Late Night: Here Comes the Sun

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    +215,000 in popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    How is it at all fair... (1.66 / 6) (#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?

    Okay (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    Don't you remember? (5.00 / 9) (#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.

    OMG (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    was (5.00 / 7) (#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.


    Don't you mean Michigan? (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    Obama' s name (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    This is incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    I Thought Obama Supporters Were Supposed To Be (5.00 / 8) (#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.


    I mean (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    The problem is... (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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. :-)


    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.


    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.

    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.

    Found the pop vote totals.... (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    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.


    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.  

    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?

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

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. ;)

    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.


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

    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.

    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?

    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?


    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.

    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


    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!

    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.

    Obama's ads were INEFFECTIVE (5.00 / 6) (#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 / 1) (#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.

    "What good is his money?" (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    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.


    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.

    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".


    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!

    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.  


    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 . . .


    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?


    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.


    '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.


    Heh, top story @ the 4AM hour. (none / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:03:24 AM EST
    Time (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    cal1942 (4.75 / 4) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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 / 5) (#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. :)

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


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.


    Hillary: What is, in hiding?


    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!

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

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

    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.

    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 / 9) (#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.

    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.


    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.


    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:





    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!"

    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!

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

    It will be such a nice change (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.  



    The replies to Mitchell are worth reading.... (5.00 / 3) (#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?"

    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.

    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?

    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
    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 / 8) (#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.


    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.


    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) -


    I Second Stellaaa (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    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.

    So, will SD's be endorsing (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:31 AM EST
    Hillary, or the candidate whose supporters think that a respectable second is a fine result in an election.

    I can see it now (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:54:55 AM EST
    Obama: Well, McCain was projected as winning the GE by 20% and we closed that gap down to 10%. I think we've won.
    KO: When will McCain step aside from this race? What is his path to the white house.
    Buchanan: Um, Keith, McCain won. What are you talking about?
    Chris: I've got a tingle running down my leg.
    Buchanan: I believe that's pee Chris.

    France (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:49:55 AM EST
    Talked to a male French friend today who told me how he finds the misogynist parallells between the French and American elections.  And he wished me the best for Hillary today.  

    It's all right... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:47 AM EST
    I love that song, Jeralyn.

    Donated $20.44 tonight. ;)

    10 points, 200+K victory in the popular vote.

    Yep, that's a butt-kicking by any measure. It is particularly so when you have outspent your opponent by a margin of 3+ to 1 and your fabled campaigning skills have landed you on the losing end of a lopsided beatdown even with 6 weeks to close the gap.

    Damn it's a great night. And when and if Obama wins North Carolina, he will only further the narrative of his being the niche candidate that he is.

    I wanted to let people know that I have put up a front-page video and introduction to same over at my website that I think many here will appreciate. I don't want to give too much away, so I'll just leave it at that. The link:


    The "Front Page Video" section is the third category down. If you feel like a chuckle, I think this will do the trick.

    She's back, and she's ready. Barack is fading, and he has shown how unbelievably weak he is on several levels. As you would expect, superdelegates have much to think about after this evening.


    If you want a good theme song (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by RTwilight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:46 AM EST
    for Hillary and her supporters, try "invincible" by Pat Benatar...I was humming that to myself all through this day

    Hit the Road, Jack (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by badger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:35:57 AM EST
    by Ray Charles

    Oh, woman, Oh woman
    Why you treat me so mean?
    You're the meanest old woman
    That I've ever seen.
    But I guess if you say so
    I'll have to pack my bags and go -

    That's Right!
    Hit the road, Jack
    And don't you come back
    No more, no more, no more, no more


    love it! LOL (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04:10 AM EST
    That's Right!
    Hit the road, Barack
    And don't you come back
    No more, no more, no more, no more

    Hit the road, Barack
    And don't you come back no more


    I think that a good theme for her campaign (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:23 AM EST
    would be "Hit Me With Your Best Shot".. because they  have and she is still standing. Here are the lyrics..

    Well you're the real tough cookie with the long history
    Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
    That's O.K., lets see how you do it
    Put up your dukes, lets get down to it!

    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Why Don't You Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Fire Away!

