home

Overnight Open Thread

This may be our first overnight open thread but I'm blogged out and you all seem to have more to say.

Here's your place. Big Tent Democrat will probably be back in the morning for a W. Va. wrap up posts.

My final thoughts: Obama is likely to do as poorly in KY as he did in W. VA. Counting MI and FL votes (not delegates), she's going to either top Obama or get really close to him in the popular vote total.

As to what you can do, here's my suggestion: [more...]

If you live in a state that went for Hillary, check out the superdelegates from your state that are in Congress. Write them and tell them that since Hillary won in your state and she's the most electable in November, if they do not support her, you will take that into account in deciding whether to encourage someone else to run for his or her seat in the Democratic primary next time around.

And, if Obama is the nominee and loses in the general, you will hold them personally responsible because they should have known Hillary was the more electable and they did a disservice to Democrats everywhere by voting against the candidate that had the best chance of winning.

Tell them you will do your best to make sure the primary opponent campaigns against them using the argument that not only did he or she go against the will of the voters in your state, he or she made a bad judgment call. People who make bad judgments like that shouldn't be serving in Congress.

There's nothing these Senators and Congresspersons hate more than a contested primary. It distracts them, costs money and keeps them on edge. They care about getting re-elected more than anything else. That's your leverage. In my opinion.

Comments now closed.

< Hillary's Win Grows in West Virginia | The Creative Class' Condescension Towards Clinton Democrats >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    WVA Final Tally (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by interestedcanuck on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:31:07 AM EST
    HRC- 67%
    BHO- 26%

    Total vote margin- 147K+

    Wow, what a very impressive result for the Senator from NY

    Here's hoping for more of the same in the few contests that are left

    41% margin of victory (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:51:21 AM EST
    let the media chew on that

    Parent
    HOWARD DEAN and Electability (5.00 / 11) (#57)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:00:14 AM EST
    Pardon me for re-posting this but I just posted it in a thread that's closing, and most pundits don't even know about this very important dynamic and latest thinking by Howard Dean.

      That 41% margin is HUGER than we know precisely because of Dean's most recently stated focus about superdelegate decisions.  

      * It's no longer just "about the math" - a term some news people (like Mika) just learned and are roboting all over creation * and which Olberman prefers to believe.

     Dean said, on April 25, that 'Electability' is now the thing.

    In an interview with The Financial Times, Howard Dean gave his thoughts as Chairman of the DNC re the following:
    [as reported -- excerpts below)

    The Democratic party's "superdelegates" have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election, according to Howard Dean, chairman of the US Democratic National Committee.

    . . .
    He said there was nothing in the DNC's rules that would prevent the party's unelected superdelegates, who make up about a fifth of the overall delegate tally and who will ultimately pick the winner, from "doing what they want".
    . . .
    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

    He said that quite clearly.  The pundits either didn't see it or are ignoring it.  I suspect that internal polling has shown lessened strength in Obama's numbers post-Wright, when it comes to conservative votes in the GE, since the rest of the world (not just Democrats) will be choosing in November.  West Virginia was a real illustration of that.

    Note that Dean puts emphasis on the last 6-8 contests and to momentum.

    Also, it is never over at this point - the superdelegates are allowed to change their minds until they've voted in August.

    Even Anderson Cooper didn't know that.  He told John King he thought that they decided and that was it.  He visibly hoped, in fact, that if superdelegates helped the endorsement numbers to reach 2025 before May 31, that the Rules Committee would not have to meet because we had a nominee!  John King corrected him on that.

    No, it's not over until August unless a certain party gives in, and there's no reason to do so at this point.  This helps a party that wants to avoid a McGovern rout (the reason the superdelegates rules were created).

    Obama supporters should be glad they also changed in the past from winner-takes-all, to this newer proportional method, or Hillary would clearly be the presumptive nominee now. As it is, just NOTHING is 'clear'  or any sure thing.

    And, again, it's no longer "It's about the math" because the numbers include old-data before problems were known and latest-info must also be considered by the superdelegates and weighed, up until August.  Superdelegates can change their minds until then even if Hillary were to suspend her campaign in June.

    Parent

    I agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:24:44 AM EST
    but there is a problem when they continue to allow Donna Brazille to mislead people, including Cooper Anderson.  She very clearly stated last night that Obama reaching 2025 would make him the nominee.  She is misleading people in so many ways that it is not even funny.  

    Parent
    cnn (5.00 / 9) (#97)
    by teachermom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:20 AM EST
    I noticed last night that every time Anderson Cooper asked a leading question, like one beginning with "But.." (isn't it too late, does this have any implications for the GE) John King would reply, "Well, actually, it does matter. Look at these counties that all went for Hillary. The exit polls suggest she would appeal to these groups in the GE". I was glad to see reality finally acknowledged. I sense a slight modification in the tilt of the coverage.

    Parent
    Right interpretation, I hope, but I'm unsure (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BoGardiner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:41:54 AM EST
    At first I was excited by these comments by Dean.  But on second reading, I wonder if he what he was really trying to do was provide cover for superdelegates to go for Barack even if the popular vote goes to Hillary.

    But I want you all to talk me into Andrys' reading, because if that's correct, we should promote these comments widely.

    (I move we use his first name only, as everyone does hers.)

    Parent

    Dean ADDED that last sentence (5.00 / 6) (#175)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:54:30 AM EST
    Hi, you asked to be convinced re Dean's words (his motivations, if different, don't take away from his instructions though)
    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

    "Anything else" would cover the delegate count too, giving everyone cover to avoid that as well.  Most important, he's saying here the emphasis, he thinks, will be on the last 6 or 8 races, and that includes West Virginia.  This would be the races after Obama was associated with Wright and 20 years listening to his speeches.  (Not to mention Rezko trial and possible repercussions and the current investigation of Jones, who gave Obama all those bills that others had worked on for years.)

      I think Dean probably has reason for some doubts.  My other theory is that it's known that Clinton BIG-money supporters have been withholding monies unless he seats Florida and Michigan fairly.

      I read that Obama is apparently giving the DNC money for use in the national campaign (which I think is quite questionable).  So he is torn, but he can't do without the historic big-money donors to the DNC.  So that may be a reason he has modified his wording about the superdelegate decision quite a bit, and he has already entertained a compromise on the Florida/Michigan seating (which was veto'd by Clinton as too favorable to Obama, who withdrew his name but would get much more than the Uncommitted vote under that scenario).

      As for my name, yes, I'm one of the few people on the Net idiotic enough to use my given name !  And I'm not male :-)  And am one of the few people who are neither white nor black!  Reporters seem to think we don't exist. :-)

      I decided not to post unless I could stand behind what I toss out.  I use my real-life nickname on a newspaper forum though but I link to my (largely inactive) blog even then.

    Parent

    "Politics is a herd mentality." (none / 0) (#231)
    by BoGardiner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    That was Dean's last sentence in that same interview.  Hmm, you think he's onto something there?

    Andrys, I like your attitude and bravery!

    I think you make a convincing case.  Dean surely was speaking favorably of Hillary with his emphasis on these final races, what superdelegates may learn about these about electability, and their freedom to vote for the party's best interests.


    Parent

    That's Barack's first name, not Andrys (none / 0) (#112)
    by BoGardiner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:43:22 AM EST
    (Although, Andrys, IF that's your real name :-), I'd be glad to call you by your first name too!)

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    He is Obama and she is Hillary. She would be Clinton except to not confuse her with Bill. So it will always be President Bill and President Hillary.

    And besides, and not being disrespectful, every time I say Barrack, it comes into my mind like a parrot's call. With that in mind, Obama seems appropiate.

    Parent

    Funny you should mention parrots (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by BoGardiner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:15:29 AM EST
    My fellow "creative-class" boyfriend tried to teach his African Grey parrot to bounce up and down while singing, a la Queen,

    Boom, boom, boom
    Obama bites the dust

    She loves the boom-boom-boom and dancing to it.  But always leaves it at "Obama bites."

    Now she has creatively expanded it to "Obama-bama bites."  Without input from us.  Parrots have great rhythm!

    All of which I have to say is utterly hilarious.  A 30-ish lesbian couple was visiting last night, one white, one black, both Hillary supporters.  The bird was quite a hit.

    We're working on a YouTube posting.

    Parent

    I would (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    not want to teach my parrots, two Blue and Gold Macaws, to say anything about Obama because that would guarantee that I would be hearing his name in our house til either they die or I do. (Actually given my age and theirs, they are only 16, I will probably die first and that concerns me greatly.)

    Parent
    That's why we're glad it's Obama-bama now (none / 0) (#246)
    by BoGardiner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    and a lot less recognizable.

    But now that we know she can dance, we'll much more fun stuff.  She's also proving to be a natural at birdcalls (at which I'm rather expert), which she precedes with announcing "I'm an owl." (or oriole/dove/bobwhite etc).  This species will live to 90+ years, so yes we will outlive them and it's indeed a concern.

    Parent

    Way to go Hillary!! (5.00 / 17) (#16)
    by Grace on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:31 AM EST
    Hi y'all.  I don't think I'm a new poster here but I think I last posted here during the Plame thing when this board had a typekey posting system?  (And I had a different name?)    

    Anyway, I'm a HUGE Hillary supporter and I'd love to see her rebound and claim the nomination.

    Also, I've enjoyed reading the posts on this board.  Like others here, I'm not prepared to vote for the other Democratic candidate for the same reasons others have posted (experience, etc.).

    Here's to more Hillary successes!      

    Parent

    Sorry someone troll rated you on your... (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:25:58 AM EST
    ...introductory post. That was rude. I, on the other hand, appreciate your participation. ;-)

    Parent
    That troll-rater is a new troll (5.00 / 7) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:22 AM EST
    tonight, all of two posts not worth bandwidth.  LittleRockRita will be gone in no time.  Don't worry a bit about it, Grace, and welcome.

    Parent
    I've taken to sending handwritten (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by lorelynn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:32:00 AM EST
    letters. Make the staff actually have to deal with what I'm saying, rather than glossing over it in an email. If Pelose had to step over a letter bag of 10k letters, that would make an impression.

    I will be sending those off tomorrow. Thanks for the suggestion.

    Goodness, handwritten... (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:27:25 AM EST
    I don't know if I even remember how to do that. Well okay, now I feel challenged. For Hillary I'll do one to Nancy. Just one you understand. Then its back to the keyboard.

    Parent
    Handwritten letters are given more (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:08:51 AM EST
    weight than any other form of communication.  There is a heirarchy and they are at the top.  They do take longer to get to the office though which can be a consideration depending on whether or not the issue is time sensitive - like if they are going to vote within a day or two on a particular bill - it is better to use faster forms of communication.

    Parent
    No snailmail to congress. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:37:04 AM EST
    Unless you don't care when it arrives...

    Since 9-11 and the anthrax-laced letters to congressional offices, all snailmail gets routed to a special post office facility and prescreened before delivery.

    Takes weeks.

    Weeks.

    I'm not kidding.

    Use FAX/email/phone.

    Period.

    Parent

    Hand Write the Letter (5.00 / 3) (#258)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:47:35 AM EST
    and then fax it to your recipient.  You get the clout of a handwritten letter with the immediacy of an e-mail or phone call.

    Representatives love faxes.  A fax gives them a hard-copy they can tote around.  It gets far more attention than an e-mail or phone call, both of which are usually simply recorded in a yes/no column.

    Parent

    Letters (5.00 / 1) (#260)
    by befuddled on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    definitely carry a stronger message, you can't delete them with a keystroke. But the point about mailing to Washington is a good one. Mail to their homestate offices. In fact, mail to all their offices if you can stand the postage. I know in our legislature they actually sort the mail into pro and con (or they used to) and go by the size of the heap.

