home

The Kennedys' Bad Night

By Big Tent Democrat

While we can reasonably wrangle about what the meaning of the Super Tuesday results were for Clinton and Obama, I think we all can agree that it was not a good night for the Kennedy endorsers of Obama, especially Ted Kennedy and Maria Shriver.

Despite polls showing Obama with a reasonable chance of winning Massachusetts and California, and with the Media in a Kennedy frenzy, Obama took a sound beating in both MA and CA. And I do not think Ted Kennedy helped Obama in Alaska, Idaho and Utah.

< Obama IS The Candidate Of The Establishment | Obama Goes Negative >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't know that it matters that much (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    to the average voter - MSNBC, Fineman, I think, noted that the "damage" to the Kennedy brand was more an "inside the Village" thing because the endorsement brings with it more publicity than votes.  He opined the more effective endorsement was the one-on-one "I like this candidate better" discussions and contact an undecided voter gets from people the undecided voter knows.

    In the meantime, let's talk about the questions I raise here.

    wrong again (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    Its about money and momentum and raw delegate counts. The Kennedy's are huge in helping Obama with credibility in traditional dem circles. It wasn't about MA and CA. Look at pollster.com and see how large a gap needed to be erased. The Kennedy endorsement is about blue collar and woman votes across the nation. It is about credibility and integrity inside elite dem circles. The Kennedy endorsement says : its ok to turn away from the Clintons. You will be alright. Its about superdelegates. Its not about MA or CA.

    Comedy gold (none / 0) (#6)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    Women support Clinton over Obama by large margins. But that's not a loss for the Kennedy's by your standards? Nope, guess not.

    I'm sure you can do better than this.

    Parent

    but we won (none / 0) (#30)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    the number of states and the number of delegates. see. that was the point.

    Parent
    Won??? (none / 0) (#44)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    What  you WON  was  some   elections  in states  that  are going  to  go RED  in the  general  elections,  which  means  those  "wins" don't  help the  Democratic  Party.  

    Georgia,  Alabama,  Kansas, North Dakota,  Utah,  Iowa,   Alaska-----they'll  go RED  in  November, FOR   John McCain.  

    In  the  crucial  states  for  a  national Democratic   Party  win,    Clinton won.    

    And  Florida  is  CRUCIAL  for  a  national election.

    Hillary  beat  ALL  the male  candidates  there.   Obama  couldn't even beat  Romney, let  alone,  McCain.  

    Parent

    The number of states? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    Since when has that been the measure of success? It's not, it's a consolation prize that the Obama campaign and the media loves to spin as a win for Obama.

    As for delegates. Well everything I've seen says Clinton gets the most delegates. Well everything except the Obama spin, e.g. Nevada.

    How about votes? How many has Clinton got over Obama? She's winning, that's how many.

    Only under the "Obama Rules" can this been spun as a lead for Obama.

    Parent

    Obama has won more pledged delegates. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    Clinton has a large lead amongst super-delegates, who can change their mind at any point.

    I love how the fact that Obama won more delegates in NV--a fact acknowledged by every credible news organization on the planet--is considered Obama 'spin' in your oh-so-impartial mind.

    Parent

    This is not clear (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    I think we need to wait for a final tally.

    Parent
    Probably, but it won't deviate by more than (none / 0) (#70)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    a dozen or so in either direction.

    By this time next week, he will have a 100+ delegate lead on her.

    February 9:  
    Washington caucus (78)
    Louisiana primary:  (56)
    Nebraska caucus:  (24)
    US Virgin Islands (3)

    February 10:  

    Maine caucus (24)

    February 12:

    DC Primary (15)
    Maryland primary (70)
    Virginia primary (83)

    February 19:

    Hawaii Primary (20)
    Wisconsin Primary (74)

    That's 447 delegates at stake.

    And he's favored to win all of them--some by big margins.

    447 delegates is more than California and Tennessee combined.  It's 100 more than Texas and Ohio combined.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    Let's assume Obama goes ahead by 100 before Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It all comes back after that.

    Then what?

    Parent

    Delegates??? (none / 0) (#57)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    Are  you  factoring  in   the   delegates  from Florida,   Geek?    

    Obama  can't  win without  Florida,  and he came in   FOURTH   there.

    Hillary  CAN win,  with   the major  Democratic  states   and  Florida.    

    Don't  be  braggin  next  week   if  Obama  wins  in Texas.  Texas  is  a  RED  state.   Won't  vote  for   Democrats in the  fall.  

    Stop spinning,   Geek.  That only  works  at  TPM  and  DKos.

    Parent

    sorry... (none / 0) (#66)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    ... but this is silly:
    Don't  be  braggin  next  week   if  Obama  wins  in Texas.  Texas  is  a  RED  state.   Won't  vote  for   Democrats in the  fall.  
    So any primary win in a red state doesn't matter?  Seriously?