    You come on with a "come on", you don't fight fair
    But that's O.K., see if I care!
    Knock me down, it's all in vain
    I'll get right back on my feet again!

    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Why Don't You Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Fire Away!

    Well you're the real tough cookie with the long history
    Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
    Before I put another notch in my lipstick case
    You better make sure you put me in my place

    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Come On, Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Fire Away!

    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Why Don't You Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
    Fire Away!


    Race Issues (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:04:01 AM EST
    I have tried to talk about those things here and have had some comments deleted in the past.  I will try to do so in a less volatile way.

    I can see the developing meme here is this statement:  

    Clinton won cause of race.  

    Which is the flip side of:  

    Obama was winning cause of race.  

    All I can say is that if one argument, the latter argument must be condemned, then so should the former arguement.

    Clinton won cause people in PA want her to be president.  NOT because there's something wrong with the people in PA.  NOT because she's white.  Or that Obama is black.  They liked her message and trust her to bring about the change America is desparate for.

    What I would like to happen is for the first statement above, that Clinton won cause of race, to be considered AS VERBOTEN as the second argument.

    In fact, I will point out that if one argument is considered more verboten than the other then that itself proves Geraldine Ferrarro's point.

    And I think it would be a shame if that was the case.

    It's a very dumb argument (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by otherlisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:21:27 AM EST
    for Obama supporters to push. How does HRC's strong Latino and Asian support fit into this theory?

    Obama's problem is that he can't attract working class voters, aside from African Americans. If his supporters would look at that factor, rather than framing it as an exclusively racial issue, they would be a lot more productive.


    And he has a problem with that demographic (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:36:48 AM EST
    NOT because he's black.

    But because, well, in my opinion, Obama has a problem with that demographic because that demographic is, quite simply, more in tune to Clinton's message, instead of Obama's.

    Speeches and transformational change aren't a priority for them.

    Solutions and implementation is.


    Yep. Exactly. (none / 0) (#123)
    by otherlisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:06:31 AM EST
    And that's why it's so infuriating for this to continually being framed in racial terms. Race is a factor, but it's not the overriding motivation for most people.

    I think I'll reduce my point down (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:21:29 AM EST
    To the following statement.

    If it's OK to talk about people voting against Obama cause of race, then it's also perfectly OK to talk about people voting FOR Obama cause of race without being accused of race baiting!

    I would commit myself to a world view that says both statements are erroneous and cynical.

    But I can't commit myself to a world view that says talking about one thing is OK and talking about the other is not.

    I think that would suck.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:09:01 AM EST
    What's wrong with Ron Reagan?

    He's claiming he's an independent... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jeffhas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:29 AM EST
    but if you say anything against Obama he goes into tantrum mode... so I'd say someone gave him the Kool-Aid.

    He also likes the cutting Hillary remarks (must have CDS too!)

    Shame, I actually liked him - must've been tough to grow up under a historic figure like Ronald Reagan (say what you will - he's pretty revered by a majority of citizens)... then again - maybe you just rebel against the father/authority figure and go hard left?... who knows?/who cares?


    Anyone calling Clinton a liar (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:44:01 AM EST
    Foregoes their independent status.  His question to Lanny was like every single DailyKos Obama blogging baited piece of crap question we've seen over the last few weeks.

    He got schooled so he brought up Tuzla.


    He might want to take a look at (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:01:59 AM EST
    her speech last night and listen to what she said about ending the war on science . . .

    did you see him twitch? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:28:56 AM EST
    He totally spazzed out (literally). Lanny called him on his crap and he just started shaking like crazy. I've never seen anything like it. Truly weird.

    Morning Joe this morning (none / 0) (#117)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:46:16 AM EST
    read an article that said Julie Nixon Eisenhower is discreetly for Obama.

    Can Obama Win The Contested States? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by john horse on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:43:29 AM EST
    Fla Politics picked up on this recent editorial from the St Pete Times on Obama's ability to win the states that a Democrat needs to win if he or she is going to the White House.

    The fact remains, though, that Clinton at this point looks stronger in the states that make the biggest difference in who wins and loses the White House: Ohio, whose primary she won by 10 points; Pennsylvania, where the average of recent polls shows her leading by about 6 points; and Florida, whose officially meaningless primary she won by 17 percentage points.

