AZ, CA, MO (she may have won the delegate count here despite the popular vote), etc...

    Obama wins the nights delegate haul (none / 0) (#120)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:11 AM EST
    by 4 delegates.

    Or at least that is Chuck Todd's estimate.
    Wont have final numbers till tomorrow PM most likely.


    That's good night for Obama. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:09:25 AM EST
    He'll pile up delegates leading up to Texas and Ohio.

    Then we'll see how that turns out.


    How is he supposed to beat her now? (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:40 PM EST
    Even by the delegate standard, where is the majority going to come from?

    How many delegates did Clinton (none / 0) (#30)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM EST
    win tonight?

    Obama got more of an advantage from IL than Clinton did from NY.

    Obama has Hawaii, Wisconsin, Maryland, DC, Washington, Louisiana, and Virginia coming up this month.


    the party is not (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01:51 AM EST
    going to nominate the person who lost

    new york
    new jersey

    over the person that won them.  not going to happen.


    I made it to the Clinton party tonight (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:02 AM EST
    through the snow -- heading for more than a foot of it where I am in Wisconsin.  This is the second or third time I've seen you just assume this state is going for Obama.  What is your basis for that?

    No recent polls have been done . . . and Clinton has Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Lawton, and other leading people with her here.  And this is one of the top states for women's voting participation.  The others are just catching up to us now, with their turnouts this year.  

    So no matter the weather two weeks from now for the Wisconsin primary -- and it has been a bad winter for big snowfalls, plus a tornado here, too, a couple of weeks ago, which never happens in January -- we will be at the polls.  So what do you know about Wisconsin that makes you keep saying it will go for Obama?


    Delegates (none / 0) (#25)
    by rilkefan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:35:42 PM EST
    You need a delegate-based argument.

    If Obama comes out of tonight with a tie, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:39:26 PM EST
    that helps him.  The February calendar is favorable to him.

    Even the Clinton campaign has conceded it.

    Acting like winning New Jersey was a big deal is a joke.


    Now you've gone from (none / 0) (#41)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:41:09 PM EST
    "Huge night for Obama" to "hope for a tie"

    I never said "huge night for Obama." (none / 0) (#48)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:45:18 PM EST
    BTD was the one laboring under the idea that Obama had to knock Clinton out or concede.

    You are consistent here (none / 0) (#111)
    by hookfan on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:20:04 AM EST
    You stated he needed to be within or at least close to 100 delegates behind. Did he make it?

    States are equal only in the Senate (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:16:56 AM EST
    and Obama is not taking on Clinton in the Senate now.

    It's not about winning the big, wide-open spaces states, either, where there are more cattle than people.

    Clinton won the big-population states, she won the popular vote, and people look at that to gauge how we can do in November.  

    She did great work tonight.  He did well -- and he has helped to change the future of this country with its horrible racial history.  But she did great -- and is helping to change the future of this country with its horrible gender history, too.

    It is a night to be proud of how Dems did.  A 96-year-old woman I know, a Republican for most of a century, said she would be voting for the Dem this time -- because "all those Republican men are just weak."  

    She will be 97 by November.  Let's hope she and all those who watched Dems tonight are still with us.  That is the great work we must do now.


    Go my vote! (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:37 PM EST
    I wish the Democrats (3.00 / 2) (#123)
    by g8grl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:47 AM EST
    had winner take all delegates in all of these states.  With Hillary taking all of the big ones, this race would be over by a huge margin.

    Refreshing To See (3.00 / 1) (#136)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:19 AM EST
    The other side of the coin back at TL.  Obamaniacs are a nice counter for the Clintonistas even though they sound just as high.  

    Kindly allow me to agree with BTD (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:51:58 PM EST
    He will not win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  I don't see a victory without them.

    A split decision tonight and I imagine they will be very close in delegate count.

    Why can't he win them? (none / 0) (#116)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:22:05 AM EST
    OH TX and PA are over a month away with Obama having a ton of resources and likely wins later this month to build on.