    Why do we even have them then?

    Don't get me wrong - winning a primary in a red state does not mean that that same candidate can win in a general election in that state.

    But it absolutely does matter in the primary election.

    Parent

    For you to sarscastically call anyone (none / 0) (#65)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    'oh so impartial' as if it scores you points is just despicable hypocrisy.

    You are one of THE biggest Obama spinmeisters in the entire liberal blogosphere. I am embarrassed for you, frankly.

    Parent

    That you fall to my level (none / 0) (#71)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:06 PM EST
    is not such a good thing, since I'm very upfront about what I am and what my agenda is.

    Parent
    Oh I see (none / 0) (#75)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
    it's ok if you hoist the colors first? Gotcha.

    Well I got news for you. I'm not a big fan of HRC at all. She's far too moderate and centrist for me. She believes in the American Empire, and I don't.

    But it's the dishonesty and spin coming out of the so-called reality based community that I can't stomach. I call out the BS when I see it. And Obama supporters like you have been shovelling be far the biggest loads of it for a long long time.

    You see the liberal blogosphere as just a tool to get your guy elected. That's fine, but I am trying to take a more long-term approach. And I happen to think that shilling of the type you engage in is BAD for our movement, and will come back to haunt us later.

    Parent

    Back to the original point, how is it spin (none / 0) (#77)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    to note that Obama won more delegates in NV?

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#98)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    Just stop it. I'm not going to play this game with you. Take it back to the shouting pit known as DailyKos.

    Parent
    Take him up on it (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    By that measure, Obama did not win Missouri.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#115)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    Thanks ;-)

    Parent
    Missouri (none / 0) (#122)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:57:26 PM EST
    BRAVO,  Big  Tent!!

    Pick  a  rule,  and stick to it,  eh?    LOL

    Parent

    We have no idea... (none / 0) (#43)
    by sterno on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    We have absolutely no idea what the real result was of the various Kennedys getting into this.  Was it enough to push Obama over the top?  Clearly no.  Last night I was saying "Ted Kennedy's fired!"

    It may very well be that the differential in the votes would have been far more substantial without their efforts.  I frankly don't know how many people think "Oh, Kennedy backed him, he must be good."  I also wonder if the backing of folks like him and Kerry will lead towards a shift in the super delegates which might eventually matter.  

    None of us really know, nor are we likely to ever know.

    Parent

    FYI (none / 0) (#18)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:51 PM EST
    Traditional Democrats are voting for Clinton, so I don't know how the Kennedy's are helping BO with that.

    Parent
    spin, spin, spin, however it won't do your (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    candidate any good.

    Parent
    Look, as we said below, (none / 0) (#109)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    He had all these endorsements from MA in the bag, and brought them out in perfect time, and got amazing media coverage.  He still COULDN'T deliver MA.

    He has NO excuses: he had money, establishment, machine in MA, organization ability, everything.

    He just couldn't get the votes!! Clinton outworked him.

    Parent

    the disloyalty shown by (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    Kennedy to the Clintons was horrendous...Quite a few people are upset by it because Teddy has almost lost his last few elections and twice the Clintons went to Mass and helped him win...this article in the Boston Globe today says it all and is quite revealing...

    McCaskill Too (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:14:28 PM EST

    How about McCaskill, I agree with Stephanopoulus of ABC News her attacks cross the line into very personal, that split in her State may mean trouble for her come next election or hopefully it dose I have the feeling she may end up being a one timer left with the inner city voters. My opinion of her as a Stateswoman has diminished a great deal she appears peevish and petty as if she had been slighted in some way by Hillary.

    Parent
    Her story of why for Obama. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    Now that was the most ridiculous story ever. And I sent her campaign money. Cripes.

    Parent
    Family member of mine there is crowing (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    because he worked hard for McCaskill, and for Obama, and now he says that she won it for Obama.

    Maybe so -- but he doesn't see that she may have made a world of trouble for herself and her constituents in days to come. . . .

    Parent

    Gee (none / 0) (#97)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    She backed the wrong horse in the primary (from your perspective) so now she doesn't even deserve to hold office (despite being a key democrat in a purple state). Are you seriously arguing this??

    I hope you like the party that's left by the end of this process then, with only Hillary supporters left.

    Parent

    Votes On Iraq And FISA Will Do Her More Damage (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    Who she endorses or doesn't is no big deal to me as one of her constituents. OTOH, her consistently voting with the Republicans on Iraq and FISA is.

    Parent
    That's a reasonable criticism (none / 0) (#103)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    But given the types of R's that would replace her, she's worth voting for in the general...

    Parent
    Not If There Is An Alternative (none / 0) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    I'm a strong supporter of primary challenges. Hope one will be mounted when she comes up for reelection.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#114)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST
    That's why I said in the general. But McCaskill may be the best we can currently get out of MO at the moment. I'd certainly defer to your judgement though.