    Parent
    Thanks Jeralyn and BTD (5.00 / 15) (#3)
    by shoephone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:21 AM EST
    for working so hard the past 24 hours. You kept us informed and engaged up-to-the-minute during this exhilirating primary day.

    You both deserve to sleep in tomorrow (but we'd probably all be bummed if you did!)

    *

    Congrats! (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by rkcdvd on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:49 AM EST
       I want to congratulate Hillary on her victory.  She deserves all that she has worked so hard for! Conservatives are trembling in their knees.  We all give respect when respect is due.

    41 points (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:51 AM EST
    Yikes!  What a stomping.

    Parent
    It's actually more (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:31:54 AM EST
    like a 48% loss for Obama, when you take into account the 7% Edwards vote.

    Which is pretty stunning for the "presumptive nominee".

    Parent

    Why sin't anyone talking about that? (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:51:03 AM EST
    7% months after Edwards suspended his campaign is just amazing!

    If Obama outspent Clinton 2:1, then he and Clinton must have outspent Edwards by some astronomical amount - and yet, Edwards still picked up 7%.

    A protest, none-of-the-above vote?  Possibly.  But if we have a 7% protest vote, then isn't that something to be seriously concerned about?

    Is Edwards on any remaining ballots?

    Parent

    Talking Points (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:00:22 AM EST
    From CBS News:
    Expecting a loss, the Obama campaign today rolled out a series of endorsements, the biggest of which came from former Democratic National Committee chair Roy Romer. The former Colorado governor, who had remained strictly on the sidelines throughout the primary campaigns, gave voice to something many party leaders have said in recent days. "The math is controlling," Romer told reporters. "This race I believe is over, Senator Obama has accumulated a lead in delegates chosen by primaries, caucuses and superdelegates that cannot be overcome."

    This is pathetic.  "The math" now trumps "the experience".  How did we get so many unthinking people in our party?

    They're not talking about Hillary's win at all, except as a lead-in to analyses of why it doesn't matter.

    I hate the media.

    Parent

    The Media has become Pravda West (5.00 / 11) (#138)
    by hookfan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:22:36 AM EST
    Is it any wonder that the wise people of West Virginia ignore them?

    Parent
    Even The bitter Maureen Dowd Sees The (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:29:24 AM EST
    writing on the wall for obama in her op-ed today.
    Hillary will keep pushing on and we will keep supporting her after this stunning win...KY will be more of the same for her.

    Parent
    If they were like me they weren't voting (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    in protest as much as voting for the issues that Edwards put front and center - economic populism, healthcare and poverty being very important issues for a lot of people in that region.  Clinton has shown herself to be very progressive on those fronts, but Edwards was even moreso - Personally I take that vote to mean that people wanted to send a clear signal about how serious they are about those key issues to the two remaining candidates.

    Parent
    The MSM after already having declared the winner (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:40:28 AM EST
    is now furiously trying to spin Hillary's victory as - does it really matter. Their anti Hillary theme and trying to force feed a winner down our throats is getting beyond ridiculous.

    As for Hillary, I am so excited about this win. Its massive and ideally should be a game changer for the SD's. Anyways I seriously feel she still has a shot at the nomination.

    Yes We Will Hillary! Yes We Will!


    fist think I read on the news server (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:46:40 AM EST
    on my home page just now:

    "Too little, too late?" at least THIS time they used a question mark when they said that.

    If 41% is too little and 3 months left before all the delegates are seated in Denver is too soon... then yeah.

    But all I am thinking is where there is a will there is a way, and HRC has both.

    The main thing the superdelegates have to think about is how the in the tank media has refused to vet this man. Many in the early states did not know much about him yet and many voted on HOPE.

    Those days of a campaign fueled by esoteric promises are over.  Solutions and experience rule.

    The only SD I've written to is Joe Andrew of IN, after he switched from Clinton to OB, and I did so due to his horrible remarks about Clinton and his lies of praise about Obama and the Iraq war.
    He came across as a young overly pompous sniper and I wanted to let him know I was not amused.


    Parent

    This is worse (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:16:16 AM EST
    Mike Barnacle on Morning Joe remarked (snarkily perhaps) as part of his reply to Mika B. who remarked that the results in W. Virginia might indicate a problematic demographic group:

    we might as well call it the moron group . .  

    Perhaps someone can find a clip of that portion later. Then he went on to say that nothing in Hillary's speech indicates that she is quitting until ll:59am on Jan. 9.  What a mean man.

    Parent

    I had my coffee now! (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:30 AM EST
    This is absolutely no longer humorous.  How dare they let themselves spew hatred towards millions of Americans.

    I have heard them say a billion times how POLARIZING Hillary is.  Did it ever occur to them that The Precious is even more polarizing?

    I think that word has been way overused when it comes to her and not applied to him when it positively should be, equally if not moreso.

    Parent

    I believe the MSM (5.00 / 13) (#54)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:42:14 AM EST
    those who have so aggressively promoted Obama are panicked by the results of W. Virginia.  It is after all a total blow-out.  With the defection of a Clinton pledged delegate to Obama, (although they are not saying anything about it) proves that what Hillary has said before, that pledged delegates could vote their minds at the convention, is true and according to the rules.  

    If Hillary shows great wins in the next primaries, the nomination will indeed be decided at the convention and SHE COULD BE THE NOMINEE! And they will all have egg on their faces.  I think that possibility absolutely terrifies them.

    Parent

    The MSM must also be bothered (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:53:04 AM EST
    about the fact that inspite of pushing Obama= nominee, Hillary=looser, meme day in and day out the voters still didn't believe them. The MSM must be feeling mighty upset that they are not regarded as influencers or opinion makers anymore.

    Parent
    Tweety called No. Carolina 'a blowout' tonight (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:11:16 AM EST
    I wonder what he calls a 41-point margin as opposed to the 14-point one in North Carolina.

    And doesn't it become clearer to some of these dunderheads after seeing Obama's spreadsheet (which was pretty accurate for Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania but had predicted a 7-point WIN for Obama in Indiana and a 12-point loss in West Virginia) that something is seriously amiss ???

    (Do they want to win in November?)

    Parent

    Hillary won TN by 13 pts on Super Tues (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:35 AM EST
    but the MSM didn't consider it a blowout.


    Parent
    Both Matthews and Dan Abrams (none / 0) (#282)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    tried to claim last night that they had NEVER called for her to quit the race.

    I heard a lead-in this morning that 2 more high and mighty's are calling for the race to end again this morning. They will be happy if they can just get the campaigning to end...they aren't liking the results of the election when one candidate just talks and the other provides solutions, positive changes for the country, and how committed she is to ALL the people.


    Parent

    Hillary Cut Into One Of Most Reliable Groups (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    18 - 35 group and the more educated.  What does this tell him?

    Parent
    and to quote my fav. movie Sexy Beast (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:27:32 AM EST
    "when there is a will there is a way, and there is always a f---ing way."
    The SDs know how to read the polls, even though the media apparently does not. I'm going back on my "no msm" diet now, because nothing they say matters -- all she has to do is make it to the convention.

    Parent
    SDs- their own seats are affected by how (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:36:43 AM EST
    ...by how the nominee does in November.

      This has to give some pause.

    Parent

    realclear politics said that in 1980 (none / 0) (#310)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    Ted Kennedy  was over 700 behind Jimmy Carter,but still went to the convention.

    Hillary is behind  what, 100 + pledges, which are fluid and can move in any direction until  the convention.

    If  only Donna Brazile was an honest commentator and  stated it in  those  terms  perhaps  the  media
    and the rest would follow.

    Today I saw that Obama is wooing voters he needs that  gave Hillary last nights win, uh oh, too  little2 late, IMO.

    Parent

    I would (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:58:46 AM EST
    suggest that Obama wasn't the only one to take a thumping. I would say the the MSM and the pundits have taken a thumping too.

    By delivering this win to Hillary Clinton the voters of WV said loud and clear that they don't think it's over. They repudiated both Obama and the media. That's a two-fer I'll take any time any place!

    Parent

    West Virginia results (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:54:11 AM EST
    and those of the next primaries should be good indicators as to how the Rev. Wright and Obama's 'bitter/cling remarks impact the later primaries.  If so, the previous wins in the other states might no longer hold true now or in November. It is also quite possible that the solid AA vote for Obama triggered racial attitudes among white voters. Today's  Washington Post has an article on sad racial incidents.

     

    Link: (none / 0) (#18)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:59:16 AM EST
    Wowee. Detroit City Council Not Kidding Around (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by shoephone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:54:27 AM EST
    judging from how unflattering is the photo (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:54:59 AM EST
    of hillary on cnn's homepage, i'm guessing they must be annoyed and pissed as hell.

    I'm looking at a good one at CNN's home page (5.00 / 12) (#59)
    by BoGardiner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:04:53 AM EST
    Head shot from behind, she's looking back over her right shoulder, face utterly illuminated with a huge smile.  

    I've seen some bad ones, but I LOVE this one.

    Doesn't she just LOOK like you always imagined the first woman President OUGHT to look?

    OK, I'm a blonde, I'm biased.

    Parent

    gently but firmly (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:31 AM EST
    I want my reps to support Hillary but IMHO I want to achieve this without coming off as belligerent or bullying, are we agreed? Okay, so the question is how to achieve this with a short (he or she has many e-mail to read) tightly reasoned argument. We can do this but we must be concise and polite. Anything less will simply excite our reader's delete button. It would also help to be original and attention getting so as not to arouse drowsiness. Let's go to work.

    You could also make a phone call (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by shoephone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:33 AM EST
    Then you get to talk to a real person, and your rep's office people have to keep note of all phone calls.

    Parent
    gently but firmly (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:47 AM EST
    Good. Even better. I suggest having your notes, statistics, information all right there with you by the phone when you do it so that you don't have to rummage around in your memory for them.

    Parent
    The office openings (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:11 AM EST
    might be too late if they announce their vote and Obama takes it into his column to assume the win. Sure, they can change it at the convention, but the snowball effect might have taken place already. So the e-mail would be better and the call too. Even if they do not respond to you, they can see the increase in traffic pertaining to this matter. For those who gave already to BHO, then it might get a change of heart and for those uncommitted and wavering, it might steer them in the right direction.

    Parent
    When emailing (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:15:37 AM EST
    I would direct al SD's to look at the electoral college vote picture for both against McCain based on assigning ev votes by polls in each state. They are going downhill for Obama, uphill for Clinton ever since PA.

    Currently Obama loses to McCain by more than 50! And thats before the next few days when polling will uptick for her after WV, currently she beats McCain by...well click that link, you go see...

    Parent

    I don't think the FEC (none / 0) (#181)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:59:47 AM EST
    restricts staff from relaying communications from constituents.  This is not the same as a Congressional member directing their congressional staff to work on a campaign during hours for regular congressional business.  The people have to have a way to express their concerns and desires to their elected representatives.  

    Parent
    I don't believe the FEC (none / 0) (#185)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:00:33 AM EST
    restricts staff from relaying communications from constituents.  This is not the same as a Congressional member directing their congressional staff to work on a campaign during hours for regular congressional business.  The people have to have a way to express their concerns and desires to their elected representatives.  

    Parent
    I used reverse technique on mine (none / 0) (#312)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    I wrote weeks ago at the beginning of the change of tide. My approach was one of how easy it would be for me to campaign for a representative who showed the strength to make decisions in the best interest of the people who may not be paying close attention to the candidates, voting party out of trust, or because they think anything would be better than what we have so they are voting the way their boss, neighbor, friend told them to. I told them I saw those judgment qualities when I voted for them.