    TX is solid Clinton now (none / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:52:06 AM EST
    and I just don't see that changing.  People here are not big on amorphous rhetoric.  Even Bush didn't try that when he ran for governor.  A large Latino vote will also come out for Clinton in TX.

    In PA, the governor and his apparatus is behind Clinton and is pretty powerful.  If you noticed the NJ results tonight, she kicked butt in the Philadelphia suburbs in NJ.

    Ted Strickland is one endorsement which will matter as the extremely popular governor of Ohio.  He's solidly in Clinton's camp and has 60% popularity even among republicans in Ohio.

    That's for starters.


    BTD is on the take (2.00 / 4) (#113)
    by almondwine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:20:59 AM EST
    I am now completely convinced that TalkLeft is on the Clinton campaign payroll.  Obama losing tonight because he lost three states that everybody except Zogby and some whacko exit polls expected him to lose?  You've got to be kidding me.

    It's time for some intellectual honesty now, BTD.  It's time that you admit that you are blogging Mark Penn's talking points the moment you get them.

    I can assure you (4.20 / 5) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:32:18 AM EST
    TalkLeft is not on any candidate's payroll.

    sorry (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:28:52 PM EST
    but if the hype was true, NJ and CA were in reach for BO, and that just isn't so.  MA, forget about it.  I'm curious about the delegates, but this is a good night for HRC (especially considering the MSM/MCM was against her, and by association, her husband).  The people have spoken.

    Now it is not so (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:16 PM EST
    this morning it was.

    Please stop it.


    Ted Kennedy... (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:38:56 PM EST
    Now that was sweet for Mass.  they told him, the torch is not yours to pass.  

    yup just like they did when the repubs (none / 0) (#50)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:45:52 PM EST
    and media tried to beat the clintson down during the clinton administration. the people never bought that bull.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#43)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:42:18 PM EST
    I don't know what you mean by "contested".  According to pollster.com, almost all the polls showed Clinton ahead in those states.  The only exceptions are Zogby in CA, and one massive outlier in MA.

    I also saw a report saying Clinton outspent Obama by  about 3 to 1 in MA, so it's hardly contested by that definition either.

    I do agree that both candidates fought heavily for votes in CA.  But I don't think Obama's campaign really expected to win there -- I know I certainly didn't -- but there are enough delegates that claiming a bigger piece of the pie is worth fighting for.

    That is just false (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    I hope you know it is false.

    But if you do not, then I am fairly sure you do not want to know the truth about it.


    Which part is false? (none / 0) (#82)
    by muffie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:42 AM EST
    The polls, which you can look at yourself, and are as I cited?

    Or the claim about spending, which according to the Times' "blog":

    Here's a hint about Mrs. Clinton's strong showing in Mass. She way outspent Mr. Obama on television. Per the Campaign Media Analysis Group: She ran 309 spots, costing $65,000, compared with 120 spots by Mr. Obama, who spent $27,000. That spending in Massachusetts is from Jan. 2007 through Feb. 3, 2008.

    That's about 2.5 to 1, so I was slightly off, but I don't think that's the source of your disagreement.

    For one thing...it is false (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:26:38 AM EST
    that Obama's people didn't really expect to win California.  They did expect to...by bringing out all the big guns to California for the final slog there...Oprah, Caroline, Teddy, Maria fer Chrissakes...they went for it and it fell pretty flat.  Too little, too late.  Timing was off in my view.

    CW narrative (none / 0) (#65)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:55:39 PM EST
    The headlines are all focusing on how close the race is for Dems, how they've split the wins, what a dogfight it's still going to be. That can only be a bad night for She Who Was Supposed To Be Inevitable.

    Not So Sure About That (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:59:32 PM EST
    Anytime the media doesn't say Clinton lost or Obama rocks, it's pretty good media for her.   Frankly, the fact that they are NOT saying that strengthens BTD's argument that Clinton won the night.  With the exception of some bloggers, nobody would like to bury Clinton more than the media.

    Spin away... :) (none / 0) (#77)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:04 AM EST
    Does not matter (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:16 AM EST
    Obama had to finish her tonight - now it is back to Hillary the frontrunner etc.