    Parent
    Now really, you're over-reacting and (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    reading too much into this.  I know you're having a bad day, but where do you see that I'm saying she doesn't deserve to hold office?  It's not up to me, I'm not (thankfully) a Missourian.

    I'm just saying this is what happens in politics, in a horse race; you have to be careful about which horse you back.  And sometimes, you have to sit back a while and watch 'em run in the early rounds. . . .

    Parent

    You're still saying that (none / 0) (#112)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    people that back the wrong candidates in the democratic primaries deserve to be punished, which is ridiculous. If their conduct deserves it, sure. But, as is the case in Oregon for me, I won't hold it against Wyden or Kulongowski for supporting Clinton. At the end of the day we're all Democrats. It's not a purity test election.

    Parent
    No, I'm not; you're lying here (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    but I think you're just overwrought, so I'll let that go.  However, look upthread and see if I ever used the verb you say I did.  I did not.

    I never said anyone deserved anything.  

    Go away.

    Parent

    Missouri (none / 0) (#128)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    Are  you suggesting,  andrew,  that if Obama  doesn't  win  the  primary,  you'd  vote  for  McCain instead?    

    You DO  realize  that  Clinton won  almost  the entire  state  of  Missouri,  until  the  big  cities  came  in   late.....and  those  big  cities  are, once  again,  African American votes.    Clinton  won  everybody  else,  including  the   18-24  youth  vote.  

    Are you  saying  those  African American voters  WON'T  vote  Democratic   if  Obama  is not the nominee?  

    Parent

    Globe (none / 0) (#11)
    by eric on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    Thanks for the link.  I didn't realize all Bill and Hillary had done for Kennedy.

    Kennedy better hope at this point that Hillary does become President, because it is going to be damned awkward in the Senate after this.

    Parent

    Awkward? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    Not a chance. Kennedy and Clinton are seasoned pros. The senate is not a schoolyard, even if they seem childish at times.

    Parent
    The mistake was imagining. . . (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    that any endorsement will decide an election.

    Once you dial back the expectations I think that Kennedy was a reasonable net plus for Obama, worth a few points across the board.

    "Once you dial back the expectations" (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    You can't in politics.

    Sorry, that must be taken into account in evaluating the Kennedy endorsement.

    Parent

    McCaskill sd. she didn't (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    think any endorsement was worth more than a day of news coverage.  

    Parent
    Uncle Teddy (none / 0) (#17)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    Not  at  all,  Larry.  

    Obama  gambled  that   Kennedy's  endorsement  and  the  Camelot mystique   would   ride  him  into  the    nomination on  a  "magic  cloud."

    But  what  it  has  done  with the  general public  is    IDENTIFY   Obama  with the ultra-liberal    left    of  Kennedy   and  Oprah.  

    You  can bet  your  bottom dollar  that  the  rightwing  hate  machine  has  already  put  videos  together  for  the  general public  showing   Obama  as  Uncle  Teddy's  "liberal  protege."  

    In  the long  run,  in a  general  election,  it  HARMS  Obama.  

    Bottom line:  the  Kennedy  ultra left liberal  crowd   doesn't  win  general  elections.  

    CENTRISTS  do.  

    Parent

    plus (none / 0) (#22)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    I don't think Kennedy was really a plus in and of himself, but the fact that the media glommed onto the announcement and kept Obama front and center just before Super Tuesday was probably a help to him.

    Parent
    Don't forget the Debate . . . (none / 0) (#42)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    when Obama claimed that he "could get UHC passed because Ted Kennedy said so". LOL! I wasn't even there and I could feel the audience cringe when Kennedy's name was invoked.

    Parent
    Endorsements By State Pols Are Not Just Words (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    Endorsements by Kennedy, Kerry and McCaskill also entail access to the pols mailing lists for contribution purposes, state databases of likely voters, campaign workers and whatever machinery they have established to help GOTV. No?

    Parent
    Endorsements (none / 0) (#129)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:32:28 PM EST
    Sure  they  do,  but  it  didn't   do  much  good,  did  it?    Massachusetts   was  a HUGE  loss  for  the Obama  camp.  

    And  he  just  barely  won  Missouri  based on  the late  night  big city  vote  with lots of  African  Americans.      

    Parent

    Establishment bloggers, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    like the MSM, have already learned how to
    explain away their mistakes.
    The question is:
    Will they learn how to admit their mistakes,
    and move on?
    Count me as one who doubts.

    How about MoveOn admit mistakes and move on? (none / 0) (#37)
    by koshembos on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST
    Kennedy's Legacy intact (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by koshembos on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    Kennedy failed to help Obama but his long list of progressive achievements should be more than enough to immunize him against any damage from that failure. After all, he still is the angry and strong voiced uncle we admire.