    Last week a board full of commenters had sent emails to all the SDs and used threats to leave the party, vote for McCain, etc. They posted some of the replies they got from the SDs. Very angry SDs who said the threats would work against Hillary. Donna Brazile was even nasty to the nice letters because she had been bombarded with emails. The commenters were then furious with the SDs who pushed back.

    Parent

    Anyone looking for Childers ad (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:57:38 AM EST
    Where he describes Obama like this:

    "My family has heard the lies and attacks linking me to politicians I don't know and have never met."

    linkage

    brutal (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:29 AM EST
    Expect a lot of that (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:39 AM EST
    Going forward.


    Parent
    My goodness. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:34:17 AM EST
    This is the guy the DCCC spent over a million dollars supporting?

    Parent
    Well they say (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:35:51 AM EST
    The Obama Movement has lots of money.

    Probably gonna need it to create more ads saying "I never met the guy, OK???!!!!"


    Parent

    LittleRockRita (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:18 AM EST
    Thanks!

    Parent
    Lil Rite sure is generous (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:16:55 AM EST
    1s for everybody!

    Parent
    Just A Gift Of Love And Unity (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:17:57 AM EST
    from an Obama supporter displaying her high level of maturity.

    Parent
    It's pretty amusing to see (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:17 AM EST
    the Obama camp using cases like Childers' victory as a very positive sign for Obama.

    I mean, the Republicans try to use tenuous connections of a Democrat to Obama to undermine him or her, and the Democrat nonetheless wins, and this means that Obama's a great candidate for downticket Democrats?

    Obama doesn't do too much damage when he's in no relevant way connected to a Democratic candidate, and that turns into a positive sign?

    Delusional.

    Parent

    Didn't anyone tell them that he only (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:54:28 AM EST
    won because he ran ads completely disowning Obama? Yeah, that's a big plus in the Obama column..LOL

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#224)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:27:08 AM EST
    I saw on one of the cable news stations last night they were talking about this. But they never mentioned that Childers ran ads disowning Obama. Instead they concluded that connecting Obama/Wright to Dems running for office doesn't have an effect.

    Parent
    but the Orange crowd believes (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:08:02 AM EST
    Childers beat "Wright" - therefore Wright won't be harmful to Obama in the general.


    Parent
    That's Gotta Be (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by The Maven on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:52:05 AM EST
    one of the most delusional spins I've heard about from anyone in a long time.  Essentially, it all amounts to, "Obama won't destroy Democrats in downticket races, which is proof that he's the best!"  The implication, of course, being their belief that HillaryHate is so deeply ingrained in the very fabric of America that no Democratic House or Senate candidate could possibly survive even the most indirect association with her (i.e., sharing a ballot column).

    Parent
    Good suggestions Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:02 AM EST
    Hopefully the superdelegates will get the message.

    Actually, I wonder how many superdelegates read this blog?  I would imagine there are quite a few that lurk here because it is one of the best places for level-headed analysis of the primaries.

    Let's just hope the undecided SDs are going to do some level-headed analysis themselves! Look at all the maps, take away the media spin, and really ask yourselves how in the world is Obama going to win this thing in November?  He can't.

    I like your last paragraph (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:02 AM EST
    It says it all in  a few sentences and would make a good e-mail too. I copied it down. Short but sweet. And if you want to add your vague little mention that if people stay home it will have a coattail effect for all Democrats then that would be good too.

    There are new voters, but they might be a one day wonder  compared to the long time Democratic base.

    Parent

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:01:21 AM EST
    that many of those "new" voters are women that haven't participated in the process before but were energized to do so by having a woman candidate, one they respect and admire, to vote for. Not all new voters support Obama by a long shot. IMHO :)

    Parent
    Read this..it's amazing.. (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:41:17 AM EST
    An interview in Atlantic Monthly where the interviewer, Jeffrey Goldberg, says..
    Among other things, he told me that he learned the art of moral anguish from Jews

    And then Obama goes on to explain more childhood lessons..
    I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.

    So being an Isreali Holocaust survivor is the same as being a child who moved around a lot?? Whaaa??

    It's all about Obama, again. Read the article. It's  one of the most "cover all bases" interviews I have ever read. Again, he is trying to please everyone. Well, until he says this..

    JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?

    BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.

    Get your syrup out, it's waffle time.

    Parent

    Of course when you ... (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    play the outrage card like it's the only one in the deck, it's gonna get played back on you upon occasion.

    And calling Israel (even the I/P conflict) an open sore is a tad insensitive. And I think he can be called on it.

    Parent

    Boehner has been all over that (none / 0) (#177)
    by CCinNC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:56:16 AM EST
    like a cheap suit.  Obama was referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not Israel.  And of course he wasn't comparing himself to a Holocaust survivor.

    Parent
    MoDo's latest spin (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:43 AM EST
    after having almost exhausted her vocabulary of abuses that she could safely hurl at Hillary and after imploring Obama to punish Hillary she now has gone ahead to blame the voters who cast votes for Hillary as racist.

    Obama supporters especially the MSM defence of Obama to me sounds a lot like
    The play was a success
    but the audience was a failure.

    Call me insensitive (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Grace on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:20:03 AM EST
    But I almost don't want Obama to win simply because I'm tired of hearing "racist" being thrown around so freely.  

    Obama supporters say they are in the driver's seat, so they are chauffeurs?  If they aren't in the driver's seat, are they in the back of the bus?  

    Every stupid little thing is becoming a racist issue of some sort or another.  I'm so TIRED of it!    

    Parent

    Me Too! (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:35:25 AM EST
    I cannot bear the thought of Obama being the candidate and the MSM talking about RACE, EVERY SINGLE DAY, from now until November.  

    Why is not racist for 93% of Blacks to vote for Obama, but it racist if 70% of whites vote for Clinton?  Why are her voters a bunch of racists but his are not?  This is making me ill.  I am not a racist and I don't want to have to continue to defend that, just because I don't want Obama for President.  

    Parent

    Dear Most Darling Rita (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:02 AM EST
    but, if Hillary became the nominee, it would not be racist for black voters to support her over McCain by essentially the same percentage----which she would need to have any chance in a general election.

    Then it wouldn't be "racist", but "genderist".  I think you should check the warranty on your logic and language boards.  They may have expired.

    Parent

    Say what? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:22:06 AM EST
    Wow, how's that for an absurd twist of what she said. Let's take it slowly.

    The Obama backers ARE NOT saying that since blacks vote for Obama 8 or 9 to 1 in the primaries, that's racist.

    The Obama backers ARE saying that since whites voted for Hillary by a smaller margin in the primaries, that's racist.

    That's an inconsistency.  Got it?
     

    Parent

    beyond that, it's a set-up for losing in Nov. (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:14 AM EST
    Since January, when Jesse Jackson Jr threw down the first race card the day after the NH primary, I've argued that Obama can benefit from injecting race because he'll solidify his hold on the AA vote, but he risks setting off a white backlash.

    I thought surely Obama's folks would knock-off the "the Clintons are racists!" stuff after Super Tuesday, but they didn't. Add Rev. Wright to the mix, and Obama stops transcending race and his appeal shrinks. Worse, a lot of white people DO start taking it personally when they see people like the Clintons vilified as racists.

    We don't talk about it (for fear of being branded racists) but far too many of us have seen the R word thrown around too loosely, causing enormous grief, and cheapening the value of the word--which is dangerous considering that racism does still exist. Too many wolf criers, however, have made it  easy for some to deny it when it does surface.

    But bless 'em, the Obama camp just can't seem to help themselves. We're going to hear racist, racist, racist all the way to the general election and instead of the Democratic party being polarized the entire frickin' nation will be. And Obama will NOT be the winner when the dust settles if that happens.

    So, as I've said since January, the Obama campaign needs to stay away from race unless there is an obvious example of racism, at which point calling it out will NOT be controversial. But playing the race card frequently will only result in Obama's bleeding white support that will cancel out any further black support he can squeeze out  Keep it up and the election night results for Obama will look something like West Virginia's.

    Parent

    the media has assisted Obama (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:04 AM EST
    in falsely accusing the Clintons of racism.
    Even Hillary's remarks about "white working class" not voting for Obama has been distorted intentionally by ObamaInc to cast the Clintons as racists.
    Obamamites ignore Obama called the "white working class" racists, clinging to their guns and religion.
    The working class includes all races - and Hillary was honest when she specified "white".
    Obama is getting more than 90% of the Black vote, which includes the black working class.


    Parent
    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by g8grl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    If the Clintons, who have worked hard for equality, can be called racists...who can't that label be thrown at.

    Parent
    I don't think she said that at all (none / 0) (#50)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:19:50 AM EST
    f I am to understand your position correctly, you believe that it is racist for black voters to support Obama in such large numbers, but, if Hillary became the nominee, it would not be racist for black voters to support her over McCain by essentially the same percentage----which she would need to have any chance in a general election.


    Parent
    It's an issue (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:46:42 AM EST
    I've been holding off on another spousal anecdote.

    My wife is in HR.  Once a year someone complains about their review and it's all about race.

    A lot of corporations just don't want to deal with it, and they file away the review and bump up the increase to the max, and hope it goes away.

    Now.  I know that totally sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say.  I hate the fact that I hear it.  I sit there and I tell my wife "Honey, that's totally something Rush Limbaugh would say!"

    And she shrugs her shoulders.

    Crux of the matter is this.  

    On balance, being perceived as racist isn't worth the increase of productivity.  At the end of the day, they say, I'll take the hit on productivity as long as no one will ever call me racist.

    This is how I now view the superdelegates, right now.

    Parent

    Yes, I think that is exactly (none / 0) (#164)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:49:24 AM EST
    what is going on.  It's quite pathetic.

    Parent
    Reverse Racism? (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Grace on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:57 AM EST
    I'm going to become a proponent of Reverse Racism.  One drop of white blood and you are white.  

    Obama?  He's white.  

    :)  

    Next question please.  

    Parent

    I like that one! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:33:38 AM EST
    it is frightening (5.00 / 4) (#253)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    no Democrat wants to be considered a racist.

    Heres the only color that matters to me: GREEN!

     He is not a Green candidate, for all his talk of global warming, his solutions are the sort of diluted solutions you get from Republicans or complete pushovers like Bingaman, whose climaticide prevention bill was almost as bad as Bush's business as usual.
    (Obama surrogates: like Bingaman do not push for real eco solutions: Kennedy is against Wind power, Richardsons NM depends on Nuke funding, Daschle is an ethanol lobbyist, etc)

    Clinton is on the environment committee and gets SD support from eco movers and shakers like these SDs:

    New Jersey's Gov. Corzine Seeks Wind Farm Off East Coast
    May 9 (Bloomberg) -- New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine wants his state to be the first in the U.S. Northeast to build an electricity-generating wind farm off the Atlantic coast.

    SF Mayor Gavin NewsomeA while back (early 2006) Newsom announced that the City will explore the possibility of generating power from the tidal flow under the Golden Gate Bridge and launched a $150,000 feasibility study to examine the tidal energy project, which could generate up to 35 megawatts of power, according to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

    (About the media/opposition party Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Newsome said "They say dogs don't bark at parked cars." The mayor concluded, "People don't get upset about people who aren't about change, they get upset about people who are about change.")

    Rep. Jay Inslee Introduces Feed-In Tariff Legislation
    Based on the feed-in tariff policy that has enabled Germany to achieve 55% of the world's installed solar capacity and to provide 14% of its electricity supply from renewable sources, Inslee's Clean Energy Buy-Back Act would guarantee U.S. producers of clean energy connection to the grid and predetermined rates from utilities for their power.