    People have this backwards. They think Obama can win in the long run. He won't. He needed to win tonight.

    Winning Virginia is not a mo thing anymore.

    And Obama will not get big mo to "close the gap" in Ohio, Texas or Pennsylvania.

    there are no more Mo events.

    The race is over.


    There are 7-8 more races left this month. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:55 AM EST
    Obama can pound her with ads now and start accumulating a delegate lead going into those states.

    You are too impatient.  Why would a candidate ahead in pledged delegates, with more money, and with a favorable schedule think the race is over?


    obama can (none / 0) (#161)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:12 AM EST
    continue to spend his millions.

    and attack the frontrunner.

    and divide the party.

    yes, he can continue to do that and no one can stop him.

    but what he loses in integrity for doing so he may never get back.  

    it's a big gamble for him to take and i don't think you are seeing the whole picture.

    again i ask you, why is it so important that he stay in the race?  what is he trying to accomplish at this point since its clear he cannot win the nominiation?


    You're not (none / 0) (#172)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:30:04 AM EST
    Haley Barbour, are you?

    Seems more like (none / 0) (#102)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:16:45 AM EST
    she had to knock him out tonight, if anything. He's always been the underdog. Just hanging in is winning for the underdog.

    But I admire your willingness to go out on a limb. May you be very very wrong.


    Most pundits have maintained that tonight would (none / 0) (#140)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:41:49 AM EST
    not be a definitive win for either Obama or Hillary and that the fight would go on after tonight. Seems like most pundits were right.

    An outsider's view (none / 0) (#180)
    by Maggie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:52:08 AM EST
    Well, if you are right, then I have a real problem.  I have a weird mix of views that make me neither liberal nor conservative (or even, really moderate).  So for me 'meta' matters more than positions.  Anyway, my 'meta' this year is I want the Republicans out.  But I also want to move away from the type of political gamesmanship that we have 'enjoyed' in the Bush/Clinton era.

    So my problem is that the Republicans, who I really don't want to vote for, are about to nominate a guy who really bugs their base and who is therefore primed to shake things up in that party.  The Democrats, who I really do want to vote for, are about to nominate a gal who completely embodies the Bush/Clinton era and the status quo.

    So if you're right, thanks a lot.  I'd have much rather voted both for the Democrats and a break from the old political order.  So I've tossed off a check to Obama in order to stave off yet another miserable November of voting for the lesser of two evils.  (Which as of tonight would be McCain for me.)


    What on (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:25:53 AM EST
    earth are you talking about? nice spin
    Split delegates, wins MO, i gave money tonight.  She didn't seal the deal.  nice spin though we WIN!!!!

    In your fevered dreams! (none / 0) (#154)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:12 AM EST
    It cracks me up (none / 0) (#213)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    to see the argument that the guy who lost on Super Tuesday is very unlikely to win the nomination labeled as 'spin'.

    Did people learn nothing from the Kennedys? (none / 0) (#150)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:55:05 AM EST

    i think the only mo obama had was in the (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:07 AM EST
    fantasies of the media.

    Ummm (none / 0) (#182)
    by jarober on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:38:27 AM EST
    Given proportional allocation of delegates, the thin wins Hillary got are effectively ties in the delegate race.  I think I can summarize your analysis thusly:

    "No one told me there would be math"

    that (none / 0) (#206)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:44:03 AM EST
    is offensive.

    Hillary's Big Night (none / 0) (#188)
    by LadyDiofCT on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:43:06 AM EST
    I am so proud of this outstanding woman.  In spite of all the Hillary bashing, and Obamamaniacs in the media, she pulls this one  out big!  This night was huge.  She wins MA and basically sticks it to the Kennedy's and the Obama's.   Then she wins CA, with an open primary, Indies, and crossovers.  You'll hear all the spin showing Obama and his movement, but if you ask me there is another movement going on.   Women for Hillay.  I am so proud of my sistas, (and all my brothers too) ready to change this country with a workhorse president, not a showhorse president.