    That said, Kennedy looked quite pathetic running around behind a centrist, at best, candidate with a long list of empty promises. ("We will change Washington." Sure, as my mother used to say, when hair grows in the palm of my hand.)

    Media (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    Agree  completely.  

    And   when it  gets  down to  the  final  stretch,    the  media  --in  having  to  choose  between   media  darling  Obama  and  media  darling  McCain----

    Will  throw  little  Obama  under  the  bus, in  a  heartbeat.    

    They're  not  FOR  Obama;  they  just HATE  Hillary.  

    In  the  general,   Chris  Matthews  et al  will   literally    DROOL  over  John McCain.  

    dirt (4.00 / 0) (#15)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
     I just read that Obama is already slinging dirt, saying the Republicans will have dirt on Clinton--like that makes him the best choice. He's also "contesting" the election results. What that says about him is that he's so arrogant he simply will not believe that someone didn't vote for him. This guy is total loser, IMO.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    I also  heard him take  swipes  at   Clinton  in his  speech last  night   in  a  nasty   manner.  

    Clinton's  speech  was positive   and  HOPEFUL.  

    Methinks    Mr. Obama  will be  getting  more and more  desperate  as  this  goes  on,  showing  his  true  colors.  

    Parent

    Hope (4.00 / 0) (#24)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    you are right about that. The more BO lets his true personality come through, the less appealing he is.

    Parent
    Arrogant is correct. Not sure if anyone but my (4.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    husband and I noticed this last night, but McCain was giving his speech and the networks were covering it, as they had HRC's earlier.  Then BO comes out in Chicago and starts his speech while McCain is still speaking.  Sorry, but this is just not done.  Let the other person finish and have their glory, even if it is someone from another party.  In BO's world it is All about him.  I think he is an arrogant prick.  My husband is just waiting for him to do something stupid.  And we both decided last night that we will not vote for him in the general election if he is the nominee.  We will just not vote.  And we are two yellow-dog democrats.  

    Parent
    The only one thinking Obama had a chance in MA (none / 0) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST
    was you.

    Me and a bunch of pollsters (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    NOT just Suffolk. and the MEdia. Heck, and the Obama campaign.

    This after the fact spinning is absurd.

    Parent

    No, it was just you. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    Pollster.com

    Survey USA:  Clinton +17
    Suffolk:  Obama +2
    Survey USA:  Clinton +14
    Rasmussen:  Clinton +6
    W NE College:  Clinton +28
    Survey USA:  Clinton +37
    Survey USA:  Clinton +33
    State House News:  Clinton +12

    You fell for the hype.  That's your too bad.

    Parent

    Sure Geek (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    Everyone expected a 15 point blow out.

    Parent
    Geek (none / 0) (#59)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    I love  the  way  Geek  says  that    Obama  won  because  he  "just  barely lost."  :)

    That  only  counts  in   horseshoes  and  hand  grenades.    


    Parent

    Geek (none / 0) (#61)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    I love  the  way  Geek  says  that    Obama  won  because  he  "just  barely lost."  :)

    That  only  counts  in   horseshoes  and  hand  grenades.    


    Parent

    The margin there was bigger than I expected. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    Ditto for California.

    Then again, the margin in Alabama was much larger than I expected, and I don't think anyone thought he'd win Georgia by a margin closer to 40 points than 20 points.

    And, I thought he'd lose CT and MO.

    Parent

    Obama's "wins" (none / 0) (#78)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    Geek,  dear,  

    Obama  won  Alabama and  Georgia  on the  Black vote.  

    But in  November ,   Alabama  and  Georgia  will  go  RED   for  John McCain. So   will  Kansas, North Dakota, Utah,  Iowa, and  Alaska.   His  "wins"  are  just  within  our party, but he won't  win   statewide in  a  general.  

    If  he  had won  FLorida, that might count, since  it is  crucial  as  a  swing  state.  He  didn't.  He couldn't  even  beat  Romney,  let alone   McCain.  

    One  more  time, Geek:  winning  a  small Democratic  election in  a  bunch  of  RED  states  does  not  help  the  Democratic  Party  in  November.  

    Carrying  California,  Florida, Michigan,  New York,  New  Jersey,  and  Massachusetts,  DOES.  

    Parent

    'the black vote' (none / 0) (#81)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    charming

    Parent
    Ok, (none / 0) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    White men as well. Lets see what they do in the GE.

    Parent
    Stop picking fights (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    Ah, sorry. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    Everyone is much happier here if the comments section is an Obama-supporter-free zone.

    Enjoy the echo-chamber.

    Parent

    That is not what I said (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    I asked you to not pick fights.

    I scolded Clintonistas as well.

