home

Late Night: Here Comes the Sun

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:41:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

And it's on to Indiana, and perhaps, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is an open thread.

< Hillary Wins PA By 10 Points, More Than 200,000 Votes | Media Elite v. The Voters: NYTimes Says Let Elites Decide, Not The Voters >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night: Here Comes the Sun | 193 comments (193 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    +215,000 in popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Key on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:59 PM EST
    Anyone have the pop vote tally including PA, MI, and FL?

    pop vote tally (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    broken down in variations possible combinations is at RealClearPolitics  

    I think the above #s are including PA, MI & FL.

    [ Parent ]

    How is it at all fair... (1.57 / 7) (#53)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:33:04 AM EST
    To count towards the popular vote Florida numbers when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot?

    [ Parent ]
    Okay (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by Iphie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:35:06 AM EST
    You have got to get your facts straight -- seriously, you are not helping your candidate. Barack Obama's name was most definitely on the ballot in FL. And he lost. Massively.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you remember? (5.00 / 10) (#73)
    by zyx on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:43:54 AM EST
    In Florida, Obama had to walk miles in the snow, uphill, both ways, on that ol' ballot...the snow blotted out his name, the Florida mountains kept out his message....poor Obama never gets a break.  Never.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:56:49 AM EST
    this comment totally cracked me up. I can totally pictue the people who think that the Pennsylvania primary was basically to be graded on a curve and anything more than a double digit loss as a win for Obama buying into this meme.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, Obama (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:39:39 AM EST
    Go ahead and eat your waffle.  We won't be needing you anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    Plus (none / 0) (#167)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:48:08 AM EST
    I heard them discussing it on CNN, the vote is actually weighted in Philly. I suspect for delegates. So, another consideration.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that was supposed to be funny (none / 0) (#189)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:08 AM EST
    Wasn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    was (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:04 AM EST
    on the ballot in FL. And Obama even had paid national ads that ran in FL when Clinton did not. How is that not fair to count FL?

    Get your trolling propaganda straight. I believe you mean to hit with the MI meme. There Obama chose tactically to take his name off the ballot for purely political reasons. And so with MI you can have a case that something should be done in MI. Heck, you can even say that both MI and FL should have had a revote. We all thought that. Too bad Obama blocked that effort.

    You might try another approach. You're efforts are not so effective. Hmm, kind of like Obama in PA.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't you mean Michigan? (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Key on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:02 AM EST
    Obama's name WAS on the ballot in FL.  Obama decided to take his name off of the ballot in MI in order to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire's "first" to vote.  It might have helped him with Iowa, but not NH.

    It was Obama's choice.  In the general election, MI and FL will count.  Their votes should count in picking the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama' s name (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by themomcat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:41:17 AM EST
    was on the ballot in FL. He voluntarily removed his name in MI and then ask voters to vote undecided. Edwards did the same. It was Obama's choice let him suffer the consequences.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    This is incorrect (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:44:07 AM EST

    Sen. Obama's name was on the Florida ballot.

    He chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot to gain an advantage in Iowa. He (and John Edwards) campaigned for Michigan voters to vote Uncommitted at the primary. Some Obama supporters (such as those at dailyKos) suggested Dems vote in the Republican primary to game that vote.

    Sen. Obama chose not to participate in Michigan. He doesn't get those votes. Some people give him the Uncommitted total from Michigan as part of his popular vote total, in addition to awarding him the Uncommitted delegates, though some of the Uncommitted were Edwards supporters. Others have argued Uncommitted or Undecided delegates should go to the convention as is and declare then.

    These events have been discussed repeatedly here and elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]

    I Thought Obama Supporters Were Supposed To Be (5.00 / 9) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:34 AM EST
    highly educated and high information voters. Another fallacy about the Obama campaign.

    Clinton, Edwards and Obama all were on the Florida ballot. He ran TV ads in Florida, had an impromptu new conference and had unions and grass roots organizations campaigning for him and GOTV. He like in PA just LOST.