    Yes! (none / 0) (#205)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    What stinks in this election is that we have the first ever woman candidate for President and she's eminently qualified and beloved but we don't hear a peep about that from the party or the media. Very Telling. I'm waaaay disappointed in her women colleagues in D. C. for not coming out strong in her favor.

    We all made a huge big deal about Nancy Pelosi being the first Speaker of the House, but no one is acknowledging Hillary's accomplishment. I don't think the Democrats can claim the distinction of being the party for equal rights for women anymore.  


    So expand your theory out for us (none / 0) (#194)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:16:40 AM EST
    What happens on Sat in LA, NE, and WA?

    What happens on the 12th in VA, MD, DC?

    When does it finally become obvious that he should  drop out?  

    big win (none / 0) (#197)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:23:01 AM EST
    Obama didn't actively campaign in California? His people were saying that after his rallies there, he had that state wrapped up. It's actually kind of funny that in the two states where the Kennedy's endorsed Obama, Clinton won. Maybe they should have just kept quiet. Maybe it's the Kennedy legacy that's taken a dive, not the Clintons.

    Does this mean (none / 0) (#201)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:29:08 AM EST
    you're dropping your support for him?

    I think BTD has (none / 0) (#202)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:29:10 AM EST
    persuaded me to believe that Obama's momentum was stopped.

    What we will probably see now is some of the media turning away from him, and looking into some things that he has done: the heinous healthcare mailer.  Michelle saying she would not support Hillary.  Obama lying about getting the nuclear bill passed.  Obama lying about Hillary's healthcare plan.  Oh, and let me throw this in for Stellaaa...Rezko trial starts at the end of this month.

    Whether or not the Clintons put this out there (though, no idea how they would, considering the media is so rabidly against) remains to be seen.  John Edwards could certainly come out on the healthcare stuff.

    I also don't hold our much hope for the attention span of the average college kid, especially if their state already voted and lost/won for Obama.  What is their incentive now?  No one is going to be throwing parties for them.  They will go back into their dorms, steal music and eat pizza.

    All delegates get 1 vote at the Convention, (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:32:16 AM EST
    whether from California, Connecticut, American Samoa, or Bill.

    At the end of the season Jimmy Carter's going to decide the nominee.

    the most hilarious (none / 0) (#209)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:47:07 AM EST
    aspect of the whole Super Tuesday is that Hill won MA! I love it.

    I can always count on CL (none / 0) (#210)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:47:23 AM EST
    to have the most bizarre pro-Hillary spin.

    So Obama had to crush Hillary in the big delegate states last night in order to have a chance?  

    So even though neither candidate is even HALF WAY to reaching the necessary delegate totals, Hillary has already won?  That is impressive rationalizing, even for this site.

    Just out of curiosity why do you think he won't have another shot?  Because he is going to lose in PA in 2 months?  Or because of her decisive 76 delegate lead?  

    At this point the most likely thing to occur is a brokered convention.  Trying to convince yourself that last night was a big win for Clinton is just plain silly.

    And no I don't think it was a big win for Obama.  I think that it was a draw which should play well for Obama given the next 10 races.  But I don't see how this gets settled before the convention.  Over half the states have voted, and most of the big ones have already voted.  So unless one of the candidates really builds up steam it seems unlikely that they could get enough delegates to settle this beforehand.

    Considering the last two prez elections were fixed (none / 0) (#214)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    I think we should all maintain a very circumspect view.  Reality is, not one of us has any reason, none, to trust that our votes were acurately counted.  Until the votes are secure and counted with verifiable accuracy, we are all de-facto fools.  

    Count all the votes by hand in a massive act of citizenry.  We should all be checking each other's work.

    I pulled the lever, as BTD did, tepidly for Obama.  But I had no faith that pulling it would mean my vote went for him.  It's a disgraceful state of affairs that we still seem to be in a significant amount of denial about.

    That said, California congrats to Hillary (none / 0) (#215)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:57:30 AM EST
    I do admire her thick skin.  Too bad I can't say congrats with any basis in electoral security.

    But she SEEMS to have won Caliornia by a wide margin, barring an absentee ballot miracle.  But, wink wink, electoral miracles are what America is about these days.  Just as Dubya.