    It is the first ever proposal in Congress that would implement what Inslee is calling a performance-based incentive (PBI) policy, also known as a feed-in tariff, which has been proven to be an effective means of increasing adoption of renewable-energy technologies in Germany, Spain, France and other countries.

    Thats just a few. If you look at his support in congress generally its the ethanol, 'clean coal' and pronuclear, the not-Green voters in congress who support Mr Bipartisan.

    The clean energy congress members who support the one who can put out a clean energy plan that will actually achieve its goals.

    The problem is that Obama writes his plan with all the Green goals all the Democrats support, so a casual reader would think he is a Green candidate.

    The clean energy plans details tell a different story. And anyone with the experience to read them, like Inslee etc, can see the problem right away. Obama does not have the eco knowledge to select advisors well enough to achieve the stated goals.

    Parent

    NASCARDad exLuvR sees light: MoDo no longer racist (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:03 AM EST
    I wonder when MoDo's conversion happened.

    Does this mean we won't be seeing Girlfrien down at the lanes anymore? She was supposed to anchor our team and settle her outstanding shots tab. (And it truly is outstanding!)  

    Parent

    Hillary's Victory Celebration (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:13:21 AM EST
    I watched Hillary's speech on CNN, through to the end. Then I switched over to FOX and they showed the blow-out celebration that immediately followed the end of the speech: people whooping cheering, jumping around, and TONS of red, white, and blue confetti. It looked like she'd won the GE. Lots of energy and momentum.

    CNN had cut away and hadn't shown that part during their live coverage. It was VERY odd. The FOX coverage looked like a different, and better, event. CNN deliberately robbed their viewers of that uplifting display. Oh well...

    Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by jfung79 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:55:55 AM EST
    I notice they played that as her speech ended.  This was a brilliant song for the campaign to play that really encapsulates the "won't quit fighting for you" theme.  Could it become a permanent Hillary theme song for the rest of the campaign?  I hope so.  

    Parent
    Oh, YEAH (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by BoGardiner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:22 AM EST
    I must have listened to "I Won't Back Down" 500 times while staffing a table outside Jim Webb's campaign office where I live. It was his theme song and oddly I never tired of it.  I'm here to tell you it's VERY energizing.  That and enjoying the prospect of kicking George Allen's teeth down his soft, whiny throat with my cowboy boot.

    (Disclaimer: The violent threat is Allen's coinage, not mine).

    Parent

    Superdelegate information at Sourcewatch... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:15:56 AM EST
    I know Obama crowd (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:48 AM EST
    is trying to spin this victory as doesn't matter and Obama hardly campaigned there. But the voter turnout was Huge. If the voters actually believed that the campaign was over as Obama crowd and MSM have been telling us, wouldn't then a majority of voters sensibly decide to stay at home or better still vote for the supposed nominee.

    I sincerely hope the SD's are watching this win. There is a reason why they are the SD's. And if they are truly interested in a democratic win this year, then they should be taking these results very seriously..

    I guess I'm part of that "Obama crowd" (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by barryluda on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:52 AM EST
    and I'm not spinning this.  Clinton won by a ton and the Supers have to take notice as she just keeps getting stronger.  It's clearly not over, and Clinton has more of a shot today than she did at the beginning of the week.  Still a long shot, but she should stay in until it's over and the MI and FL votes are counted.  Whoever wins at this point will have earned it (although my guess is that neither the "Obama crowd" nor the "Clinton crowd" would admit that for a while).

    Parent
    Present Conventional Wisdom notwithstanding (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:25 AM EST
    If Hillary overtakes and exceeds the popular vote of Barack (without Michigan but including Florida) she has a pretty good chance of convincing the super delegates to give her their vote at the convention and she will be the nominee.  I think that the votes in the primaries after the exposure of Rev. Wright and Obama's bitter/cling remarks, are better indicators of general electability because they are votes cast by people after more information about Obama.

    The kind of denial (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:57:51 AM EST
    going on in HuffPo is to be read to be believed. I can't believe I actually once thought HuffPo was a true liberal voice.
    Headline article - On other news Hillary wins WV - Does it really matter?
    Another article - Even racists don't vote for Hillary - and how the author arrived at this enlightening inference is because 7% of voters voted for Edwards.
    God! these guys with their hyper partisan attitude can put coulter, hannity and Limbaugh to shame.

    I don't go to Huffpo (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Grace on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:22:12 AM EST
    Why?  Because they banned me on the basis of my very legitimate e-mail address.  Unfortunately, my real name is close to "George Bush" so my "real" e-mail address reflects that.  

    They banned me on the basis of that.  

    I don't waste my time.  Let them go f* themselves.  

    Oh -- and seriously.  When they have linked into NYTimes stories and I've logged in with my NYT ID (which is ancient but linked to that same banned Huffpo e-mail address) my comments don't appear anywhere.  

    I'm sure this is my own cross to bear.  Until someone named "Barbara Obama" tries to post on these boards too, you probably won't hear from anyone with the same problem.  

    But still,

    I hate Huffpo.  

    Parent

    If you really want to post there (none / 0) (#306)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    go to yahoo.com and just make an email address for posting to huffpo...

      You won't be getting email there, so it's just for posting there.

    Parent

    I Rarely Went To HuffPo Before The Primaries (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:31 AM EST
    I got really turned off by the fact that the headlines often distorted what was actually in the source material. I prefer facts to fiction in news and when a so called liberal cite mirrors Fox News it loses me completely. Never liked the level of discourse in their comments sections either.

    Parent
    HuffPo is a cesspool (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:27:32 AM EST
    I went there this morning and now I'm definitely ready for the shower.

    They've done such a good job of NOT properly moderating that site and allowing hatefulness to be spewed like a non-stop, roaring geyser that it's impossible to read there without feeling that there's little hope for humanity, much less the US.

    Most of the commenters and bloggers there are the left-wing answer to dittoheads--blindly ideological and utterly hateful. The place is an embarrassment.

    Parent

    Some Of the "Liberal" Blogs (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    seem to be a reflection of the Obama supporters in general...strident, stubborn, unthinking and generally hostile to anyone who doesn't buy what they're selling.

    As for the racism issue, when are people going to figure out that this isn't about racism at all?  It's about experience and ability, pure and simple.  It drives me nuts that I'm assumed to be a racist because I believe a Senator with eight years' experience is a better candidate for president than one with two.

    Parent

    Arriana Huffington (none / 0) (#153)
    by DFLer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:38:16 AM EST
    I wonder if she reads her own site's comments and whacko diaries. Anyone with access to her might point out the poison there...especially the sexist ugly stuff.

    Like you say, no moderation there. How much money does the site make, do you suppose?

    Parent

    Arianna Is Part And Pacel To The B.S. That (none / 0) (#285)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    goes on at HuffPo.  Have you read some of her blogs?  And, if you are pro-Hillary and say anything even remotely off (according to them), you will get banned.  However, pro-obama vile spewers don't seem to get that same treatment.

    Parent
    AOL Front Pages Hillary's Win (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:02 AM EST
    AOL has given Hillary's win the top story slot on their welcome screen with the headline:

    CLINTON SAYS IT'S NOT OVER

    Sub-head:

    She Wallops Obama in West Virginia

    Link quote:

    "I'm more determined than ever."

    The CNN headline is (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:49:04 AM EST
    "Clinton crushes Obama". That is a great thing to see first thing in the morning, makes the coffee so much sweeter. Heh.

    Parent
    that CNN article has no final results! (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:55:21 AM EST
    it's like the MSM wants to HIDE - Hillary won by 40%!


    Parent
    Well, the election results and numbers (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:43:46 AM EST
    were right next to the headline. So maybe they figured people would look at them before clicking on the headline. I did.

    Parent
    Dear Rita (5.00 / 10) (#49)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:18:43 AM EST
    I shall treasure your insightful, heartfelt advice forever.

    Now push off.  Your Unity Pony is getting lonely.

    Obama's habit of assigning (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:42 AM EST
    blame to his sundry staffers is nicely captured by Jack tapper in the following article.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obamas-inabilit.html

    Never heard (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:27:15 AM EST
    of the adage "The buck stops here."  Course, Truman was a democrat.

    Parent
    If Obama Were Elected, (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:16:16 AM EST
    the plaque on his desk would read "Its All Clinton's Fault."

    Parent
    Wow, a McCain ad all in one (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:11:20 AM EST
    I noticed that fact too that it was never HIS fault.  If his staff is making all these 'mistakes', what exactly is HE doing? Seems like they must be doing all the work. Presidents get into trouble that way. So either it is his staff, his hiring criteria, or his excuse.

    Parent
    does this (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:10:51 AM EST
    mean he doesn't have very good "judgement" in selecting staff members? Or in selecting those that select staff members? Or in understanding that continually blaming underlings for mistakes makes you look lacking in character?

    Parent
    I'd Be Surprised To Find Out obama Has A (none / 0) (#291)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:09:43 AM EST
    "good judgement" gene.  What will be interesting to see is how his talks in MI pan out for him.  He was not willing to show his face in WVa, but just briefly.  And now he is going to pander big-time to the folks in MI.  He is desperate and it is showing.  He needs to be blased, but good, by the people of MI.

    Parent
    From Newsweek (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by CCinNC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:19:11 AM EST
    Obama "doesn't micromanage," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. But, he adds, "there's never a doubt who the alpha dog is." The day after his big defeat in Ohio and his popular-vote loss in Texas, Obama traveled to the large corporate offices in Chicago that serve as his campaign headquarters. The mood was grim; they had, after all, blown their third chance to end the primary season early--after the shock of New Hampshire and the muddled results of Super Tuesday. Obama toured the office, visiting every desk to thank his mostly young staffers for their efforts and urging them to keep their chins up. Then he walked into a conference room for a far tougher two-hour conversation with his senior staff. "We rise or fall together," he started out. "I'm not pointing fingers at any single person because we all share responsibility." He talked through his own mistakes as a candidate and went around the table asking people for their input in the postmortem. Speaking calmly but intensely, he then took control to explain how he saw it. He worked his way through a detailed, handwritten list of what went right and wrong--including how they misspent time and money, how they relied too much on impersonal rallies and how the schedule was flawed.

    At the end of the meeting, Obama stood up and began to walk out of the room, before wheeling around to say one more thing to his somber staff: "I'm not yelling at you and I'm not screaming. Although for $20 million for two primaries and the results we got, I could," he said, laughing. "But I'm not."



    Parent
    to Obama it's only about process (none / 0) (#274)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    Obama has been losing the white working class for several months and even more so after Wright, WrightII, and Bitter/Cling-gate.
    But he doesn't correct course and still continues his empty "hope and change" script that doesn't appeal to the working class that seeks concrete solutions for their economic problems.
    They aren't voting for him and Obama rationalizes it by calling them "racist."
    Racism is alive and well everywhere - but Jesse Jackson won the white working class because he focused on issues and solutions rather than a focus on manufacturing racist motives in his opponents' remarks.

    Parent
    I Sure Would LIke For Jesse Jackson To Step (5.00 / 1) (#307)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    up and rebuke obama for his b.s.  And while he is at it, he should send his kid to his room for a huge time out after playing the race card in SC.