    [ Parent ]

    I mean (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by IzikLA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:06 AM EST
    It just gets harder and harder to argue with Obama supporters.  I suppose this is to be expected at this point but seriously.  The worrisome alternative is that they actually believe these things and the extremely biased media has aided in this narrative.  I don't like either reality actually.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem is... (4.50 / 2) (#98)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:03:41 AM EST
    ...too many have demonized us along with HRC. They don't see us as fellow Democrats but as personal enemies. Heck, they define themselves as a movement and NOT as democrats --except of course when they're calling us neo-cons or repubs and call themselves democrats by way of comparison. At any rate, the short of it is too many of them have completely defined us as outside the umbrella of the party and declared us enemies rather than allies that happen to disagree on which candidate is the best choice. When someone won't even acknowledge that we're all on the same side there's not much you can do by way of conversation or even informative, civil, debate.

    I hope that this dynamic will change but MSNBC, HuffPo, and Orange etc. have made such a toxic environment of hate that it's a lot like the right wing echo chamber. If there was more balance in the news and progressive sites put their feet down and called for civility it would help a great deal but right now they are feeding and encouraging it.

    [ Parent ]

    Reminds me of a line I like in a report (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:15:37 AM EST
    from Walter Shapiro at Salon -- several lines, but for the relevant one here, see at the end:

    "In truth, the premature demand that Clinton hoist the white flag runs against both political history (every trailing candidate in her situation has taken the fight to the convention) and the competitive spirit. . . .

    "A fascinating wrinkle buried in the Pennsylvania exit polls is that Democratic voters do not appear to believe that Obama's nomination is a foregone conclusion. Given Obama's purportedly unassailable delegate lead, it was stunning that 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters said they believed that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.

    "Clearly, we have identified that proportion of the Pennsylvania electorate who never, ever turn on a cable TV news show."

    Clearly.  And oh-so-snarky, Salon. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#119)
    by owenaprhys on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:58:54 AM EST
    The "left" blogs are still saying that that isn't enough and she should quit.

    When exactly did Lose become Win?

    [ Parent ]

    When win is by 9 points and 12-16 delegates (none / 0) (#157)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:23 AM EST
    and she will still be c.145 pledged delegates behind,  and the delegate spreads are likely to be back to where they were yesterday after Indiana and North Carolina have voted.

    Barring an Obama implosion there is still no route to the nomination for Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    The route for Obama (none / 0) (#176)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:31 AM EST
    is the same as Clintons. Neither seems poised to win without the superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]
    I know it doesn't matter (none / 0) (#181)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:51 AM EST
    But still, she won by 10 points. Its not the new math. You know how it is reported? 45 to 55.

    [ Parent ]
    Found the pop vote totals.... (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Key on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:53:14 PM EST
    Oh my.  Here it is:

    Obama: 14,937,687 / 47.4%
    Clinton: 15,057,479 / 47.8%               

    So now it's Clinton by 119,792 or +0.4%

    Heh. The only Superdelegates (none / 0) (#158)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:21:18 AM EST
    buying that vote total have already endorsed Hillary Clinton.

    You "might" get away with a popular vote total including Florida,  no way are any fence sitting superdelegates going to take seriously a a total that gives Obama 0 votes for Michigan.

    [ Parent ]

    Right right (none / 0) (#182)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    That is why all the rest have rushed out and endorsed Sen Obama and its all over....

    Let's get this right: how badly he lost and the demographics are at least going to be giving a lot of SDs serious pause. At the end IF they decide to break against him (I am not saying it will happen) they will need some kind of cover. This is as good as any.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama will get to 1599 Penn. Ave (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:30 PM EST
    according to Casey.

    I imagine Clinton will (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:38 AM EST
    invite him to her inauguration.  

    [ Parent ]
    the White House is 1600 Penn. Ave (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:15:41 AM EST
    What's at 1599?

    [ Parent ]
    Hope. (5.00 / 17) (#23)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:16:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    just laughed out loud (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:18:16 AM EST
    at that one, Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Iphie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:38 AM EST
    And you people are keeping me up way past my bedtime!

    [ Parent ]
    Mark L. owes me a new keyboard (4.50 / 2) (#102)
    by otherlisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:09:47 AM EST
    I just spewed Syrah on the old one.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:26 AM EST
    with most everything you say MarkL, but that was pretty hilarious.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#145)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:30:48 AM EST
    the US Treasury Department though I think the address is 1500 Penn Ave.