    Parent

    Great message to send (none / 0) (#86)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    1. Winning states in the south doesn't count if a decisively large group of black people vote for you

    2. Southern democratic states don't count. Why even bother having primaries there then if they don't 'count'?

    Seriously, talk about a damaging message to the 50 state strategy

    Parent
    They are not winnable in November is (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:18 PM EST
    what she said.

    Come on AndrewW. Don't pick fights.

    Parent

    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#101)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:59:35 PM EST
    Apologies auntmo (honestly)

    Parent
    Georgia (none / 0) (#116)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:33:38 PM EST
    Thank  you, Big Tent.

    My  comments  were   not  about  Black people.  

    My  comments were  about  states  in a  general  election,  and  what is  needed  to WIN against  McCain.  

    The  little  red  states  for  Obama  don't  mean  a  thing,  in November.    

    Little  Obamanauts:  I  RODE  with  the  freedom  riders.  Don't  EVER  accuse  me   childishly  of  what you  don't  understand.

    Parent

    As I said yesterday, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    This is not the rehearsal that you keep talking about expectation.  This is the actual game in final, and there are no excuses.  Obama's strategy has been to concentrate on certain demographics and big city centers when they can turn out the vote.  They also do well in caucus settings, which students can attend, but working class people have a hard time to juggle everything and go.

    But again, this is the big leagues.  How can someone be the nominee without winning any of MI, FL, NY, MA, CA, NJ,... in other words the biggest states? You'd think with fawning news coverage (worth tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars; you can't buy that kind of coverage!) he have a great chance in big states.  But he doesn't.  

    The strength of his campaign is in organization, whether it's for rallies or for caucuses.  But vote getters and persuaders they are not.


    Parent

    Persuaders (none / 0) (#50)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:51:59 PM EST
    That's very true. He has an army of hard-sell persuaders out on the prowl. And we all know how much people LOVE to be told they have to back a particular candidate.

    They have all the tact of a door-to-door salesman.

    Parent

    Persauders (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    And  here's a  question:  Do  they have  ANY  idea  how offensive  it is  to hear  them all threaten to   take  their little  red  ball and  go home  if  their  candidate  doesn't  win?  

    I guess  the  definition of  "unity" is  relative,  eh?

    Parent

    and sulfolk... (none / 0) (#2)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    A Kennedy endorsement and a (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    Zogby poll could possibly buy you a ticket to be able to personally throw Cheney out of his office though.

    Zogby (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    And yes, let's not forget how wrong Zogby was, again.  When will he get called out for good?    

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#7)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    The media fawned for 2 days over the Kennedy endorsement, and then there was quite a bit of talk about how the Kennedy name would really help Clinton with Latino voters, and perhaps in MA.

    Well, it didn't help.


    ghost2 (none / 0) (#19)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    Totally agree.

    Have you seen TPM today? (none / 0) (#21)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    One of the headlines: "Hillary edges out Obama in Popular Vote (So Far)."

    When qualifiers start finding their way into your headlines, you know its time to move on.

    and (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    TPM is an Obama rag, so this seems big to me.

    Parent
    Speaking of TPM.. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    Then there's the Obama flyer blaming Bill Clinton for the loss of seats in Congress and the Senate during his term (and the 2000 election).

    Classy. I guess they're trying to piss off Bill so that the media can write about how mean and angry he is again.

    Also, by including the 2000 election in their mailer, I'm sure they made Al Gore very happy. I'm sure he likes to be told he had negative coattails.


    Parent

    TPM (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:34 PM EST
    Well,   clearly,  for  anybody  watching  fairly,   these  TPM  and  DKos  Obama  supporters  are  DIVIDERS,  not  UNITERS.

    Parent
    IF.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    that were true (qualifiers) Obama would have toast long ago.

    Parent
    TPM (none / 0) (#28)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    I  think  we  ALL knew  that  TPM  and  DKos  would  find  any   means  to   rescue  Obama,  and   diminish   Clinton's  significant  wins.  

    You  KNEW  Josh Marshall  would  wiggle  any  way  he  could,  didn't you?

    Parent

    The biggest joke of the Netroots (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    Are those people claiming to be unbiassed.

    I've suggested to such folks that they might be biassed, that it's OK, that everyone has bias, that it's natural, and that people will still judge what they say on it's merits taking everything into account, and the anger it inspired in those people was unprecedented.

    I'm biassed.

    You're biassed.

    BTD is has bias.

    Everyone does.

    The only people I distrust are people who claim not to have any bias.

    This is the only blog I've found that isn't dripping with sanctimonious rage against the idea that what bloggers say on a blog might be, aghast, subjective.


    Parent

    It's within 50,000 voters out of 7 million (none / 0) (#34)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    I think it's reasonable to say (so far) given that the state with the largest percentage to not report is Minnesota.