    Florida is a trickier question, as neither candidate campaigned in the state. But show me a candidate struggling to win over Hispanic voters and Jewish voters, as Obama has, and I see someone with dubious prospects in the Sunshine State.

    Definitely food for thought.

    NYT and MSM in general parrot the Obama narrative (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by kempis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:29:45 AM EST
    I know there are people in the Democratic party (and apparently at the NYT) who are poopin' themselves because Hillary is still running. But how on earth can she quit without looking like she's graciously giving her seat to the enfeebled Barack? Seriously, I don't think people are thinking this one through. Does the Democratic party really want a nominee who got there only because his challenger, who was still winning key states, decided to quit so he could have the nomination?

    The party isn't in trouble because of Hillary Clinton. The party is in trouble because it's split. Hillary didn't make it split; it just is. The narrative, since the beginning of the primaries, has been that Obama is the preferred nominee and Hillary keeps getting in his way. The problem with that narrative is that it ignores a key role: the voter. In Ohio, PA, and New Jersey, the voters have chosen Hillary over Barack by ten points. In Indiana next week, they'll probably do the same--ignoring the "but Obama is the nominee!" narrative just like most PA voters did.

    Most Democratic voters would prefer to settle the nomination sooner rather than later; it's just that we differ on who should be the nominee. There is considerable passion for Obama, but what the media has failed to get is that there is equal passion for Clinton. There's been a really annoying "blame Hillary" tack in the press that holds that she just won't give up, dammit, even though she can't win by the numbers (ignoring that, despite his 2% lead, neither can Obama). But it's not that Hillary won't give up: Hillary supporters won't give up. It seems that some of us are committed to the idea that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. I know I can't let go of that idea, and I've tried--for the sake of my own blood pressure.

    So...on to Indiana. I'm a tightwad, but I did send her a modest donation this morning. I don't want to blow my budget on her now because I'm holding out a little hope that she'll need more $$$ to beat McCain in the general.  :)

    Although (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:56:40 AM EST
    I like Digby and usually agree with her, but not her readers for the most part, today I am not in agreement with her at all.

    She wants the SD to end it now. And she believes that all the "I won't vote" for your candidate if he/she is the nominee is just primary rhetoric that will fade as we get together to defeat McCain.

    I don't think so. I think that many supporters of Obama and many supporters of Clinton loathe each other and their candidate more than they loathe McCain.

    The problem is that no matter how many times people try to make McCain just like Bush, the media has painted him as a maverick and a straight talker for too many years. He isn't loathed like Bush and thus many Dems won't have a problem voting for him or not for Obama who they truly do loathe.

    Maybe I'm just not seeing the "big" picture. But I firmly believe that the exit polls in PA showing that nearly 50% of the woman who support Hillary would not vote for Obama is about right. At least in my little neck of the woods. Some would vote McCain, not me, not ever voting for a Republican, but writing in or voting for anyone but Obama.

    The post you refer to at Digbysblog (none / 0) (#164)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:43:50 AM EST
    was actually posted by Dday, not Digby.

    Sorry, My Bad (none / 0) (#186)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:31:02 AM EST
    It was dday not Digby. Still don't agree and for the same reason.

    Heads exploding. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:15 AM EST
    Tweety disses Obama on Joe Scar. Praises Clinton.

    re (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by az on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:50 PM EST
    Okay so where are those who said they would congratulate me for my predicting a 10 point win.

    I think I deserve to be congratulated.

    However just like I said Obama would still be the nominee.

    Don't get me wrong I think Clinton is ultimately a better candidate , I don't know how she pulls it from Obama.

    popular vote (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:46 AM EST
    Come on, you knew that.  But she needs to get at least Florida counted.

    If anyone has had to earn this nomination, it is Clinton.  I don't see how that qualifies as pulling anything from anyone.  Nobody "owns" anything or has anything right now.  This is a close contest that has yet to be decided.


    I too voted 10 points (none / 0) (#124)
    by otherlisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:07:01 AM EST
    Where's my pony?