    [ Parent ]
    His hundreds of millions (none / 0) (#177)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:10:28 AM EST
    will feel at home at least. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    NY Times Editorial (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by makana44 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55:14 PM EST
    I just had to comment at the Times tonight:

    From the newspaper that introduced us to Whitewater and trumpeted Weapons of Mass Destruction and led us into war. That gave us front page articles on Al Gore's earth tone sweaters, John Edward's $160 haircuts, John Kerrey's cowardice in Vietnam, and oh yeah...the Clinton's marriage. This campaign is giving you the vapors? The Democrats are such pansies now that hard fought campaigns are anathema? I've seen every campaign since 1952, and this one is a great one; and certainly not among the dirtiest. Effete intellectuals...The Times editorial board has no standing in Democratic politics. Everyone ignores you now anyway. Bill Kristol has more credibility.

    -----

    Alright, won't change anything. But when Hillary wins the nomination she will be unbeatable. An incredible story. A freight train all the way to the Whitehouse. And then a truly Great president.

    It really makes one wonder (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:17:59 AM EST
    why they endorsed her a couple of months ago, if all they are going to do is trash her now.

    I gave up my subscription after the Judy Miller Tragicomedy Hour, but it never ceases to amaze me how the paper has just continued to sink lower and lower.

    [ Parent ]

    Turned out to be a "tepid" endorsement (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:22:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I use the NYT (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by themomcat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:19:20 AM EST
    to line kitty litter boxes. Very absorbent.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    If you are buying the paper I doubt (none / 0) (#159)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:22:56 AM EST
    they care what you go on to do with it.

    [ Parent ]
    What happens when the freight (none / 0) (#160)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:23:51 AM EST
    train is de-railed by a 20 point loss in North Carolina and the superdelegates all endorse Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Got (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:05:12 AM EST
    a mean streak going on do ya JoeA? Hillary supporters here are celebrating a win in Pennsylvania for the candidate that we support.

    Have you always liked raining on other people's parades? Or can't you stand to see people that don't agree with you enjoying a win? I don't get why any "progressive" would be in such an all-fired hurry to be going negative on those of us who support Hillary Clinton today. Why?

    [ Parent ]

    Its fear (none / 0) (#185)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    I think he is just trying to comfort himself. I think he is saying this stuff more to himself them to us. So you know what: don't worry about it. Reality is not determined by supporters of either side. If it was DK has enough distortion to bend space time by itself.

    [ Parent ]
    NC is a RED state; it will go to McCain anyway (none / 0) (#172)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:59:05 AM EST
    Pennsylvania is a battleground state; Dems need PA to win

    Also, Allegheny County is a "bellweather" county - it mirrored the National election in 1998 and 2000 and Hillary won the county by 10 points

    [ Parent ]

    Can you use your time machine? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:26:29 AM EST
    To look up stocks for me? Thanks!

    [ Parent ]
    NC (none / 0) (#193)
    by JON15 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    Why don't we all get to either NC or Indiana.
    The more volunteers that show the better. We may
    not have thousands dollars for Hillary, but if any
    of us have the time Lets make it happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's ads were INEFFECTIVE (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:57:40 PM EST
    The CNN exit polls confirm that he practically threw his money down the drain.  Voters who felt that ads were important to their decision went with Hillary across the board.

    In many counties, Obama struggled to clear 30% totals.  Hillary racked up some impressive 70% margins in several places.

    Just like with Mitt Romney, we are reminded that you cannot always buy an election through ads.  You've got to EARN it.  Time for Obama to toughen up, answer the questions, and put down the waffles.

    Her ads were much better (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:30:23 AM EST
    I compared them when she released 5 and he released 3. Hers were on target for the majority Dem voter. Style and tone. He doesn't seem to be able to reach there yet.

    [ Parent ]
    "What good is his money?" (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:31:59 AM EST
    asks Buchanan on CNN.  Obama has spent outrageously and can't close the deal, no matter how many millions.

    To which Maddow says she'd rather be Obama than Clinton right now, because Obama has the money, and Clintin just got the little ol' win tonight.