    Parent
    Anti Clinton Blogs (none / 0) (#104)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    Josh can scream he has no horse in the race all he wants he has not credibility remaining how many times did he trot out ZOGBYs ridiculous Polls as if they were information.  Huff Post, TPM, Kos and MSNBC, I'll take Fox Noise thank you over this crowd they actually are more objective.

    Parent
    Anti-Clinton blogs (none / 0) (#117)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    Agree  completely.

    Josh  has  lost  a  lot of  viewers  in the  last  few  months.  
    And  Markos?   His  site  is  completely out  of  control.  
    He'll  regret  that,  when  all is  said  and done.  

    The only   MSNBC  pundit  that's  fair  is  Pat  Buchanan.    How's  THAT  for irony?  :)

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#31)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM EST
    with you on the Kennedy endorsement.  I believe this paragraph from the WaPo is about as close to an admission of Kennedy's long time support as I have found:

    Kennedy has watched Obama closely since Illinois elected him to the Senate in 2004, and he seriously considered backing Obama when he won Iowa on Jan. 3, according to a senior Democratic source close to Kennedy who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Obama had sought Kennedy's advice more than a year ago, when he was deciding whether to jump into the 2008 race. Kennedy urged him to go ahead, arguing that such opportunities come around rarely.

    I doubt Kennedy would urge Obama to enter the race without intending to support him at some point.  The opportunity arose after Bill's remarks in South Carolina and the rest is history.

    The opportunity arose because of Rezko's (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    imminent arrest, I think.  TK had many days and news cycles before that to be all shocked by Bill.

    Parent
    Good point (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    I had forgotten about the Rezko arrest.  

    Parent
    Kennedy... (none / 0) (#124)
    by vdeputy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    Here's what I hate.  Clinton practically went from his hospital bed onto the campaign to stump for John Kerry. In her column today in the Boston Globe, Joan Venocci reminded her readers that when Mitt Romney threatened Kennedy's senate seat (Teddy's first real threat in years), he put out a call to the Clintons and they both came to Mass and campaigned for him multiple times. This is what is called loyalty in Kennedy circles, I guess.

    Parent
    Hillary Campaigned For Obama (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:05:59 PM EST
    In his Senate race eventhough support for candidates isn't based on accounting 101. If that were how it worked, no pol would be able to work with his or her colleagues whatever side of the bench they were on.

     

    Parent

    Campaigning (none / 0) (#126)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    Not only  that  (Clintons  campaigning  for  both  Kennedy   and  Obama),   in  the last  Congressional  election,   Obama  campaigned  for his  Senate  mentor  Joe  Lieberman,  and  that  was  after  Lieberman went  "independent."  
    Obama   campaigned  for Lieberman AGAINST  the  established  Democrat.  

    Parent
    Campaigning (none / 0) (#127)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:25:00 PM EST
    Not only  that  (Clintons  campaigning  for  both  Kennedy   and  Obama),   in  the last  Congressional  election,   Obama  campaigned  for his  Senate  mentor  Joe  Lieberman,  and  that  was  after  Lieberman went  "independent."  
    Obama   campaigned  for Lieberman AGAINST  the  established  Democrat.  

    Parent
    Agree 100% (none / 0) (#32)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST


    The day Kennedy endorse Obama (none / 0) (#39)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    Hillary reached out to shake his hand.
    She's a grownup.  No worries there.

    Only people who don't know what the (none / 0) (#40)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    hell they're talking about thought Clinton winning Massachusetts was an upset.

    Also, John Lewis had a pretty damn miserable night last night.  80% of his constituents voted against Hillary.

    Of course it wasn't an upset (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by spit on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:51 PM EST
    and neither, really, was CA, though I expected the margin to be closer. But it remains that the Obama folks are doing the worst job of managing expectations I think I've seen, and that's part of the game.

    Up until yesterday, they've been running Obama as the Unstoppable Force, building the campaign into a bandwagon. The Unstoppable Force thing only works if you can keep it building on itself. What most people I was around last night saw -- and they're not junkies like me, just committed democrats -- was Obama losing every big state except IL by a large margin. Nobody had told them that was the likely outcome -- this was supposed to be the guy with the big mo', the Unstoppable Force, the tidal wave of change.

    You can't go back and change last week's media narrative.

    Parent

    Missouri (none / 0) (#49)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    Oh  pulleeeeze,  Geek.  

    Massachusetts   was  a  HUGE  win  for  Hillary.  

    You'll have  to run over  to  DKos  to find  someone   to  agree  with you   about that.  

    Obama  calculated  badly  when he  hooked his  wagon  to the  ultra-left  liberal  Kennedy  mystique.  

    And  last  night,   it  SHOWED.  

    Way  to go,  Hillary!

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    They all work in the Media it seems. And are pollsters.