    Hillary Clinton (1.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Louis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:14:34 AM EST
    It is funny reading all these post where all of you Hillary supporters are so happy about her win. She was going to win.  That was obvious weeks ago.  Obama never spoke of winning PA in a literal sense.  All he needed to do was make it closer than 20 points.  Ten isn't bad.

    The thing is this, you can say what ever you want about "getting out the kitchen".  When it comes down to it, Hillary won't drop out because Obama is black (mixed, what ever Jim Crow).  Her feeling is that she does not trust the American people to put a black man in office.  I'm willing to bet that comes out before November too.

    This may upset a lot of you, but Clinton could care less who the next President ends up if she doesn't get the nomination.  She unlike us, is very well off.  Policies of the next President won't effect her, so why should she?  If she did care, she wouldn't try to "destroy" Obama every chance she gets.  He is by far no where near as negative as her.  All night her campaign manager and spokespersons have been trying to say how negative Obama is compared to her, and commentator after commentator have had to set each one of them straight.  Its obvious that Obama wants to talk issues, but it was very evident the last debate as well as the last few weeks Clinton is all about the attack.  Will it pay off?  We will see by May.

    Lastly, say what you will, but I know a significant amount of people here in Ohio that will vote for McCain before they vote for Hillary.  She is not good for the country.  Its one thing to point out inexperience, but it another thing all together to be downright disrespectful.  Put your loyalty to the side and contrast objectively Obama ads versus Clinton ads.  The Clintons have shown a side of themselves that a lot of people didn't realize was there.  I'm a fan of Bills', but I don't know. I'm a very unhappy independant.

    When everything else fails (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Serene1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:23:40 AM EST
    One can always bring out the racisim Charge.

    Q.Which other person and his followers in recent history hid behind another ism to justify his failures?
    A. George Bush. Hid behind patriotisim.


    Misled (2.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Louis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:45:31 AM EST
    George and patriotism...I think you are misled.  I'm a Soldier.  Bush didn't have to hide behind patriotism.  When he went after Bin Laden and the Taliban the whole country became patriotic.  When my unit was taking a bus ride across country to an air port do you know how many flags lined the streets?  Countless.  Guess how many were lining the streets when we came back from deployment?  Yeah, just that many, hardly any at all.

    But don't just blame Bush and say he was hiding behind patriotism, because the whole country was made to fear Saddam.  It was sickening to me.  Those color codes, surveillance, and the patriot act that outright violates you and my rights all for the sake of security that wasn't even initially debated until two years later.  People were so afraid they were openly saying that they'd give up some of their personal liberties just to be protected.  To those people they need to read the very beginning to the Declaration of Independance, where it talks about why our forefather's bretheren were actually leaving good ol' Great Britian.


    Who was responsible (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Serene1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:57:59 AM EST
    for creating the atmosphere of fear.
    George Bush.
    He and his cronies went on a rampage exploiting people's fears and accusing anybody who stood against them as unpatriotic. Things came to such a head that people were terrified of blaming him or calling him out for fear of being labelled unpatriotic. It was only when things got worse that people had the courage to start questioning Bush & Gang.

    This may upset you (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:25:09 AM EST
    But you have no F-ing idea what Clinton thinks.

    A curse word...come on (1.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Louis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:55:17 AM EST
    Look nobody is saying either Clinton is a racist.  Its like Bill said "his office is in the heart of Harlem".  I usually don't resond to people that curse, because it shows ignorance, but my point is this.

    I just don't believe Hillary is in the race because she feels she can win.  I think her, Bill, and a lot of other people think that since Obama is black or whatever he cannot win the election in November.  There's was proof of this on TV today when the media was going around and interviewing random people.  A lot of people still think Obama is muslim.  That's rediculous, how many times does that issue have to come up.  A whole church voted to keep an ignorant man's dispicable message on it's sign.  Hillary may be Barrack's opponent, but she can at least cut some of the misconceptions.  Instead she feeds on them.  McCain and Obama at least have a sense for respect for her and each other.  She was upset, because Obama said McCain would be better than George.  Am I the only one that believes if McCain wee in office now instead of Bush things might be different?  Am I the only one who think we have a President leaving office in November that probably graduated near the bottom of his class and was most likely bought in to his elite secret society? Come on now.