    Maddow, you just went way down in my estimation.  I knew you were sipping the kool-aid but you seemed pretty smart and still capable of some balance.

    But no more, Maddow.  That may have been the dumbest thing said tonight, and that's saying something.

    [ Parent ]

    Maddow surprised me: she made no sense tonight (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:24 AM EST
    Especially given the spin she was attempting.

    On her contention that Obama's strategy was to break HRC's bank. Er, so by outspending HRC 3:1 he burned all that jack, accrued political capital from Dems and freebie media, and made his softer suppor wobby by referring to a huge swath of voters (in/out of PA) as bitter gun toting racists who cling to religion???

    So coming within 10 with his 3:1 burn rate is -- ???

    She also mentioned his superior ability to earn $$$ -- as if that well isn't going to dry up FAST starting a few hours ago.

    Could be she's having an off-night (I'm fan otherwise) but wow, she's got the pom-poms going.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama won in Penn (none / 0) (#100)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:39 AM EST
    and Haig won the Somme.

    [ Parent ]
    so what she had to say (none / 0) (#114)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:40:15 AM EST
    about the ABC debate, specifically regarding HRC's deterrence message for the Middle East, didn't clue you in?  Or her additional dumb support of KO's disbelief of HRC's deterrence missive from earlier in KO interview?

    She's been in the O tank for some time now.  She's better at masking it is all.

    Fineman?  How many times tonight did he say "kitchen sink"?  KO?  Well, have you ever seen the movie Coming to America?  KO would be one of Obama's (clap, CLAP) "Wipers".

    [ Parent ]

    let's write KO some letters (none / 0) (#165)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:45:05 AM EST
    thanking him for putting Clinton on Countdown and giving her the boost that helped her win the election!

    [ Parent ]
    Since I am (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:12:20 AM EST
    unashamedly one of those blue collar people that aren't important to the Democratic Party anymore I find some of this talk about money confusing.

    Could one of the brighter bulbs in this chandelier explain things to me? If you have to spend 3 times the money in a losing contest how is that a good thing? It just doesn't seem logical to me.  

    [ Parent ]

    Guess Maddow missed how much (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:54:40 AM EST
    that lil' ol' win brought in for Hillary tonight.

    $2.5 mil and RISING! And I thought I heard AC say that 80% was new online donors . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Newsee: $2.5 mill in 2 hrs, 80% from new donors (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:46:07 AM EST
    It wasn't Newsweek election expert Markos "anything under 20% is a loss" Moulitsas trumpeting this.

    And Now, Story Time By Andrew Romano
    Apr 23, 2008

    Anyone seen reports of how much TeamObama raised tonight so we can do as objective a comparison as Newsweek used for that 20%/fold marker?


    [ Parent ]

    Just saw the same $$$ report on (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:53:10 AM EST
    ABC World News Now.

    Now those are some SERIOUS numbers.

    [ Parent ]

    'New donors', hmm? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:18:44 AM EST
    I wonder how many of those are new or re-engaged Dem voters?

    Obama's 'Yeah-Butts' were hop=skipping and jumping all over the place unable to diminish HRC's win without bringing a glaring spotlight on some fundamental weaknesses in the Obama camp

    One of BO's boosters -- didn't catch her name -- on Larry King Live was making a big deal about his campaign outraising HRC, also about attracting new voters.

    80% new donors must be raising some eyebrows. Wonder what the total will be over 24 hrs.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh, top story @ the 4AM hour. (none / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:03:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Time (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34:32 AM EST
    for the pretender to drop out.

    There's only one President running in the Democratic primaries and it's not Obama. He's just not Presidential calibur this empty vessel who's taken credit for the efforts of others.

    Hillary Clinton has the popular vote lead and counting Michigan and Florida, as they should be counted, narrows Obama's pledged delegate lead to a razor thin margin.

    [ Parent ]

    cal1942 (4.16 / 6) (#79)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:52:25 AM EST
    I have to disagree down the line, with all respect.

    Sen. Obama is the only one who can make this decision and I support him in his choice to continue. If he wishes to continue, I say good for him. And the party. And the country.