    Keep spinning Geek. Apparently this really strikes a nerve with you.

    Parent

    One pollster. Singular. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    Every single other poll showed him losing Massachusetts, ranging from between 6 and 37 points.

    Chris Matthews is a moron.  Since when did his stupidity become a foundation for analysis?

    Parent

    May I suggest that you leave John Lewis (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    out of this spat.  Until you've been beaten for your freedom, you might want to knock off any disrespect for him.

    He's one of the few true heroes left in the party.

    Parent

    So, it's okay to pillory Ted Kennedy? n/t (none / 0) (#90)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM EST
    I was glad Moveon.org endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#41)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    If they had endorsed Clinton,
    we would never have heard the end of it.

    Move On (none / 0) (#53)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    Me  too.  

    Just imagine  that  you're  a moderate  Republican in  a  red  state,  ANGRY at  Bush, looking  for change.  

    You  watch  the  newscasts,  you  read.  

    You  find  a  candidate  endorsed  by the  ultra-left  Teddy  Kennedy,  Oprah (Hollywood),  AND  MoveOn.org  (who  condemned  Gen. Petraus).  And  then you find out   he's  FOR   driver's licenses  for illegal  aliens.    

    You'll   run  right into  the arms  of  John  McCain,  no  questions  asked.

    Parent

    It doesn't get truer than that (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:37 PM EST
    But of course, I think you are a pragmatist (like me).

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#47)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
    Also, don't forget that Ted Kennedy was all upset and indignant about Bill Clinton being so evil, mean, and downright "unpresidential". Right.. and Kennedy, having seen many campaigns in his lifetime, was shocked, downright SHOCKED I tell you, about standard campaign rhetoric. As a neutral observer, of course.

    And a week later he endorsed Obama. Which wasn't planned at all.


    Ummm duh? :) (none / 0) (#51)
    by sterno on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    Of course he had Kennedy in the bag.  It was very clear that he had a series of endorsements that he intended to unleash going into Super Tuesday.  It's good strategy.  

    This is politics.  Working the media is absolutely a part of the game.  If you're going to build support for your policy goals, you have to know how to do that and do it well.  If HRC can't turn the media in her favor now, then she's going to be hard pressed to do it if she gets the presidency.  

    Is it fair?  No.  It's never been fair.  And if the press turns on Obama, then that's a test for him and he needs to find a way to turn them back.  If he doesn't then he'll get chewed up too.

    The reality is that the media isn't biased, they are just lazy.  They find metaphors and narratives and they stick with them until they find something better.  Either you write the narrative for them, or the right wing noise machine will do it for you.  If you can't make it clear that you're a war hero and that you're running against a coward, you'll end up being painted a flip flopper.

    It sucks but that's the game.  

    I agree that the media is lazy. (none / 0) (#106)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    But they also have a irrational hatred of Clintons and as you said, life is not fair.  Obama has played the game well, although try telling that to his supporters who still think (or stick to their talking points) that he is all about Change!

    But that was my point too about MA.  He had Kerry, Deval Patrick, and Kennedy's endorsement in the bag, and with impressive media coverage (no Rezko, wall to wall Kennedy, oddly I don't think Ted got as much love in his own runs!), he COULDN'T deliver MA.  

    There are no excuses for that.


    Parent

    Egg on Ted (none / 0) (#58)
    by herb the verb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    I don't know what Ted Kennedy's back story was on endorsing Obama but it is apparent there must be one. He put an awful lot of his prestige on the line here not only in what he did but in how he did it and I can't see where anyone can say this isn't a big, embarrassing hit for him. Either he didn't know where his constituents were or he didn't care. Either way, I hope it doesn't damage him going forward because I have alot of respect for Ted.

    Ted (none / 0) (#68)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    I  read  an article   quoting  insiders  of  Kennedy's  "machine"  that  said  the   real reason he  got  angry  and   endorsed  Obama  was  when  Hillary  gave the  credit  for  the  Civil  Rights  Act  to    LBJ  instead of  JFK.  

    THAT's  what  p*ssed him off.    

    He  wanted  JFK  to get  all the  credit, not  LBJ.  

    Truth is,  JFK  was  not  an  enthusiastic  supporter  of  MLK  at  first.  His brother  Bobby  had  to   push  him to get  him there.

    But  for  Teddy,   when   Hillary  praised  LBJ,  it  was   the moment  he   blew.

    Parent

    No Child Left Behind (none / 0) (#85)
    by horseloverfat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    TK was a sponsor of NCLB.  HRC voted for it, but now talks about repealing it.  WJC was recently speaking against it and mentioned TK.

    Parent
    NCLB (none / 0) (#118)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    Good  for   Bill!!