    Hillary should work (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Serene1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:03:30 AM EST
    towards reducing misconceptions about Obama? That has to be a joke.

    Obama has millions more than Hillary, why can't he do the same and why should Hillary do anything for a candidate whose whole pitch in the initial days revolved around - more people dislike her than me so elect me.


    I think you mean... (1.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Louis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:19:55 AM EST
    In the earlier days Clinton thought she had everything sown up.  Then reality kicked in and Barrack took off with the delegates.  She couldn't handle that and went on this negative offensive.  Her campaign has done every thing bury this guy.
    Anyway to make my point.  If Barrack can clarify things people misconstrue about Hillary or Barrack can decide not to join in on the personal attacks when the situation is set for him to do so, then Hillary should do the same.  It may take away from the "mean old braod" problems she is having.  Why ruin your party out of eagerness to win?  That doesn't make sense.  Democrats are going to mess around and lose the big event.

    How many times has Barrack and McCain praised or clarified something for the other since the hunt for delegates began?  The thing is they actually have bad blood.  Hillary and Barrack do not or at least they didn't.  He is a better man than I, because it would be real hard for me to to stand beside her in a debate and just publicly humiliate her.  Its not like there is no ammunition.  There are still questions about her law firm from her days in the white house that haven't been answered.  What did the call all that white water or water gate...you know what I mean.  Its late.  Let's be real.  Barrack probably told his campaign not to go that far, because that would be real easy.  If the shoes were on the other's feet, you know everything would be fair game.


    Obama's initial campaign was (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Serene1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:43:40 AM EST
    built around - I am better than her, because she is the establishment candidate, she will say or do anything to win, all those republicans hate her yada yada when Hillary's campaign was I have more experience hence I am better.

    His negative campaigning and caucus bullying went of so well that he started leading Hillary everywhere and Hillary's negatives touched record high. It was only then mind you that Hillary started going negative. A complete list and timeline of Obama's negative attacks on Hillary is posted in theleftcoaster.


    have you been watching the debates and (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:48:45 AM EST
    really paying attention to the media at all? You're 'likable enough" or MSNBC love fest for Obama demonstrated by Olbermann's David Duke pile on. His "holier than thou campaign" asking journalist to exploit Clinton's sex life another fine example of an ordinary politician's strategy. These are just a few examples? Do you want to get into the race baiting so you'll "get it".

    Those old attacks are not impressive. They do not reflect positively on your candidate. Obama is just another politician, he may have style, but its waning. His substance is a lazy intellect who doesn't speak in the vernacular of many Americans, that's why he loses the blue collar folks. They may not be as educated, but they live by their common sense and work harder than those academic theorist you tell them why they are the way they are.

    Obama is not Mr. Clean. His hands are dirty with suspicion he hasn't cleanse- Rezko, Wright, he can't even tell the truth about his own handwriting. There is no gotcha in the questions any more then what Clinton has received. He needs to put up or shut up. Whining is crying cause things don't go your way. Do you find
    inspiration in that? He needs to stuff his mouth with waffles instead of speaking because who he really is starting to show.

     His record of legislative accomplishment is thin at best. Voting present and hitting the wrong button is called covering your backside to further an election agenda- it is not taking a stand on an issue.  Obama wins the title Panderer in Chief with a Democrat for a Day convenience.


    Oh man (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:58:21 AM EST
    I can already see the GOP ads now urging people to not "hit the wrong button" in the Voting Booth like Obama did as State Senator.

    Seriously, with Obama as the Nominee, the GOP ads will literally just write themselves.  And what will his response be?

    Whine and then ask for more money.


    Again (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:08:10 AM EST
    With or without whatever, you have no idea what Clinton is thinking.

    That is the unmitigated failure of Obama activism.

    It always starts with "I know what Clinton is thinking."

    And you can have an opinion about that.

    Can I have an opinion about what Obama is thinking?  Cause I do have an opinion about what Obama is thinking.  Would you like to hear that?


    Barack Obama has been feeding off of (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:10:25 AM EST
    mis-conceptions about Clinton from day 1!!!!!!!!!!

    Obama trots out the Lincoln Bedroom talking point on the first day of the campaign.