    Parent
    I can't believe the DNC is actually (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:00:56 AM EST
    allowing Obama to get away with this nonsense of pretending that the nomination is over (see article below). If DNC really believes this is over then they should have the guts to ask the SD's to endorse Obama and finish the game. Their arrogance is astounding.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZecbKcAcd5BUKos1DBquVPqnlUQD90L99L00

    I agree; I'm disgusted with the DNC n/t (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:21 AM EST
    Josh Marshall has blown a fuse. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:10:31 AM EST
    What is this mumbo jumbo?   Most bizarre rationalization of an Obama loss ever.

    As I alluded to earlier, this was the origin of West Virginia, which was originally the westernmost part of Virginia. The anti-slavery, anti-slaveholding upcountry seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union after Virginia seceded from the Union. Each of these regions was fiercely anti-Slavery. And most ended up raising regiments that fought in the Union Army. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the lynchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed. It was a society that was both more violent and more self-reliant.

    This is history. But it shapes the region. It's overwhelmingly white, economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) and arguably because of that underdevelopment has very low education rates and disproportionately old populations.

    For all these reasons, if you're familiar with the history, it's really no surprise that Barack Obama would have a very hard time running in this region.



    The more they define this (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:15:44 AM EST
    As a race issue the more I laugh cause I want Obama to lose.

    Some people used to think Marshall had some credibility.

    I never thought that for a second.


    Parent

    So they're just a bunch of dumb rednecks (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:22:31 AM EST
    I'm beginning to think the litmus test of a educated, creative class voter is voting for Obama.


    Parent
    Marshall's analysis (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by DFLer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:02:17 AM EST
    I'm shaking my head over:

    1. A state founded on the premise of ANTI-slavery explains why it's really no surprise that Barack Obama would have a very hard time running in this region  ??

    2.To cite WVA as: economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) without discussing the legacy of coal-mining, company towns, brutal exploitation by owners, vicious union struggles, and the role of New Deal/Roosevelt dems in finally offering some relief is, well, kinda goofy.

    Parent

    Here is a reply (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:13:37 AM EST
    What's funny (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:30 AM EST
    about that reply to JMM is the whole "Scots-Irish" people settling in WV and Appalachia.  Jim Webb, whose name is currently being bandied about as Obama's VP pick, wrote a book about the hearty Scots-Irish of that whole region. Webb is very proud of his heritage and the folks of that area.  Guess he didn't get the memo that his kith and kin are just racists if they didn't vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Facta (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:34:03 AM EST
    for the record, Josh Marshall has a PhD in American history and lives in New York, not D.C.


    Parent
    Love the button line: (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    And Joshua Micah, don't give up your day job because as a historian, you would starve.

    Perfect.

    Parent

    They are so used to screaming "racist." (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:22:49 AM EST
    It's all they know how to do any more.

    Parent
    That region doesn't count. See? (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    What we need to do is fire those voters.

    Parent
    Obama is under the Bushian delusion... (none / 0) (#297)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    that we work for him.

    No, you schmuck, you work for US.

    And we prefer the more qualified candidate, even if she has a scary, scary vagina.

    Sorry, Obama - try again in eight years, when you've built up your resume a little.

    Parent

    The one sentence that (none / 0) (#284)
    by eric on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    I just can't understand is this one:

    But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the lynchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed.

    West Virginians viewed slavery as a lynchpin of aristocratic and inegalitarian.  OK.  That makes sense.  But he also includes the word anti-slave.  Does he mean that slaves themselves are a lynchpin of aristocracy and inegalitarianism?  WHAT?  That doesn't follow at all.

    IMO, He just slides that "anti-slave" word in there to cover his central thesis:  West Virginia has a history of being racist.

    Parent

    I suggest you ask (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:25:14 AM EST
    the voters from FL and MI how they feel about it.

    And since when is candidates campaigning in a state a prerequisite for votes counting?  

    Your argument makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:59:23 AM EST
    If neither campaigned, they were on a level playing field.  How is it "not fair" to Obama?  Because he lost?

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:39:38 AM EST
    Official Obama narrative:

    Any circumstance where Obama does not benefit is inherently unfair, possibly racist and should not count.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 5) (#212)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:18:06 AM EST
    If we have to go through this again, I don't know what I'll do.

    Obama and his supporters actively campaigned to have his supporters vote "uncommitted" because they wanted those delegates to be able to support Obama when they were eventually seated at the convention - John and Monica Conyers ran radio ads specifically naming Barack Obama.  

    No, it isn't "unfair" that people didn't get to vote.  Those voters made an active choice to stay home.  No one - I mean NO ONE -told them to stay home and not vote.  Not the candidate, not the media in Michigan - NO ONE (except Kos, who told them to go vote for Romney).

    Parent

    seeeteee => CT => conspiracy theory (none / 0) (#104)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:37:56 AM EST
    Make of it what you will.

    Parent
    Obama came to FL and did (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:03 AM EST
    fundraising, and then had a press conference. When a reporter pointed out that this was in violation of the agreement, Obama had a little hissy fit and stomped off. So, he not only broke the pledge in FL, he took his name off the ballot in MI, which was not asked of either candidate, and then demanded half the votes. So how is THAT fair? Obama was the one who didn't abide by the pledge not to campaign, not Hillary. She won, and he wants to disallow the votes. He took his own name off the ballot in MI himself, so why should he get half, or any, of the votes?? He wasn't in the race, so he doesn't get the purse, see? I mean, it's like me writing Churchill Downs and demanding a share of the Derby purse because I have a three year old colt who could have been entered, but wasn't. If I ever think they need a huge laugh, I may do that. But I won't expect a penny. Neither should Obama expect a single vote from MI. He didn't ask for them, or earn them. His decision, not Hillary's. He should have to live with it, not weasel out of it.

    Parent
    There are other sites you know (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:22:55 AM EST
    Many in fact that support your position. You can call us self rightous but at least we are not mean to you and other Obama supporters who like it here and we do not call you %$*$&#( names. So please do not seen surprised.

    As for fairness in Florida, the people were told by the DNC in Fla that their vote would eventually count. Besides, there were OTHER candidates on the ballot besides President & you wanted those votes, didn't you? If their vote counted for one, then it should for the other. In Michigan, Obama pulled a fast one to get more Iowa votes. Thus, he must suffer the consquence. But he can always blame a staff member for suggesting he do that.

    Parent

    seeeteee, Sen. Obama's press conference (5.00 / 1) (#316)
    by lookoverthere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM EST
    is campaigning as defined by the rules.

    If you read the pledge (Jeralyn blogged about it), it specifically bars the signees from campaigning as defined by the rules. Fundraising is specifically allowed. Press conferences are campaigning, according to the rules.

    One could argue that since Sen. Obama willingly and knowingly violated the pledge he signed, he should face serious consequences.

    So in the interest of fairness, which is what you repeatedly say you're interested in, what should those consequences be? One could argue the punishment should be the reinstatement of Sen. Clinton's delegates as it treats Sen. Obama's violation of the pledge in a way consistent with denying voters their chance to have their votes counted.

    Such a punishment is within the rules. Oh, yes, it is.

    The DNC rules are elastic. They allow for changes in the rules. This is because one of the goals of the DNC is to select, not elect, a nominee who can win in the general election.

    This is an important point---the rules exist for a greater purpose: to select the nominee who will win the general election. The rules are also elastic to favor a principle: counting the votes.

    To deny 2.3 millions voters a voice in this process will have repercussions---it already is having repercussions. Do you see how arguing rules over voters could result in not only losing Florida and Michigan? Do you also see how this could mean a large swath of Latin@ voters being turned away from the Dem party because the DNC couldn't bothered to listen to them?

    Why punish voters for the stupidity (or powerlessness) of their leadership? because of the rules? That's not a very good answer because the rules are designed to be changed to achieve the goal of best selection.

    And since you are greatly concerned about fairness, then you would agree that Sen. Obama needs to face serious consequences for violating the pledge he signed.

    Parent

    The reporter knew, why didn't Obama? nt (none / 0) (#159)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    Hillary is never wrong (none / 0) (#247)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    because Obama is always (W)right

    Parent
    Discussed many times on this site (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:17:06 AM EST
    Many posts dedicated to this exact topic.  The search feature is very useful for this.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:26:02 AM EST
    Ideally both candidates should have campaigned there like anywhere else.

    But it didn't happen and both states still had complete and total access to the candidates through an almost limitless array of media, be it blogs, op-eds, cable news or otherwise.

    Obviously the first choice would have been to have everyone campaign and do the primaries and include them from the get go.

    Another choice is to pretend they don't exist.

    The first choice was deemed intolerable because we agreed on and approved of a system that ranks Iowa and New Hampshire as the most important states ever.


    That needs to be changed too (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM EST
    There needs to be a few first timers to include a section of the entire country. Maybe if that first vote day included California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, we would not even be having this discussion.

    Parent
    The people voted in a primary (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:28:58 AM EST
    Their votes should count.

    All the candidates names were on the ballot in Florida.  Obama spent money on ads there.

    Obama deliberately chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan.

    Read this article:

    http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-american-disenfranchisement.html

    Here is where the DNC took full advantage of voters. With 20 states, such as Illinois, moving up there primaries to have a greater influence; states such as Florida and Michigan, which have traditionally been key states in general elections looked to maintain their importance by assuring that their primaries played a more influential role. The problem for the elite-left was that these states were Clinton strongholds, and they knew that the traditionally the candidate who became the front-runner after the early primaries, would also become the benefactor of momentum and massive endorsements as the party unified behind them. In order for the elite-left to maintain any opportunity to seize total control of the party, they made the decision not to penalize Florida and Michigan, but rather to completely strip these states of their delegates; disenfranchising millions over Democratic voters residing in key general election states. Prior to the DNC delegate stripping plan, most pendants expected the DNC to penalize candidates who campaigned in these states with up to half of the delegates from the states. Thereby, allowing Florida and Michigan voters to have a strong influence in the election, but also penalize the states by removing the campaign attention they received. The stripping of Florida and Michigan's delegates is not only important because these were well-known Clinton strongholds, but more importantly, the early momentum Clinton would have gained from these contests would have carried over into Super Tuesday.

    Dean and the rest of the far-left elite knew first hand the importance of the earliest primaries. Dean's ailing campaign experienced a boom of momentum and funds after his early victory in the 2004 primaries, quickly becoming a front-runner who self-destructed as quickly as he had risen. With Florida and Michigan's 350+ delegates removed (roughly 8%-9% of the total available delegates) the elite focused on the Iowa caucuses. Knowing that Clinton & Edwards would split the working class vote, Obama's campaign was able to take the state. With Iowa came momentum, a wholesale shift in African-American Support, and a steady flow of elite democratic endorsements.

    The wealthy and elite far-left of the party however still had to overcome the other large states where Clinton garnished support. They needed to take advantage of the ways delegates were awarded in order to suppress a potential comeback by Clinton. On Super Tuesday and afterwards, the Obama campaign and far left have focused on caucus states with lower turnout and more easily manipulated by the influx of first time African-American and youth vote turnout. Building a small lead on Super Tuesday, the elite left began rolling out endorsement after endorsement for Obama, and worked diligently to create the façade that Obama's delegate lead could not be overcome. In previous primaries, these endorsements and calls to unity worked, and Dean and the Elite-Left assumed that the unprepared Clinton campaign would fade quietly into the night, therefore solidifying their power-grab.



    Uh uh... (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:21 AM EST
    The whole Obama wasn't known in January thing is outrageous.  While they elect a lot of them, the people of Florida aren't idiots, I'm pretty sure that they own tv's and even have cable, so the few weeks of PR Sen. Obama got after winning in Iowa was probably noted by the people of Florida.  He ran national ads that ran there, he was all over everywhere.  Let's face it, he came out a bigger star than Kerry in the '04 Convention.  So that whole "No one knew him" is a weak, weak argument that is easily brushed off our shoulders.