    In  theory,  NCLB  was   a  semi-good  idea.  As  a  retired  high school  teacher,  I was  personally  against  it, mostly  because  these  bloviating  legislators  "fixing" education  never  take  the  time  to  actually talk  to  TEACHERS.  

    But the implementation of  NCLB,  and  the lack  of  funding in   Bush's  budgets---thus,  piling  extra  costs on the  states---doomed  it.    

    The  very   conservative  state of Utah  refused  to  take part  in it  at  all,  from the  very beginning.  

    Bush   didn't  fund  it,  leaving  the  states  cash-strapped  to meet  the  very federal  MANDATES   he  and  TeddyKennedy wrote into the legislation. All  that  money  went  to  Iraq instead.  

    Bill  Clinton's  criticism  is right  AND  fair.

    Parent

    The Audacity of a Torch (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Ted thought the torch belongs to him to pass on. I think he gave the torch to the wrong team. I add Kerry to the loss. Latinos, do not idolize Ted.

    Latinos And Ted (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:20:21 PM EST
    Is this the same Ted Kennedy who negotiated that extremely bad bipartisan immigration bill that got defeated last year? Immigrant rights groups thought it was so bad that they were asking legislators to vote against it.

    Pro-immigration groups and many Democrats also oppose such a plan, warning that it would create a "permanent revolving underclass" of low-wage workers with no incentive to assimilate and lead to a new illegal immigration problem if people do not return home. They want a path to permanent residence for temporary workers, but Kyl has been adamant for months that "temporary means temporary."
    ...
    Leading immigrant groups oppose the point system because it would reduce extended family migration. Although some have held their fire, hoping to amend the legislation as it goes forward, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens and many grassroots immigrant groups have urged the bill's defeat.


    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    No one mentions the Asians.

    Parent
    No Of Course Not (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    IIRC that is another demographic that prefers Clinton over Obama.

    Parent
    CA (none / 0) (#119)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    Here's  some  interesting  California  analysis:  

    Clinton  took   women  by  18 points, Latinos  by 32  points,  Asians,  Gays, CHURCHGOERS,  Married  seniors,    AND    Young people  18-24  in huge  numbers  (she took  young people in Massachusetts, too)

    Obama  won   African AMericans,  Young  white men,  and   rich people.  

    And  his  campaign  was working  full  bore to  win California.  

    She  wiped  the floor  with him.

    Parent

    What happens . . . (none / 0) (#91)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    if Obama fails to get the Nomination? Is the torch Obama's now to pass on? Kennedy gave it to him, right? Can he take it back. LOL!

    Parent
    Torch (none / 0) (#123)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    ROFLMAO!!!

    Parent
    In alot of circles Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#64)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    is the object of scorn and laughter...It is rather sad really after the great accomplishments of his brothers...John and Robert were truly great men....but Teddy is not and never will be...I think that endorsement hurt Obama as much as helped in alot of areas...

    Maybe The Same People (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    Are laughing about the war dead. Kennedy was certain that a vote for Bush's AUMF was a nod and wink for war. He trusted Bush's warmongering as much as he trusted Saddam's BS  and voted no to the AUMF. He favored UN inspections before writing Bush the madman a blank check to wage war.  

    HRC also favored UN inspections but wound up talking out of both sides of her mouth by voting yes to give Bush authorization to wage war. Read her speech and read Kennedy's speech, and then laugh all you want.

    Parent

    Agree re timing -- Rezko was arrested (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    right after that, and I bet the Obama camp heard it  was going to happen.  Thus, they moved up the TK endorsement.

    Expectations (none / 0) (#74)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    I have to say that I don't get the idea that the Kennedy's had a bad night.

    Both California and Massachusetts saw pretty substantial swings in Obama's direction, even if he didn't actually win the states.

    Moving closer to Clinton in those two states DOES matter.  

    Expectations. (none / 0) (#120)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:51:42 PM EST
    Uh,  no  dear.    

    Clinton  won  resoundingly  in both states,  and  actually  TOOK  the   18-24  year-olds  in  huge  numbers,  in both California  and  Massachusetts.  

    She   took  those   young  people  right out  of   Barak  Obama's    "expectations."  

    And  Massachusetts?   The Obama  campaign   won every media  cycle  in the  days  before  Super  Tuesday, largely  based on  those   "Kennedy endorsements,"   and  despite  this,  Obama  took   a    14 point  drubbing  in  Kennedy's  home  state.  

    I  hear  Obama  started   going  negative  even  in his  speech last  night.    Must  be  feeling  desperate, eh?    

    I  guess  he'll throw out the  "unity"  shtick  now.

    Parent

    Delegates (none / 0) (#130)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    Final   total  on   delegates, including  the  super  delegates,  per  CNN:

    Clinton   823
    Obama     741

    By   Obamanaut   terms,   CLINTON  WON  Super  Tuesday.  Congratulations,  Hillary!