    Oh man.


    hahahaha (1.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Louis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:27:21 AM EST
    Hey, and with that I'm going to sleep.  All I'm saying is that someone needs to tell Hillary to cut back some of the rhetoric.  I know a lot of Independants and Democrats that support her and Barrack and feel that McCain just might be a better pick if she gets the nomination.  Its rediculous how ugly she is with a peer.  I wonder what her friends think about her.

    As far as the mistake of assuming I know what Clinton is thinking...maybe you should reread this post and all the others celebrating Hillary's victory.  Tell me how many people say "Obama thought..."

    Good night people...congrats on you victory.  Cherish it, because NC and IN belong to Barrack. 8-)


    Great (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:36:56 AM EST
    And I know a bunch of people who won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

    Blah blah blah.


    without rhetoric (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    Obama is no where. Sure hope he can bring the substantive arguments he needs to the debate. Oh that's right there won't be anymore debates. Why- 'cause the kitchen's too hot!

    The joke's on you (none / 0) (#191)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    All I want is someone who is better than Bush.  Barack says McCain is better than Bush.  I think Hillary is the best candidate for the country.  If Hillary is not the nominee, my vote goes to McCain.  According to the survery there are 50% of us who will do that compared to the 29% of Barack's supporters who would not vote for Hillary.  So do the math.  

    In short, McCain as president that not nearly scare me as the bumbling Barack.  The bitter/cling gaffe?  That's what sunk him.  Barack is the one defeating himself because of his inner thoughts.  It tells me, that he is the one he was referring to as 'wearing a mask' in dealing with people.

    So, don't make me any more resolved to vote for McCain.  Hillary has said many times that she will work her heart out for the democratic nominee, even if it is not her.  I have never heard Barack make such a commitment.  Whereas Michelle Obama actually said, she will have to think about that."


    arrogance in the extreme to presume you know (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:03:11 AM EST
    You've got to be kidding with the whole, "Hillary is staying in because she doesn't think a black man can win," conspiracy theory. How about, Obama chose to run on no experience because he knew a woman was running and he could undercut her candidacy playing up misogyny and playing up old GOP talking points? See how that works? It's silly and it's divisive -- the very things you're supposed to be fighting against.

    G-d forbid, Hillary might be staying in because she knows she's the most electable and can beat John McCain. Why? Perhaps, because democrats have only been successful in recent Presidential history when they are perceived as centrists and Obama is perceived as far left. Or perhaps, because she feels she has what this country needs right now as we stare into the abyss. Do you think it's fun for her to be vilified by the very people she has spent most of her life fighting for? She's got money and power -- she doesn't need any more and frankly given the hate she has to endure and the power she already wields through her Senate position and Bill's Presidency, the argument that she's just power mad doesn't hold much water. Maybe, just maybe, she wants to serve her country by establishing Universal Health Care, pulling the economy out of the tank, and ending the war in Iraq (for starters) even if that means putting up with the most horrendous non-stop assaults on her character. However, assuming any of us knows her mind, let alone the rather nefarious hypothesis you present, is beyond the pale.

    As to the slanders against Obama, they're unfortunate but they weren't started by Clinton. Rumors that Obama was Muslim have been around since he gave his keynote speech in 2004 and were started by the GOP. Clinton had no idea Obama would run back then and in fact helped him win his seat and then took him under her wing when he entered the Senate. Blaming Clinton for GOP smears is an adept move by the Obama campaign that convinces the faithful but it's are simply not based in fact.

    As McCain and mutual respect -- you've got it exactly backwards and really should read up on it. McCain and Obama can't stand each other but McCain and Clinton have a cordial working relationship.


    Texas (none / 0) (#17)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:09:58 AM EST
    Why do the posters on DK keep saying that Hillary lost Texas? I'm pretty sure she won by ~100K.

    they need more vitamins (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:17:01 AM EST
    I think to help with their delusion. They're of course referring to delegate counts in TX, but in doing so they actually hurt themselves by showing how horrible Caucuses are and how much of a sham is the delegate count. There pushing of that meme all by itself shows that the popular vote is the only real measure.

    Reminds me, who ever said those orange guys know anything about politics again. Snark.