    The contest is close and it's exciting. More Dems than ever registering, people really thinking about where they want the country to go and how we get there, despite the lameness of the MSM. We have some genuine questions about what it means to be a Democrat---yeah, some of this isn't constructive, but the potential outcome could be huge.

    Not just for the White House, but for all those downticket races.

    No intent to offend. Sen. Obama is not my candidate. But I got angry when people were wrongly screaming for Sen. Clinton to quit and turnabout is fair play.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think he should be pushed (none / 0) (#87)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:27 AM EST
    out at all. I don't like bullying by supporters and/or DNC officials no matter which way it goes. That said, it is becoming pretty darn clear that he simply can't win the general. If he cares about the party and wants to come out a hero that will sweep things in 2016 then I think it would be a good move on his part to withdraw but it's his decision. His friends and advisers need to talk with him privately as do party elders but there should be no pressure from the media or supporters. He has every right to continue as does HRC.

    [ Parent ]
    Now you know how it feels for supporters (none / 0) (#113)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:40:13 AM EST
    of Hillary Clinton to have to listen to all those calling on her to quit even before all the states have had their say?

    I agree, let all those eligible to vote, vote.  Let all the contestants finish the contest.

    [ Parent ]

    i'm a Clinton Supporter (none / 0) (#120)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:59:55 AM EST
    :) Don't know if you were addressing me but I wanted to clarify. I just don't like the bullying from the media -- no matter who it's directed at. I agree. Let the voters vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#88)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:03:25 AM EST
    Personally, I think since we've gone this far we might as well let everyone get their shot at voting. Furthermore, Howard ought to get out his bots and tell the two candidates that they need to hit at McCain and the first of the two to take their eye off that ball gets a boot up their backside. Let people vote based on how tey think the candidate will fare against McCain. After all, THAT eventually is what the playing board is going to look like.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he knew he was losing (none / 0) (#173)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:59:29 AM EST
    and figured, What the.....Emotional eater. Ha!

    [ Parent ]
    Great Night (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:58:41 PM EST
    For Hillary.  She worked hard for this win.  Now, onto Indiana!

    Huffington Post Hatefest (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:52 AM EST
    If you are a reader of HP, you'd think that tonight was all bad news for Hillary. The front page headline and stories sound so bitter, "CLINTON SURVIVES ANOTHER DAY".

    Too bad. It looks as if she's no longer interested in unity.

    Arianna Huffington (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    was the "she" I was referring to. Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah. Ariana (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:38:57 AM EST
    the former shill for right-wing causes along with KOS the "former" Republican and Josh Marshall the DLC fan.

    Shameful self-promoters one and all.

    [ Parent ]

    Headlines (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:26:15 AM EST
    Headline on FOX site right now: gorgeous pic of Hillary takes up half the page.  Check it out!  At least FOX is not pretending she didn't win.

    [ Parent ]
    nice pic of HRC (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM EST
    on the Fox News site. And further down the page this grabbed my eye:

    Study: Female Life Expectancy Down Significantly in 180 U.S. Counties

    Hillary we really need you.    

    'Nite all; celebration is sweet.

    [ Parent ]

    The Coverage (none / 0) (#48)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:29:54 AM EST
    was odd.  Tremendous coverage on the debate and the polls, and then I had to dig for the final numbers on-line.  

    [ Parent ]
    George and Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:28 AM EST
    Jeralyn, that's the second picture of George Harrison I've seen on this site.  That's reason enough to be here :).

    The implications of this night are still sinking in.  Hillary has gained way more than just a 10-point win, significant as that is.  Obama has been downgraded to a marginally effective candidate, on the verge of seizing a nomination for the sole purpose of losing to McCain.

    email me with (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:21:23 AM EST
    your other favorites and maybe I can put them up at Late Nite too.

    [ Parent ]
    meet me in NC and debate (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05:38 AM EST
    should be Clinton's call. Obama can't cower and hide in the corner and hope this all goes away. Clinton is ahead in the popular vote (incl. FL&MI) now and has the momentum. If he runs and hides and holds his breath for the rest of the primary hoping Dean and Donna will save him, what does that tell the SD's?

    I hope Obama shows his character and steps up to the plate and is brave enough for more debates. If not, then how can he be commander and chief?