    Michigan is dicier, but since his people blocked the revotes and he voluntarily took his name off the ballot, if he is given no delegates than I won't cry foul.  Most Obama people were voting for Romney anyway, per DK's Daily Directive.  He took a calculated risk in order to kiss up to Iowans by removing his name from the ballot just like Clinton took a chance by going all in on a Super Tuesday strategy, thereby contesting in name only a whole string of Caucuses in later February.  She is still paying for that mistake.  And Sen. Obama should have to pay for his and not get a bunch of delegates he didn't campaign for.  Let's not forget another motivation was that Obama was never going to win Michigan anyway, so he paid no real price for his name removal.  Now he wants ALL the uncommitted delegates?  Uh uh.  Penalize both Florida and Michigan half of their delegates(which was the prescribed penalty in the first place), apportion them out as is in Fla. and give Clinton half the delegates she won in Michigan.  (There should be a penalty for moving up early, but as is the wont of our fine Party, they c*cked it up pretty badly.  Yeah, that's a real shock, eh?  LOL)

    Jackson

    Parent

    Obama Knew Full Well (none / 0) (#299)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:14:39 AM EST
    that he would lose Michigan.  He calculated that if he took his name off the ballot it would throw the results into question.  He was sure right on that score.


    Parent
    If this is true (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by DJ on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:21:26 AM EST

    "I want the best of the best running this country. "
    Then you will vote for Hillary.  Do you need any yard signs?

    Parent
    you may want to check with John Kerry (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:36:02 AM EST
    about the significance of obtaining the "elitist" label.
    iirc - Obama received the "elitist" label when he asked for arugula in a restaurant in Iowa.
    Then in March he demonstrated more elitism to his billionaire donors with his bitter comments about the white working class not voting for him because they cling to their guns, religion, and racism.
    Notice that Obama admitted the white working class wasn't voting for him, but he blamed THEM rather than changing his empty "hope and change" script to attract them to his campaign.
    Obama, like Bush, seems to have a propensity to blame others.


    Parent
    Because we're low info voters (5.00 / 2) (#263)
    by hookfan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    that are bitter, and clingy. What do you expect from those who don't have the smarts to recognize their betters, and don't have the leadership qualities to follow more nobler ideals?
       Thanks for the info as I didn't realize both BO and Ted Kennedy were Republican.

    Parent
    Elite became a bad thing (5.00 / 3) (#238)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    When it excluded the majority of the country. When it excluded the working person and the older person. When it decided if you did not have a degree, you weren't worth much in this world and knew even less about polltics. It became a bad thing when the elite people took themselves as the only ones who could make informed choices based on their rank or education. The Democratic Party was always for fairness and inclusion of all. That is why Elite is a bad thing.

    Parent
    Obama opposed a revote (none / 0) (#89)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:30 AM EST
    eeeeleet (none / 0) (#107)
    by DFLer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:01 AM EST
    Also, when did "elite" become a bad thing?  I want the best of the best running this country

    you really lost me there.

    Parent

    It's perceived Elitism. (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:09:12 AM EST
    My W Va friend told me that the best way to get votes there is to go into a mine with the miners and get dirty.  Then they'll know you aren't some above-it-all elite snob.

    Disrespecting people's culture and calling them bitter and clinging is a really great way to convince them that you neither understand them, nor want to.  That's one way to be perceived as Elite.

    Parent

    Nominating (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:29:36 AM EST
    Obama would be like putting lipstick on a pig, sending him into the slaughterhouse and hoping that bacon doesn't come out on the other side. It's quite obvious after these WV results.

    Childers (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:09 AM EST
    threw Obama under the bus and ran over him a couple of times. How is that showing the strength of Obama? Childers is the road map for all downticket dems who want to win in Nov. if Obama's on the top of the ticket. I have to wonder if there's a ton of them that won't even want to show up at the convention.

    Parent
    And Childers (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:22:35 AM EST
    ran ads throwing Obama under the bus. Childers claimed that he had no association with Obama and had never been endorsed by Obama or even talked to him. This is the message that down tickets dems are going to have to send out if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    exactly; Childers had to disavow Obama to win n/t (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    Obama almost cost Childers (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:14 AM EST
    the election. He ran "Obama who? Never met the man." tv and radio spots nonstop the last few days. His polling was telling him something or why waste the dough?

    Parent
    Obama Who? (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:04:56 AM EST
    That's what Childer's had to do.

    Parent
    It will be different (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    when Obama himself is the nominee.

    What is he going to do, throw HIMSELF under the bus?

    BTW...75% of the folks in WV thought Obama shared Wright's views to some degree.

    Perhaps that's why he didn't win one single county.

    Parent

    The Fact (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    that running ads with Wright in them didn't work against Childers doesn't mean it won't work against Obama.

    Voters are perfectly capable of figuring out just who is in bed with whom.

    Parent

    No they're not... (none / 0) (#288)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    they're stupid and don't get nuance.

    Right, Obamans?

    Nothing wrong with Obama, it's the stupid voters who just can't seem to understand his greatness!

    Yeah, that's a winning attitude.

    Parent

    That proves ANY Democrat can win (none / 0) (#279)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    Has nothing to do with Obama per se.

    Parent
    That proves ANY Democrat can win (none / 0) (#280)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    Has nothing to do with Obama per se.

    Parent
    Ugh..... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:47:40 AM EST
    Richardson is about to be interviewed on CNN. Apparently going to call for Hillary to drop out in favor of unity because she's helping John McCain. I thought the Obama campaign's official position was not to do this right now, but this just proves why Richardson would be a terrible vice presidential nominee for Obama.

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:48 AM EST
    just going to make more people mad. Is Obama going to lose Oregon too? This kind of stuff makes me wonder.

    Parent
    It actually proves (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:35:52 AM EST
    that the Obama campaign is very calculating. They send out the guy who matters the least and was a Clinton supporter. And before that even happened, I watched him in the debates and wondered why he was even on the stage? He offered nothing to the conversation. I supported his Latino roots but that was the only good thing going about him.

    Parent
    If they claim to represent us, then we (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:09 AM EST
    should do exactly that. And writing letters to politicians and telling them what you think they should do is how democracy works. It's called "vox populi", the voice of the people. You know, the ones that VOTE for the office holders. So we have a right and a duty to let them know what we think they should do. If you were out of junior high school yourself, you would know that. But instead you come here and troll rate everyone. THAT is acting like a junior high schooler.

    There are a lo of smart and logical junior (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:42 AM EST
    high school students.  This one -if one- is not one of them.

    Parent
    Tough to find the percentage of victory last night (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:49 AM EST
    Many of the news organizations seem to be running with "2-1" instead of giving the exact percentage.   What's up with that?

    67-26 is closer to 3-1!

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:04:59 AM EST
    Richardson is saying the longer HRC is in the race the worse for the party....he should be saying the worse for BHO.

    Richardson seems dimwitted to me.

    Someone thought he would bring the Hispanic vote to BHO, but I think it will be in the same vein as Kennedy and Kerry bringing Massachusetts to Obama.  Right now BHO and McCain are tied at 47% apiece in Mass.  

    Oh my.....

    Dear Rita (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:21:48 AM EST
    You have already clearly shown your maturity level  for all to see. You are embarrassing your candidate and doing a disservice to the regular Obama supporters of this cite.  

    The white vote for Obama is not the same as it was (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Saul on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:39:13 AM EST
    since the Wright, Typical White Person, Bitter, and Ayers controversies.  I doubt that had the controversies come out in December of 07 that he would be the front runner today. I think that what we know today of Obama vs when we did not know before should be a question the Supers should ponder in their decision of who is more electable since the  the controversies will come out in the GE.  

    Another thought or  question is why will Obama do well in Oregon as the polls indicate, when there is very little AA population in Oregon, along with the fact that the people of Oregon now know more about Obama and his controversies?  

    Because race isn't the only factor (none / 0) (#125)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:04:15 AM EST
    and people livng in different parts of the country vote differently.  In WV clinton did well even in groups she normally loses, like college educated voters.  That doesn't mean she will be able to do that again anywhere else but KY.  The same demographic groups sometimes vote differently based on region.

    Parent
    Hillary won 13% Indys in WV (none / 0) (#131)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:10:47 AM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#139)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:24:35 AM EST
    think she'll do that in Oregon?

    Parent
    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    Can Obama win WV in the GE?

    No.

    Can he win ANY Appalachian state in the GE?

    No.

    Can he win the GE without winning the Appalachian states?

    No.

    That's what this 41-point margin of victory means.

    Parent

    In Oregon as well as Washington (none / 0) (#304)
    by hookfan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    The bulk of the population is highly concentrated in urban areas focused on the Interstate 5. Most of the rest of the state is small town or rural. Due to the increased standard of living and amenities in the Urban areas, monied people from other states (mostly California), those with high tech backgrounds, and young college populations are concentrated in huge numbers in the urban areas, overwhelming in shear volume the whole rest of the state. Thus the education and class demographics favor Obama. Oregon being comparatively small in population, there is not enough numbers to equalize the numerical urban advantage from the rest of the rural areas.

    Parent
    Gov Strickland says no way none that he would (5.00 / 11) (#113)
    by Salt on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:43:37 AM EST
    accept on VP offer this morning he is also sticking with Clinton.

    Obamites pile on Clinton at their own peril (5.00 / 8) (#115)
    by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:49 AM EST
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamicans_pile_on_clinton_at_o.html

    Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane. Last week's enemy was working-class white people... Obama can't beat John McCain without large chunks of Clinton's core constituency: women, Hispanics and the white working class. Dumping on their candidate is one step removed from dumping on them -- and some of the Obama people don't even bother with that step. Rove must be enjoying the show.

    That Article Pretty Much Says It All (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    It is a shame that the Dem politicians and surrogates who are supporting Obama are blind to something so obvious.

    Parent
    I don't know about you (5.00 / 8) (#121)
    by Sunshine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    But I'm tired of hearing that Hillary's win is because she is carrying the white uneducated vote... What are they trying to say, that you have to be dumb to vote for Hillary...  Because all us smart people are voting for Obama?... I'm around both people with formal education and those without and there is definitely more than one way to become educated...

    yea, that's not going to play well in Kentucky (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:07:23 AM EST
    It seems that much of the media and Obama supporters really don't know much about being gracious or respectful in times of disappointment.

    And besides, they're flat out wrong about this uneducated stuff.  Hillary has won college educated voters in several primaries before, including post-graduate degree holders in Pennsylvania. (the most "educated")

    Parent

    A college degree does not make you smarter. (5.00 / 8) (#143)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:28:06 AM EST
    My neighbor married and raised her kids, but if there is a problem about anything, she has a practical solution. Things that I, with a degree, would never ever have thought. She will ask political questions as she just switched parties in order to vote for Hillary in Penna. And she might ask accounting questions but otherwise, she knows what is going on in the world. And she gasped when I told her some of the nasty things being said on the MSM. About the White B&*$# Month and the Roger Stone group. She and I both said, "What give these men the right to be able to say these things about Hillary? About women?" Our answer was, would these same 'funny' pundits like it if others said the same thing about their Mother, their wife, their sister, or their own daughter? Well, saying these things to Hillary amounts to the same thing.

    Parent
    New Quinnipiac poll (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:09:26 AM EST
    shows Hillary has strong support amongst Democrats to stay in the race and almost as many say Obama should choose her as VP.

    Among Democrats, Obama is ahead slightly as 45 percent say they want to see him win the nomination while 41 percent want to see Clinton as the nominee. And Democrats say 63 - 34 percent that Clinton should stay in the presidential race.