    Good glory, (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:23:27 AM EST
    no wonder they're jumping up and down mad about the news saying she won there. What do actual voters matter? Argh.

    The way delegates were awarded gave Obama more (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by jerry on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:17:40 AM EST
    In another stunning victory for the popular vote, Texas' election rules which are a combination of a popular vote plus a caucus ended up with Obama getting more delegates than Clinton, even though she was ahead in the popular vote.

    If this reminds you of Bush V. Gore then obviously you are a Obama Hater and most likely you were involved in the Vince Foster cover up.  Admit it.


    and... (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:19:32 AM EST
    you're a racist and you're bitter and clingy.

    LOL, (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:24:24 AM EST
    I vote we don't ever go to DK again. It is a silly place. :)

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:48:10 AM EST
    I won't be going back to DKos.  KOS was showing his arrogance and bloated ego even before the primaries. I had already downgraded him from my daily list.

    I would like to see many thousands dump the Republican in sheep's clothing jerk.


    Kid Oakland - sonuvagun (none / 0) (#149)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:24:21 AM EST
    A break from KO's Hillary bashing diaries, he actually wrote one saying "Gee, we might need to work together!".  So the great walkback begins.

    Some one wrote an anti unity comment so I pointed them towards Aretha Franklin's little tune called "RESPECT".  


    But the TX delegate counts are still not final (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:52 AM EST
    I read that somewhere today (here, I think).

    Texas (1.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Louis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:32 AM EST
    Hillary did lose Texas.  After all votes were in Obama won the state by 6 points.  It is something small.  She won the original primary.  He won the caucus which put him ahead in delegates for that state.

    PA SoS site says 8.6% difference (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:24:36 AM EST
    and 194,000ish vote margin with 98.8 % counted.

    Who's right?

    the PA SoS has been slow (none / 0) (#46)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:28:03 AM EST
    all night. Actually most all SoS sites are slow like that. I think you'll find it will match the CNN site of 10% when all is said and done at 100%. But it certainly could be lower. That last 1 or 2% could be wild and crazy. We'll just have to wait for the official numbers.

    from what I've seen in the past (none / 0) (#51)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:30:51 AM EST
    they haven't counted some districts that have reported (to them and to the media). Their paperwork is slower than the medias. You know, government work. :-)

    The media have more money (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:19 AM EST
    for extra help to cope with getting out the info asap.  No real need for the state to do so -- the gov there already said they'll take a couple of days to get the numbers done and allocate delegates.  Penn's state gummint is in the situation of mine, with a strapped budget falling behind projected revenues.  No need to pay many dozens of minions overtime into the night on this.

    Plus, having worked in such a setup, it is crucial that the inputting be correct -- checked, double-checked, etc., as the official site.  The media, not so much need to be absolutely correct.  State numbers can be challenged, leading to lawsuits and the like.  Not so with media unofficial counts . . . they can be inputted by student interns who think it's glamorous work.:-)


    But that 98.8% reported looks worrisome (none / 0) (#94)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:38:23 AM EST
    Damn it.  How can she make it to 10% with so little left to count or am I missing something?

    Oh! They're UNOFFICIAL returns! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:40:35 AM EST
    Whew.  God, I pray she stays at 10%.

    With (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:50:08 AM EST
    99% counted it's 10% and over 200,000 vote win.

    Exit Polling (none / 0) (#92)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:36 AM EST
    Shows that Hillary did well among college grads and those with higher degrees.  That was his, so he lost ground there.

    The youth group was not nearly as big as the older group turnout.

    This link, of an article, (none / 0) (#97)
    by Serene1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:01:17 AM EST
    posted in TM message board is v.v. insightful. all I can say is go read it.


    The NYT sucks hard (none / 0) (#105)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:13:34 AM EST
    EFF the NYT. To this pathetic, Obama-like weak editorial:


    I left the following response, which is likely to not see the light of the comment board but which need to be said:

    An embarrassing and untoward editorial from The Old Gray Lady. To put it mildly, you are far better than this.

    There is a very good reason why you are writers and editors and the high-priced political consultants have their own jobs. To put it bluntly: Stay in the shallow end of the political pool and stick with spliced commas.