    Actually Hillary doesn't need to call for (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:09:54 AM EST
    a debate---Obama does.
    Hillary could say "Obama is WELCOME to debate me" though. :)

    [ Parent ]
    hee hee, good point (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:11:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why does Obama need to call for a debate? (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:29:02 AM EST
    He accepted the 1st debate proposed for NC,  which Hillary declined to sign up for.

    He is leading in pledged delegates and popular vote and is leading heavily in the NC opinion polls.  Why play into Hillary's hands by giving here some desperately needed free media and attention?

    [ Parent ]

    that's not true (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:54:39 AM EST
    Hillary agreed to debate in NC.
    Obama suggested a debate date of April 19, the start of Passover, which was rejected by NC Dems. Hillary is still willing to debate. Obama is not.
    http://www.charlotte.com/109/story/590356.html

    [ Parent ]
    It Would Give Him Another Chance To Try And (none / 0) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:38:49 AM EST
    prove that he actually knows enough about his own positions to perform well in a debate. So far his performance has been less than stellar but you know practice makes perfect.

    [ Parent ]
    Let him (none / 0) (#50)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:30:37 AM EST
    hide.  That's why he can't close.  He hasn't got a message to stay on.

    [ Parent ]
    Wherebama? (none / 0) (#58)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34:31 AM EST
    n/t

    [ Parent ]
    sigh...cant resist (none / 0) (#131)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:38:32 AM EST
    Jim: Alex Trebek, I'll take People for 1000.

    Alright Jim, Places for 1000:

    Carmen Sandiego, Dick Cheney, Osama Bin Laden, Waldo, and Barack Obama.

    buzz

    Hillary: What is, in hiding?

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton's win in Pa. leaves Obama battered, (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:09:04 AM EST
     party reeling. Headline on Clinton win

    David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
    Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2008

    Substance is the same as premature NYT article, basically she beat poor Obama to a pulp the mean ya know.

    at least it wasn't another (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:24:24 AM EST
    "Clinton Scrapes By" type of headline. But only the KoolAid wing of the party is reeling.  Well, the rest of us might be, after celebrating tonight with boilermarkers!

    [ Parent ]
    ahem, "boilermakers" (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:12 AM EST
    that should be.

    [ Parent ]
    I read it as "bittermakers" (none / 0) (#190)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think it was the (none / 0) (#180)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    Chicago Tribune that had a headline about "Clinton Grinding Out a Win In PA". Is "grinding" as bad as scraping?

    [ Parent ]
    Open thread: Maryland 5 second rape law (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jerry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:09:23 AM EST
    Listen to these two attorneys discuss the Maryland 5 second rape law.

    Basically both attorneys, one male, one female, (the male a former prosecutor) agree that the 5 second law can be abusive.

    The female attorney thinks the law is outrageous, will open the floodgates to frivolous claims and says the court is literally crawling in bed here to micromanage the act of sex. The male attorney, the former prosecutor defends the law, but in doing so states that women can already abuse the law to victimize the man in many many ways as it is, so adding one more way to abuse the law is presumably not a big affront to liberty.  And he asks us to trust that prosecutors will do the right thing.

    Anyway, food for thought.

    And a terrific night for Hillary Clinton!

    Okay, one more thought.  The male attorney and the CNN announcer are positively orange with fake sun tan.  Weird.

    wow (none / 0) (#139)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:01:02 AM EST
    oh wow, thats amazing. 5 seconds to think/process her change of mind before the pull out and he gets a rape charge.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at the difference (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:10:44 AM EST
    in their election night speeches. Hillary's very uplifting, touches on economy, health care, foreign policy, stamina and strength, America leading again by good example. Obama had very little of that and harped on bickering and petty politics and not a single thing about Unity unless it's Unity For Obama.  Gaaahch.

    Since he's behind in the votes of the people, he oughtta step aside for the good of the country. /snark   If he continues he'll just keep handing the Rs more video opps every few days for their attack ads. "Would rather eat his waffles than discuss the implications of former President Carter meeting with Hamas."  

    Maybe he could do a reverse Reagan and go from politics to Hollywood.


    Who's Historic? (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:21:01 AM EST
    And Hillary will always mention his historic candidacy - while Obama never mentions hers.  He wants to believe that he is the only historic figure in the race - because the MSM tells him so.  Wrong.     Plus I think he is consistently angry that he is losing to a woman.  Just my sense.

    [ Parent ]
    The longer I watch this race (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by otherlisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:14:25 AM EST
    the more I agree with your sense.

    Stuff like that cutsie "I love you too!" and how with Michelle, "I traded up" - it's really weird and sometimes passive/agressive.

    [ Parent ]

    thats the 2nd reason i wont vote for him (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:10 AM EST
    I don't go by the "who i'd have a beer with" version of politics.  It's who has a personality I could imagine dating :P

    And that boy is more passive aggressive than anyone i've dated. good lord.  and talk about a brutal breakup, i'd never hear the end of the rumors and trash talkin behind my back.

    [ Parent ]

    A Great Night for Dems (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:14:27 AM EST
    Not just for Clinton but also for all Democrats as Pennsylvania Dems more than doubled the turnout from 2004 Primary and could triple the turnout from 2000 Primary.

    It looks like todays numbers will be slightly over  55% on the Democratic side. Regardless of the eventual winner the Dems are inspired to get out and vote and that will help from the top offices all the way down to the local races in November.

    Remember the key point! (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by jen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:15:15 AM EST
    Despite having:

    ALL THE MONEY

    and

    ALL THE MEDIA

    OBAMA CAN'T CLOSE THE DEAL!

    I should make a new t-shirt (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:21:20 AM EST
    with Obama's look-down-his-nose face on the front and the caption "But He Can't Close the Deal!"

    [ Parent ]
    How about: Can I just eat my waffle? (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:23:54 AM EST
    Collect them all!

    [ Parent ]
    That's a good one ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:33:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My best friend (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:17:28 AM EST
    My best friend and I , we fought through years of making housing affordable for poor people today just made a pact:  we will go to the inauguration balls for Hillary.  We have fought through lots of stuff to get to this point, now we want the cherry on top.  We want Hillary, one of us, who fought the culture wars to win.  Yes, the culture wars were not trivial.  

    Me too! (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:26:16 AM EST
    We must have a TL meetup in DC next January! Such fun.

    [ Parent ]
    It will be such a nice change (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Iphie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:33:46 AM EST
    from the last time I was there on inauguration day to protest a stolen election.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:21:59 AM EST
    Thank you thank you thank you.  

    You kept me sane.  I so appreciate you and the people on this site, I started to think that everything was upside down.  

    (PS the Zinfandel tonight was marvelous)

    mmm, nice choice (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:24:05 AM EST
    a zin and a victory. I second your TY to Jeralyn. Tanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Many of you have probably already seen this (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Iphie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:29:49 AM EST
    But here is the text of the email from Hillary tonight.
    Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without your generous support.

    There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.

    Thanks so much for all you do.

    Sincerely,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton



    Thanks for this (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:42:04 AM EST
    Had not seen it yet. This was the best part:

    There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.

    If that isn't the power of her candidacy -- in a nutshell -- I don't know what is.

    [ Parent ]

    Greg Mitchell is blaming racist Dems for O's loss (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jerry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:33:15 AM EST
    I'm disappointed with Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher tonight, who seemingly is blaming Clinton's loss on racist Democrats.  All in all, a pretty shallow and divisive analysis.

    Was Race a Strong Factor in Clear Clinton Win in Pennsylvania?

    I had long suggested that many understate the number of older Democrats who are (still) racist and who would tip many contests to Clinton. But I closed yesterday's post by saying that if Obama won or came close in Pennsylvania that might put the issue to rest.

    Didn't happen. And the exit polls show, again, that one in four Clinton voters claim they would not vote for Obama in November. For whatever reason. And she got 70% of the white, blue-collar vote in most regions, including the area of central Pennsylvania where I spent a lot of time growing up and heard many a racist remark.

    Other details from polling turn up other troubling numbers along those lines.

    And once again, the old phenomenon of exit polls proven wrong, because people with racist views do not tell pollsters the truth on election day, again reared its head. The final exit polls today indicated only a 4% Clinton win. Now it looks like 10%. That difference is largely the racial vote, I'd guess. I call them the true "late deciders" -- they decide to show their bigotry in the privacy of the voting booth.

    Tim Russert reported tonight that the GOP in North Carolina is now going to play the race card against Obama in primary ads there, which can only help Clinton.

    Anyway, I will leave it at that -- you guys and gals go at it. As I've said before, I am just putting this all out there, not to suggest, at all, that Obama should not or can not be the nominee. Let's just say that I am very sensitive to the continuing problems of race and racial prejudice in society.

    And here I thought it was sexism (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:36:22 AM EST
    against HRC that was getting Obama his votes.  

    Ugh.

    [ Parent ]

    The replies to Mitchell are worth reading.... (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by jerry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:43:23 AM EST
    Many are of the variety, "For 40 years these people voted for civil rights advances, and now they are racist?"

    [ Parent ]
    Does he really think... (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:54 AM EST
    this helps his candidate or the party? "Hillary only wins because of racists." And his reasoning is nonsense and full of assumptions that he knows why people do things, as if there is only one answer. And then he (wink wink) backs away from coming right out and saying it, as if it's "just a thought." Appalling.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't hear him compaining (none / 0) (#103)
    by jeffhas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:10:22 AM EST
    that 925 of Blacks voted for Obama... is racism exclusive to whites?

    [ Parent ]
    ooops typo - 92% of blacks voted for Obama!!! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jeffhas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:10:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How sweet it is, just watching the 'A' blogs (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:24 AM EST
    admit early on that Clinton had 'won this thing'.

    How they said they wanted to make it less than 10% and pretty please let her get less than 10%. To hear some say well at least we bankrupted her only to have her raise 2.5 mil a few hours after her win. I almost could see the egg on their faces. I could almost hear the silence, it was deafening.

    How the the snotty bloggers who said Clinton wanted to 'sunder'the party by having the audacity to stay in amid their cries to quit. How Obama got endorsement after endorsement by none other than heavy weights Caroline Kennedy, Oprah, and other heavies.                                          How sshhhweet it is!

    What offends (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:46:18 AM EST
    me the most is that there seems to be very little discussion that if they continue to clamour for her to quit, they are essentially telling her supporters that we're not important or relevant.

    I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Dem party would talk that way about the traditional Democrats.

    It just blows my mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Endorsements (none / 0) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58:19 AM EST
    Funny. A few days ago Buzzflash breathlessly announced that da party elders were endorsing Obama.

    Which 'party elders?'

    Boren and Nunn.

    Both part of the Unity '08 silliness.  Broder's boys.  Both stiff, old washed up pols who bailed when they lost the Senate majority.

    [ Parent ]

    Over at DKos they are tying (none / 0) (#178)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:11:35 AM EST
    themselves into knots to "prove" Hillary got less than 10%

    I guess that imaginary 3% ballot position bump they gave Obama in NH for not being 1st on the ballot is not operative in PA (Obama was 1st on the ballot) -

    [ Parent ]

    I Second Stellaaa (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:28 AM EST
    Totally agree with Stellaaa! What a great site! You can't imagine how wonderful it is to read these kinds of reasoned and insightful posts.  I'm coming from the NY Times Caucus and CNN posts.  At the latter, posters are literally cyber-shrieking at PA voters, calling them ignorant, gun-toting rednecks whose vote is going to send the county straight to McCainland (hope and unity, anyone?).  The NYTimes caucus has the usual idiots posting at 5 pm that Obama is going to win in double digits.  By 8 pm their conviction has morphed into, "well, uh, he really did just want to win by ten points."  Uh-huh.  I've been wondering where all the sane, funny posters were.

    Thanks all who posted tonight; I've had great fun reading all the comments, and look forward to joining the discussion soon.

    Oh yeah, I donated another $100 to Hillary tonight because of y'all :)

    The funny dems (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:02 AM EST
    have all been swept up  here.

    [ Parent ]
    welcome to talkleft (none / 0) (#134)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:50:51 AM EST
    i wandered here for pretty much the same reason a few weeks ago. the times was bad enough with ronpaul 08 spam, but it's unreadable these days. 500 to 800 comments with no paging/ranking/intelligence is kinda silly.

    [ Parent ]