    By a 60 - 33 percent margin, Democrats say Obama should pick Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Link

    I think this might suggest that many Dems see a problem for Obama in the GE.

    Clinton lost the left and won the center (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Salt on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:08 AM EST
    Craig Crawford's trailmix blog keeps it simple and returns us to the beginning of the Primary Clinton ran a GE in a Primary winning the center but lost the left wing.

    Mountain Mama Wins Big

    ...Thirty-six years later -- and many losses in between -- Democrats find in Barack Obama the next big play to move the nation leftward.

    West Virginia voters showed tonight that they are not changing. And yet, the Clintons, who happen to be the only Democrats alive who twice won the White House, are getting the boot from their own party.

    The problem is that most Americans are in the Center and not on the left or right fringes and want centrist governance.  We need our own Party the power of the electorate is in the disaffected bases in the middle, if we drop the manufactured wedgies that divide us we are the king makers this Primary is a good reminder of our role in our governance.  We need a new movement for the majority in the middle who reject the extremes in both political party's we can simplify and name it Centrist.  

    So I sent Hillary more money last evening, and will stick with her if she wins the nomination in Nov. otherwise I'm out here.

    I Don't See Where Obama Is Moving The Party (5.00 / 5) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    leftwards. No other presidential candidate in 08 has praised the Republicans more than Obama and his entire campaign has been filled with RW talking points, positions and ads. He also has the least progressive domestic policies.

    Also, I would consider myself pretty darn liberal and that is one of the reasons I don't want Obama as the nominee. It really ticks me off that Obama is being viewed as the so called liberal in this race when nothing about the way he has conducted his primary fits into that category as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent

    The his non-policy platform (5.00 / 3) (#236)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    (Sorry I don't think of Obama having any policies, he's not been in politics at a high enough level nor taken any real positions nor passed any legislation that matters to me.  I think of his policies, which are written by others, as nothing more than term papers.)

    The view of Obama as left is framing not reality.  He is defined by the media as left, he is attracting demographics that are traditionally defined as left... wine drinkers, young idealistic college students, the wealthy who don't need govt.  Clinton has managed to capture the working class, hispanics, older voters etc which are stereotyped as moderate, salt of the earth, the workers that keep this country running and contribute so much.

    Framing, stereotypes.... watch the language.  That was my focus last night.  The word elite and elitist was used many times.  Fox is going after the elite framing in a soft spoken yet consistent manner.  They also have gone after the party as a whole, calling it's leadership and saying that the elite leadership chose Obama.  They are moving to the 'fix was in' story.

    Parent

    Good Response (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    He is attracting demographics that are traditionally defined as left... wine drinkers, young idealistic college students, the wealthy who don't need govt.

    I didn't add his supporters to the equation. I can understand his campaign's appeal to college student with its rock star components. The only thing I can think that can account for support of the liberal elements of the wine drinkers is that they are buying into his anti-war meme because of the 2002 speech. Everything else seems so opposite to what I would normally considered liberal positions.

    I understand the frames and the purpose behind them but am still having a hard time with why so many actual people in the wine drinkers demographic have bought into Obama as the champion of progressive causes.  

    Parent

    Like my sis and BIL (none / 0) (#272)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    Liberal elite of Bend OR and my mother of same? Hook, line and sinker.

    I did talk to my mom about it and she had the usual vague responses: "He inspires young people!" "Different type of politics" blahblahblahblaha....

    She did have the grace to slightly abashed when I showed the Willamette Week endorsement graphic linked at Shakesville as well as some of the over the top prose from the article.

    But yeah. Oregon is going to lap it up and his victory margins there are going to be humongo, I think.

    Personally, I'm realising all over again that his voice grates on me more than Bush's does and anticipating a miserable next 4 years from that perspective.

    Parent

    may I just say (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    Hillary was magnificent last night.  she has become an amazing candidate.  I am so proud of her and my support of her.

    you go Hil.
    I gave her some more money this morning.

    Yes you may (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by DFLer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    you and I are on the same page (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by g8grl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EST
    Additionally, you can add (if your superdelegates are female) that if they support a less qualified, less experienced, less effective, more "likeable" man over a far more accomplished smart woman ...well they can expect the same thing to happen to them and you will not lift a finger to support them.  

    more "likeable" (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:09:35 AM EST
    maybe its just me but I just dont get this.
    every time I see the man he seems less likeable.
    the closer he gets to getting the nomination the more smug and condescending he becomes.

    I never really particularly disliked him but I am beginning too.
    I saw him respond to a question from one of his supporters about a "dream ticket" last night.
    it was really rather disgusting.

    Parent

    you are aware that the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    campaign has been doing this for months?
    threatening supers with primaries?
    of course it is completely different when Hillary supporters do it.
    I see you point.

    know how to use the google? (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:23:16 AM EST
    you should be fine.
    not here to do your busy work.

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#239)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:33:03 AM EST
    and you will need more than luck to win in November.

    Parent
    Google is your friend (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:47:51 AM EST
    There were a couple of articles through RCP and Chuck Todd covered it on MSNBC.  He was very specific that is was Obama supporters that were harrassing media (he referenced the contact he and Mika had received) and the negative contacts the superdeez.  

    I don't do research for Obama supporters much any more because it wouldn't change your vote nor your belief for his chances in Nov.  As the media reports on what happened to Clinton, Clinton's supporters and the superdeez in the primary it will be one more tick in the unelectable column for Obama.

    Parent

    its been reported on extensively (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    but you are totally correct. why bother.

    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#314)
    by echinopsia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    it took me about 30 seconds. Why are Obama supporters so clueless and/or lazy they can't do their own research?

    link

    Parent

    And donating a lot of money too (none / 0) (#257)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    Let's not forget the pocket change.

    Parent
    Anglachel answered my own question (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:28:40 AM EST
    about turnout:  here

    It was huge -- Total turnout was about 50% of typical general election turnout when the Democrat wins.  

    Apparently the primary turnout for Clinton last night was 70-some% of what the GE turnout for Democrats has been.  In fact, Hillary earned 239,062 votes in this primary whereas Bill only earned 331,001 to WIN the general in 1992.  She drew 72% of his GE turnout.

    But of course, the message to the SD's?  Keep plugging your ears with your CDS earplugs and say la-la-la.

    An amazing email (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by smott on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:30:45 AM EST
    ...from Donna B here....wonder if this is for real...

    http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27672

    "but the Hillary forces are uncivil, (5.00 / 3) (#242)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    repugnant and vile"

    wow
    what a coincidence.  I was just thinking the same thing about her.

    Parent

    That Response Was Downright Nasty (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM EST
    Donna seems to be bound and determined to do everything in her power to help elect McCain in November.  

    Parent
    she may finally be successful (5.00 / 3) (#278)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    at something

    Parent
    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#286)
    by indymom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM EST
    This is too outrageous to be true.  I mean, I have no respect for her already but, surely, she is not that dumb to dis someone that bad and PUBLICLY!

    Parent
    I Think You Are Seriously Under Estimating (5.00 / 1) (#294)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    Brazile's dumbness potential.

    Parent
    I have seen her do almost (none / 0) (#302)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    as bad on CNN.

    Parent
    If not already done, (none / 0) (#313)
    by zfran on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    someone who is computer/internet savvy should send this post on the letter and D.Brazille's answer to all MSM, including Fox (if it's verifiable as legit) and to whoever else might exploit its contents. I think this is appalling and insulting. Perhaps, then, Ms. Brazille can "discuss" why her answer was such (again if true)and how she justifies her DNC status!

    Parent
    Another message (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    You can have the best fundraising machine in the world, the media at your back, but that's not how you convince voters.  Maybe it helps, but it's far from being everything.

    He had no choice... (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    Refusing the donation, or redirecting it would have told the child that his opinions didn't count. At that age... it's hard. They are really starting to understand things in a more profound way and that needs to be acknowledged.

    Mother of a 10 1/2 year old here. She's made donations before and would have been devastated had they been refused.

    And I'm betting the kid gets a better bike out of this.

    Link: (none / 0) (#10)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:55:14 AM EST
    Felizarte (none / 0) (#12)
    by shoephone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:38 AM EST
    Your WAPO link isn't working.

    Parent
    Sorry, was replying to post above you. (none / 0) (#25)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:16:34 AM EST
    but I tried it just now and it linked.

    Parent
    Just ask Sen. Obama (none / 0) (#24)
    by daryl herbert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:16:29 AM EST
    There's nothing these Senators and Congresspersons hate more than a contested primary. It distracts them, costs money and keeps them on edge.

    Ask him what? (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Chisoxy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:26 AM EST
    Up 'til now what would Obama know about running in a contested race?

    Parent
    Zing! n/t (none / 0) (#273)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:00:21 AM EST
    Obama's surrogates (none / 0) (#308)
    by echinopsia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    threaten black superdelegates with contested primaries if they won't endorse Obama.

    Parent
    Why is Fox News reporting a 72%-28% win... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Nick1977 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:04:32 AM EST
    Why is Fox News reporting a 72%-28% win for Clinton, thus canceling out the Edwards votes? Does the winner automatically get the votes of candidates that aren't in the running or something?

    That is the percentage (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    of the votes between the two of them that she won.

    If you only add up hers and his, she won at about 72%-28%.  I'd call that a mistake on the part of Faux, or a distortion.

    Parent

    Often news orginations will cancel out the Edwards (none / 0) (#240)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    type vote because it is statistical noise.

    Parent
    Can Hillary overtake Barack in the popular vote, (none / 0) (#66)
    by alright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:24:02 AM EST
    countin Florida but not Michigian?

    it would be difficult!

    theres only kentucky left , i dont know if she would lose alot of votes in oregon .

    IIRC Puerto Rico Gets To Vote n/t (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:22 AM EST
    yes with big wins in Kentucky and PR (none / 0) (#111)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:16 AM EST
    So what can I do (none / 0) (#71)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:28:49 AM EST
    about South Carolina?  

    Where would the Super count be today with rules? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Saul on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:27 AM EST
    Of course the best rule is to not have any but since that is not the case then why not this:

    Each super must vote on how their state went in the primary or caucus regardless of their personal preference.

    Does anyone know where the Super Delegate count would be today if that rule was followed?

    Someone Refresh My Memory... (none / 0) (#124)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM EST
    I thought the required number of delegates was 2200-something.  Why is ABC saying this?:

    using the DNC's magic number of 2,025, he's just 140 delegates away from clinching


    IFF - If and only if (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    the DNC refuses to seat ALL of the FL and MI delegates.

    The DNC still has not made a decision regarding those states yet.

    Parent

    Obama may (none / 0) (#144)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:29:46 AM EST
    cross the 2025 before May 31.  Even if both states were fully seated, it would be rather unlikely for all the remaining supers to then go for Clinton .

    Parent
    I know one thing (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:40:05 AM EST
    if I hear one more pundit talk about what would happen if Hillary "took the nomination away from Obama" my head is going to explode.
    its called winning and losing people.
    look it up.


    Parent
    Do you really think (none / 0) (#169)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    it's only the "pundits" would see that as a problem.  My point was it's not going to happen.  He's picked up two supers today and it's not even 10 am.

    Parent
    frankly (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:53:48 AM EST
    I dont care who would see it as a problem
    as I said.  its called winning and losing.
    it happens in every election.


    Parent
    This is pre-arranged. (5.00 / 5) (#198)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:14:03 AM EST
    Obama loses and then trots out "new" SDs in support of himself.

    It's all about grabbing media cycles and maintaining momentum.