    Senator Obama has not been properly vetted, much as your paper failed in its duty to help Americans vet the supposed intelligence which led up to the Iraq War, or failed to capture fabricating employees.

    There are numerous reasons why the Times is slipping without any hopes of righting itself in terms of advertising revenue and distribution. This editorial is a succinct display of those reasons.

    If you decide it is your obligation to play the new Pat Leahy to Mrs. Clinton, do not be surprised when your readers decide to mimic Dick Cheney to your Leahy.

    Hillary won an enormous victory tonight, and your desire to have the referees prematurely stop the contest demonstrates the same lack of resilience and strength which has just seen Obama both turn down a debate in North Carolina and decide not to talk with reporters for 10 days.

    John Adams would be disgusted with both you and the Illinois senator.

    Paul F. Villarreal

    Patrick Murphy is a good soldier (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:26:48 AM EST
    Losing by 10 is a win.

    That's the talking point.  He stuck to it!

    HERE COMES THE SUN !!!! (none / 0) (#136)
    by drewohio1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:57:57 AM EST
    GO HILLARY GO !!!!

    To me it's simple (none / 0) (#151)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:20:46 AM EST
    If you are the media's darling, have the cards stacked in your favor and you still can not deliver most of the Big States, you have a problem.  Come the GE you will no longer be the media's favorite, and the cards will probably be stacked against you.  If, you are not used to winning against all odds you won't be able to pull it off.

    My question to all is this;
                      Who in this race has been winning Big states against all odds?  Who is still winning Big states even though being attacked by the so called big hitters in the Democratic Party?

    Answer this and then decide who would make the better candidate in the GE.

    Brava, Sen Clinton, Brava (none / 0) (#152)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:29:38 AM EST
    Oh man, are the Obama followers having hissy fits today.
    Hillary needed to win PA by double digits.  She wins all but 4-5 counties, but somehow the Obama followers are trying to spin it to Obama's advantage.  I'm listening to callers on CSPAN, and the Obama followers are bitter.  I guess Obama was right after all.

    I smell an upset in the air.

    I predict Hillary winning IN by about 6% and Obama winning NC by only 4% or less.  Hillary is picking up speed and Obama can't land the knock out punch.  If he can't take out Hillary, he can't take out McCain.

    Hillary/Edwards '08!

    7 pages of exit polls... (none / 0) (#154)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:55:15 AM EST
    and not one question about the effect of the debates.  But there were several questions on ads and negativity. Talk about your pre-conceptions driving the story.

    More Underground Stuff... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:31:44 AM EST
    Clinton and Republican John McCain have suffered scrutiny. The only one treated as an infant in swaddling clothes by the national media--until quite recently--is Sen. Change.

    So let's wait until Labor Day, when Broadway Baby may become a catchphrase. Here's why: According to a 1982 New York Times report, Broadway Baby was implicated in an investigation of a series of violent armed robberies in New York--netting more than $2 million over a two-year span--committed by former Black Panthers and Weather Underground members in the early '80s.

    Their aim? Global revolution, naturally. They needed cash, but the rich white parents weren't in a giving mood. So their privileged offspring grabbed guns, pointed them at the faces of the working man and, sometimes, they pulled the trigger.
    At Broadway Baby, customers often paid by check and used driver's licenses for identification. On Dec. 28, 1979, information from two customer files was used to apply for two driver's licenses at the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. The fraudulent licenses were used to rent getaway cars for the gang.

    Investigators tracked the identities on two licenses for the getaway cars. The names belonged to women who had shopped at Broadway Baby in December 1979. But they weren't robbers.

    And who was the manager of Broadway Baby during that period of the customer ID theft?

    Dohrn, the future wife of Ayers, identified by investigators as taking customer information from one, and possibly both, of the women shoppers. Dohrn was never charged in that case.


    Thanks for the nice musical selection (none / 0) (#183)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:24:37 AM EST
    Helped my over my negativity that this election will be 1968 again if Hillary wins and 1980 if Obama wins.  

    It's a tie (none / 0) (#192)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    Let's have a national tie breaker primary.

    Registered dems only. ID code is your social security number.

    Two months to put together the servers and software... we can do it.