    The weird thing is that I look at the Obama campaign as:

    One part Reagan:  Shiny Optimistic Rhetoric!
    One part Rove:    Grab those media cycles!  Villify the opposition!  Create a fictional reality/image and sell it to the media!
    One part Cold War: Outspend your opponent!

    It also reminds me of the Iraq Invasion, the longer it goes on, the more people become disillusioned with it.

    Parent

    Plus two last night (none / 0) (#173)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:54:03 AM EST
    look (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:59:52 AM EST
    I am aware of the forces arrayed against Hillary.  I know how hard it would be.
    my point is if she wins she wins.  she did not "snatch it away from him".
    she won.
    I am sick to death of hearing that.  I have never heard one of them, even when Hillary was expected to win the nomination, talk about him "snatching it away from her" if he wins.
    I am sick of the meme.  I am sick of Obama.  and I am really really sick of his supporters.
    particularly in the pundit class.

    Parent
    WV win almost equals NC win (none / 0) (#140)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:26:17 AM EST
    WV margin of victory = +148K, +10 delegates
    NC margin of vicotry = +222K, +15 delegates

    Is that before or after the 15k (none / 0) (#206)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:45 AM EST
    overvote for Obama was discovered?

    Parent
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#301)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    I didn't hear about that, I just got the number from CNN's page

    Parent
    yes please...more on that (none / 0) (#315)
    by DFLer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    Can someone please explain (none / 0) (#157)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    Why Obama may do well in MT andSD?  Aren't these tailor-made constituencies for Clinton (more conservative, don't like elitists, etc)?

    Politico's Jim Vandehi Shills for Michelle (none / 0) (#160)
    by SunnyLC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:46:13 AM EST
    "Politico's Jim Vandehi Shills for Michelle "Camille" Obama"

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    With link to the video....

    Michelle Obama and hubby are very hurt and it's all Hillary Clinton's fault....No VP for her!!

    saw Vandehi do his little (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:48:33 AM EST
    song and dance on CNN last night.
    how I am starting to hate these people.


    Parent
    time for him and his twitchy little (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:49:33 AM EST
    sidekick Mike Allen to do another hit piece on Hillary.


    Parent
    Shame on you Bill.... (none / 0) (#176)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    How, in good conscience, could Bill Clinton accept a 440 dollar check from an 11 year old?

    I guess the millions Bill receives in federal sunbsidies, plus the millions sent in by hard-working American adults ain't enough, he gladly takes money from an 11 year old who sold all his video games.  I'd be ashamed and embarassed, and I ain't nowhere near a millionaire.

    Bless the kids heart, it's cool to see an 11 year old who's thinking about the future of the country, but Bill should have done the honorable thing and refused to accept the kid's dough.  At the least he should have advised the kid to give it to a local charity.

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:00:27 AM EST
    because it was up to his mother to decide if he could give the money and she approved?  Do you think it's up to Bill to tell her how to parent?  

    The kid wants to get involved in politics.  He wants to make sacrifices for it.  And you think that's a bad thing?

    How rejected would that kid have felt if Bill had turned the money down?

    Parent

    hope the kid (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    gets a round trip to disnayworld or something.  

    Parent
    He got (5.00 / 3) (#245)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    a new bike and a replacement video game from local party officials.

    Parent
    lets hope his teacher is not (5.00 / 2) (#254)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:41:27 AM EST
    an Obama supporter.
    he might get held back.

    Parent
    an "A" in the relevant class? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:17:16 AM EST
    I remember how apathetic my high school classmates were w/r/t politics.

    That's worth some extra credit in my book!

    Parent

    If Bill... (none / 0) (#221)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    pulled out his gangster roll from his pocket and said..."Look kid, we're sorted", I don't think the kid would be offended...in fact he might learn a valuable life lesson.

    Don't buy snake-oil.

    Parent

    on one level I see your point (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:29:44 AM EST
    but I completely disagree.
    clearly, as another poster said, that kid had the approval of his parents.  he was not taking food out of the mouths of his siblings.
    I think what he did was great.  and as far as how flush the Clintons are, I think they are about 20 mill in debt going to 30 before its over.

    Parent
    Why pick it to pieces? (5.00 / 1) (#293)
    by lilburro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:11:26 AM EST
    It's what the kid wanted to do.  It's touching.  Obama finds it in his heart to accept donations...

    Plus, the kid is clearly an aspiring pol.  Handing a check to a president is probably worth selling your Madden 95, 96, 97, 98, 99...

    Parent

    I wouldn't.... (none / 0) (#303)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM EST
    but people defend it.

    I would hope, no matter which piker you prefer for the White House, that we could all agree that millionaires shouldn't take candy from children.  I mean c'mon man, seriously.

    Parent

    I thought Obama was soooo proud (none / 0) (#268)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    of the number of small contributions he got.

    If the shoe was on the other foot...?

    Parent

    gangster roll? (none / 0) (#289)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    Sorry you have such an issue with the Clintons but there are plenty of sites who would be more welcoming of your colorful opinions than here.  

    Parent
    I have an issue with con-artists... (none / 0) (#309)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    which means I have issues with all of the stooges...you bet your arse.

    And believe it or not, there was a Talkleft prior to the current "All Hillary Praise, All the Time" Talkleft.  We used to hold all politicians feet to the fire around here, till the rose-colored glasses became a must-have accessory.

    Parent

    As the parent of a 10 year old (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by suisser on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    I disagree.  How do you think that kid would have felt to have had his check turned down?  I think you are missing what is meaningful here from the donor's perspective.

    Parent
    With Suisser on this one... (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    And I'm sure his parents knew what was going on and were ok with this, and I'm also sure that someone will get him a new bike or whatever.

    But he would have been devastated if they'd not accepted his contribution. He was making himself of a process that is obviously important to him.

    Parent

    Where's the Clinton charm? (none / 0) (#211)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    If Bill had some honor and class he could have told the kid how much he appreciates the gesture, but he is sure the local soup kitchen needs it a lot more than the Clinton campaign, and he must respectfully decline.  He wouldn't have to be rude or dismissive about it...he could use the Clinton charm.  

    C'mon guys, how can you defend this?  Millionaires takin' money from children...shame, shame, shame.  But he is a poltician, so "when he's not kissing babies he's stealing their candy", I shouldn't be surprised.

     

    Parent

    Stop you embarrass yourself (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    the foam in the corners of your mouth is telling.  

    Parent
    If somebody should be embarassed.... (none / 0) (#250)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:39:11 AM EST
    it's Bill.

    Again, what the kid did is really cool and self-less.  Totally admirable and honorable.  I expect better from the millionaire accepting handouts.

    Parent

    Is this the "netroots" (5.00 / 3) (#241)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:35:19 AM EST
    version of "new Democrat"?

    A completely voluntary contibution is disminished because the kid didn't donate according to some "I know what's more important than you" rules.  

    Sheesh!

    Parent

    The contribution.... (none / 0) (#255)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:43:42 AM EST
    was a great gesture.  The fact that the donation was accepted really bothers me.  He gets enough donations from the treasury.

    In case you missed it....TMQ

    Clinton, whose recently released tax forms show he has made more than $10 million per year since leaving office, nevertheless has already claimed $8 million in retirement benefits (and he's not retired), plus $3.2 million for office overhead, plus $420,000 for his phone bill. The later figure is difficult to take seriously; even if you yakked 24/7 on a satellite line to Tajikistan, it's hard to believe you could ring up $420,000 in telephone charges. Is some of this money really going to staffers for Clinton's speechmaking business? In public the very wealthy Clinton wags his finger about how the rich are shafting the average guy. He himself is shafting the average guy by claiming lavish tax subsidies.


    Parent
    The kid wanted to do it (5.00 / 1) (#300)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    Why would you want to dash his commitment by not accepting it?

    "I was thinking one day how could I make money for the campaign,''


    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#267)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    HE didn't get the donation.  He RECEIVED it - for Hillary's campaign.

    But you knew that.

    Parent

    Also a parent of a 10 yr old (none / 0) (#251)
    by indymom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:39:13 AM EST
    I do agree with you.  I am actually a fund raiser and I understand the joy of giving is an important part of society.  And of course, giving is it's own reward.

    I think if he had just given what was in his piggy bank I would have felt differently.  That he went out and sold his "toys" and Bill accepted the check strikes me as a little pathetic.  I wouldn't have advised him to turn it down though...It is a tough call.  

    They need to do something else for this kid besides use his story.  I cringed when she talked about it in her speech last night.  I could hear the MSM licking their lips.  I am anticipating the pundits will turn it into a negative.

    Parent

    Don't you think (5.00 / 3) (#261)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:49:47 AM EST
    it's up to his mother to decide?  His mother specifically said it was okay.  She wanted him to do it, or he wouldn't have done it.

    Parent
    Again.... (none / 0) (#281)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    I've got no problem with what the kid did, and no problem with his mom.

    I have a big problem with millionaires accepting donations from children.  It's shameful.  These are working class heroes?  Gimme a freakin' break.

    Disclaimer...I think it's pretty shameful for any of the wealthy stooges to take money from hard working Americans to waste on commercials, high-priced consultants, and deli platters.  From 11 year olds who sold their video games?  Utterly beyond the pale.  

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#290)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    it seems to me if they took more money from them they might take less from Mobil/Exxon/GE etc.
    not a bad thing.

    Parent
    They'll take it from where.... (none / 0) (#295)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    ever it comes Capt.

    They all are like Hoover vacuums when they smell cash.

    Parent

    ture enough no doubt (none / 0) (#298)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:14:35 AM EST
    but I still like the idea of public funding more than corporate funding.
    politicians almost always, as the great Molly Ivins said, dance with the ones that brung them.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#296)
    by lilburro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    the working class must have their video games!

    Parent
    This bothered me too. (none / 0) (#232)
    by indymom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    I keep hoping that someone will buy the kid an even better bike.  Maybe Ellen should have him on her show to meet Hil and present him with a new bike.

    Parent
    The kid (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    had $400 worth of USED items to sell.  I have a feeling his parents aren't hurting for cash.

    I suspect for his charming efforts, he will be richly rewarded with an even better bicycle.

    Parent

    results (none / 0) (#179)
    by tek on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:58:15 AM EST
    Go Hil!!  She's The One!

    Turnout (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:03:52 AM EST
    My calcs say turnout was 29%.  Is that good for a state like WVA?  

    I suppose it's pretty good considering that everyone's already crowned Obama....but it would be nice to know.

    Anyway, it's great for Hillary, and the combination of this and BTD's numbers from other states East of the Mississippi tell me that Obama has a problem.  

    His problem boils down to: You CAN'T HATE CERTAIN VOTERS and expect them to vote for you.  It isn't going to happen now, and it isn't going to happen in the general.  

    look on the bright side (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:06:56 AM EST
    after he loses 49 states he wont be much of a factor in 2012.

    Parent
    LOL! Really! (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:29:56 AM EST
    Here is a comprehensive (none / 0) (#189)
    by eric on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    list of all of the superdelgates, by state.
    LINK

    If you want to see if they are committed, look here:

    LINK

    Poor BO (none / 0) (#249)
    by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    What a humiliating defeat for Mr. Presumptive!

    It's called accountability. (none / 0) (#265)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    Granted, we haven't seen a lot of accountability for seven, going on eight, long years, but some of us still believe in it.

    I live in Ohio, where state Attorney General Mark Dann is being held accountable for his actions and the actions of his staff.  The public cares.  The public kicked the GOP out because they were either corrupt or looking the other way.

    Accountability to the people who elect them.  I think it's a fine tradition of a responsive democracy.  You may not.

    Comments closed (none / 0) (#317)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST